Transcript Highlights:

• We have a representative from the State Auditor's Office; we have two individuals.
• It relates to the insurable interest of certain persons providing care to individuals with disabilities
• in the life of those individuals.
• I think about 700,000 of that is individual licenses. So it's just under a million. Correct. Mr.
• job, but I'm getting really concerned when any one entity and set of computers handles that many individual

Bills: HB 11, HB 14, HB 132, HB 1584, HB 1606, HB 5061, HB 1041, HB 2286

Keywords: licensing, reciprocity, regulation, Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, interstate agreements, nuclear energy, advanced reactors, energy security, grant programs, Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, HB 132, Texas Government Code Chapter 418, Public Information Act, confidential records, homeland security, foreign adversary, terrorism, critical infrastructure, emergency response, law enforcement

Summary: The meeting was a thorough exploration of multiple bills, most notably focused on innovative energy solutions and public safety enhancements. Key discussions centered around HB14, which aims to bolster the state's nuclear energy capabilities through the establishment of a Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office. Senators and expert witnesses discussed the potential of nuclear power as a clean energy source and a strategic necessity for Texas's growth. There was strong support for the bill, with various stakeholders highlighting its importance for the future energy landscape. Additionally, other bills like HB132 addressed the need for enhanced confidentiality protections regarding sensitive information, while HB1584 sought improvements in power restoration procedures during emergencies. Overall, the committee engaged with multiple viewpoints, balancing innovation with safety and ethical considerations.

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition, the bill establishes a secure system for individuals to confidentially report violations
• We do have two individuals here as resource witnesses.
• in the life of those individuals.
• I think about 700,000 of that as an individual. Okay. So it's just under...
• About 700,000 of that as an individual? Okay. So it's just under a million, correct? Mr.

Bills: HB132, HB 11, HB14, HB132, HB1584, HB1606, HB5061, HB 1041, HB2286

Keywords: nuclear energy, Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, energy policy, regulation repeal, state energy strategy, licensing, reciprocity, regulation, Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, interstate agreements, advanced reactors, energy security, grant programs, HB 132, Texas Government Code Chapter 418, Public Information Act, confidential records, homeland security, foreign adversary, terrorism

Summary: The committee first took up pending business and quickly reported several measures favorably, including HB 12, SB 1361, SB 1705, SB 1749, SB 1897, SB 2344, SB 2566, HB 3809, and HB 4215, with most sent to the Local and Uncontested Calendar. HB 12’s substitute clarified a limited midterm review of regulatory agencies tied to Sunset Commission recommendations. SB 2696’s substitute changed med spa regulation from a license to a certificate, with training instead of an exam, plus background checks, continuing education, and two-year renewals. HB 3809 dealt with battery energy storage decommissioning and recycling, and HB 4215 was reported without a substitute. SB 1978, concerning interconnection of electric facilities in ERCOT and federal jurisdiction concerns, was reported out on a 5-3 vote after debate, but then the chair later announced the bill was withdrawn and left pending subject to the call of the chair. HB 1899 was also reported favorably, with one nay. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 14, the advanced nuclear energy bill. Senator Schwertner described it as creating a Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office, a nuclear permitting coordinator, a development fund, a completion grant program, and a workforce development program. Testimony was sharply divided. Supporters, including representatives from Fermi America, Dow/X-energy, CPS Energy, Paragon Energy Solutions, Bridge to Nuclear, Aalo Atomics, and the Texas Association of Business, argued that Texas should lead in advanced nuclear, citing future baseload demand, data centers, industrial power needs, supply-chain development, and long-term energy diversification. Opponents, including Public Citizen, Texas Nuclear Watchdogs, Sierra Club, and individual citizens, argued the bill would subsidize unproven, expensive technology, create grants rather than loans, and expose taxpayers to major risk while doing little to meet near-term energy needs. Several members questioned whether the state should fund projects that may not produce grid power for years, and whether the bill’s grant structure and new office were justified. The committee also heard HB 5061, which Senator Schwertner said would prohibit unethical surveillance and misuse of confidential information by state contractors, create a confidential reporting system through the State Auditor’s Office, authorize Texas Rangers investigations, protect whistleblowers, and impose penalties including contract termination, fines, and contracting bans. No public testimony was offered, and the bill was left pending. HB 132, sponsored by Senator Hughes, would extend confidentiality protections for sensitive information to hostile acts by foreign adversaries; it was also left pending after no testimony. HB 1584 was then laid out, with Senator Schwertner explaining it would require utilities to maintain and update priority restoration lists for critical facilities after Hurricane Beryl exposed communication failures, but the transcript cuts off before any action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• fraud... in Chapter 701, modeled after the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act, allowing private individuals
• These individuals are technically eligible to purchase a Medicare Supplement or Medigap plan; however
• Coverage or charged more due to their health history, not only do these individuals face high premiums
• The lack of federal funding for essential research and services for individuals living with ALS remains
• This creates significant pressure on insured individuals to complete repairs and manage claims within

