An act to amend the Budget Act of 2024 (Chs. 22, 35, and 994, Stats. 2024), by amending Sections 5.25 and 39.10 of that act, relating to the state budget, and making an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, budget bill.
SBX11 amends the California Budget Act of 2024 to revise how certain state legal costs are paid and to authorize additional funding for litigation and related actions involving the federal government. The bill directs that attorneys’ fees from specified state-court actions against the state and its officers—particularly cases brought under the private attorney general doctrine, the substantial benefit doctrine, or certain writs of mandate—be paid from the affected agency’s operating appropriations, subject to Controller payment and Department of Finance approval.
The bill also creates a separate budget augmentation authority allowing the Department of Finance, with 10 days’ notice to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, to increase appropriations by up to $25 million for the Department of Justice and other state entities to defend against federal enforcement actions, file affirmative litigation against the federal government, or take state-authorized administrative steps to mitigate federal actions. These funds are available for encumbrance through June 30, 2026 and for expenditure through June 30, 2028, and the Department of Justice must report annually on use of the funds and maintain a public website describing the litigation supported by the appropriation. The bill also updates a Budget Act section listing the statutes that make up the 2024 Budget Act and takes effect immediately as a budget bill.
SBX11 changes state budget law by modifying existing appropriations in the Budget Act of 2024 and adding a new, capped funding mechanism for state legal responses to federal government actions. It affects the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice, the Controller, and the legislative budget committees by establishing notice, reporting, and public transparency requirements, while also specifying how certain attorneys’ fee obligations are charged against agency budgets. Because it is a budget bill, it took effect immediately upon chaptering and operates as an appropriation measure rather than a standalone policy statute.
The voting history suggests the bill was generally supported, but not unanimously. It passed key votes with clear majorities in both houses, indicating broad backing for the budget adjustments and litigation funding authority. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the recorded nays show that a meaningful minority opposed the measure at several stages.
The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s authorization of up to $25 million for litigation against the federal government and the breadth of executive branch discretion it gives the Department of Finance and Department of Justice. Critics likely focused on the use of state funds for affirmative federal litigation, the ability to create item numbers if needed, and whether the reporting and notice provisions provide enough legislative oversight. Supporters likely viewed the measure as necessary to defend state interests, preserve state programs, and ensure transparency through annual reporting and a public litigation website.