An act to add Section 53.8 to the Civil Code, relating to civil rights. rights, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
SB 747 would add Section 53.8 to the Civil Code and create a new state-law civil remedy for deprivations of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution when the conduct occurs under color of law. The measure is styled the “No Kings Act” and is modeled in part on federal civil rights litigation, allowing an injured person to sue for redress in state court and, in the court’s discretion, obtain damages, injunctive or equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and expert fees. It also limits injunctive relief against judicial officers in the same general way federal law does, and it preserves existing sovereign immunity defenses.
The bill would make these claims subject to a two-year statute of limitations and would allow venue either where the conduct occurred or where the defendant resides or does business. It expressly authorizes defendants to raise absolute or qualified immunity defenses to the same extent as under federal Section 1983 litigation, while clarifying that the new section does not create or alter immunity rules outside this specific cause of action. The bill also states that it applies retroactively to March 1, 2025, with a special limitation that for constitutional violations occurring between that date and the bill’s effective date, only nominal and compensatory damages would be available. It is declared an urgency statute, meaning it would take effect immediately if enacted.
In terms of state-law impact, SB 747 would expand California civil rights enforcement by creating a direct state cause of action for violations of federal constitutional rights under state law, rather than relying solely on existing remedies such as the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act or federal Section 1983 claims. It would add a new statutory section to the Civil Code, broaden the available forum and remedies for plaintiffs, and potentially increase litigation against public officials and other actors operating under color of law. Because it is an urgency measure and applies retroactively, the bill could affect conduct dating back to early 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is generally supportive but not unanimous. The bill advanced through committee and floor stages with multiple favorable votes, including a 30-10 Senate third reading vote, indicating substantial backing among Senate members. At the same time, repeated referrals to Appropriations and placement on the suspense file suggest concern about fiscal or administrative implications, even though the bill is not labeled as an appropriation measure.
The main points of contention appear to be the scope of the new liability and its interaction with immunity doctrines and judicial defendants. Supporters appear to view the bill as a needed, immediate remedy for civil-liberties violations, while skeptics likely focused on the potential for expanded litigation, exposure of public entities and officials to suit, and the retroactive application of the new cause of action. The inclusion of qualified immunity, sovereign immunity, and judicial-officer carveouts suggests the author attempted to address some of those concerns while still creating a broader enforcement tool.
SB 747 would add Civil Code Section 53.8, creating a new California civil cause of action for deprivations of federal constitutional rights committed under color of law. It would supplement existing civil-rights remedies by allowing plaintiffs to sue in state court for redress, seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and expert fees, and pursue relief subject to specified immunity defenses, venue rules, and a two-year limitations period. The bill would also apply retroactively to March 1, 2025, and would take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The bill appears to have generally favorable support among legislators who voted on it, as reflected by repeated do-pass recommendations and a strong 30-10 Senate third reading vote. However, the repeated suspense-file referrals and Appropriations review indicate that some members or committees had reservations, likely tied to litigation exposure, fiscal effects, and the bill’s retroactive and urgency features. Overall, the sentiment is supportive but cautious.
The most notable contention concerns whether California should create a new, broad state-law remedy for federal constitutional violations and how far that remedy should extend. Critics are likely concerned about increased lawsuits against government actors, the retroactive reach of the bill, and the practical effects of allowing attorneys’ fees, costs, and expert fees. Another point of debate is the bill’s treatment of immunity defenses and judicial officers: the measure preserves qualified, absolute, and sovereign immunity defenses, but still expands the circumstances under which plaintiffs can sue, which may have prompted concern from opponents and fiscal committees.