Bills: HB1464, HB1635, HB2516, HB3317, HB3502, HB4012, HB4268, HB4386, HB4877, SB916

Keywords: prescription drugs, drug pricing, pharmacy benefits, health insurance, health benefit plan, insurer, HMO, self-insured employer, public employer, school district, county, municipality, university system, higher education, retirees, dependent coverage, stop-loss coverage, bulk purchasing, group purchasing, purchasing pool

Transcript Highlights:

• That a person caring for an individual with an intellectual or developmental disability cannot take a
• These are this case, the individual is.
• of the life insurance and seize that from the individual.
• He's a deceased individual now. I've come to know his uncle, David.
• Care Waiver Program as an individual with IDD. Leroy Paz. July 30th 2018.

Bills: HB451, HB645, HB 1041, HB 1151, HB 1155, HB1536, HCR12, HCR12

Keywords: commercial sexual exploitation, child sex trafficking, human trafficking, child welfare, foster care, DFPS, Department of Family and Protective Services, juvenile probation, risk assessment, needs assessment, trauma screening, child abuse prevention, exploitation screening, validated screening tool, evidence-informed tool, conservatorship, juvenile justice, at-risk youth, trafficking prevention, Child Sex Trafficking Prevention Unit

Bills: HB451, HB645, HB 1041, HB 1151, HB 1155, HB1536, HCR12, HCR12

Keywords: commercial sexual exploitation, child sex trafficking, human trafficking, child welfare, foster care, DFPS, Department of Family and Protective Services, juvenile probation, risk assessment, needs assessment, trauma screening, child abuse prevention, exploitation screening, validated screening tool, evidence-informed tool, conservatorship, juvenile justice, at-risk youth, trafficking prevention, Child Sex Trafficking Prevention Unit

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I tell you the best of my knowledge. this bill is dealing more with the individuals.

Bills: HB195, HB247, HB255, HJR2, HJR4, HJR6, HJR31, HJR34, HB195, HB247, HB255, HJR6, HJR31, HJR34

Keywords: school district, ad valorem tax, local revenue, tax collection, education funding, border security, tax exemption, ad valorem, real property, infrastructure, Texas-Mexico border, ad valorem taxation, farm products, livestock, timber, death tax, inheritance tax, estate tax, property transfer, constitutional amendment

Transcript Highlights:

• bill we heard previously. by Chairman Frank relating to the confinement or detention of certain individuals
• For example, approximately 30% of formerly incarcerated individuals have high blood pressure compared
• Last session, we recognized the need to help formerly incarcerated individuals. to get back on their
• This would help many individuals when they come out and reduce. So, Mr.
• These individuals do not simply reform.

Bills: HB153, HB1828, HB2306, HB2498, HB3464, HB3488, HB3636, HB3673, HB3834, HB3860, HB4120, HB4937, HB1515, HB153

Keywords: education, funding, student resources, technology access, equal opportunity, veterans treatment court, mental health, criminal justice, rehabilitation, eligibility criteria, veterans, treatment court, military service, legislation, legislative leave, correctional officers, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, accumulated leave, compensatory time, parole eligibility

Transcript Highlights:

• file the paperwork to seek a temporary restraining order.
• An individual filed the paperwork to seek a temporary restraining order while the courts had a chance
• the restraining order.
• restraining orders, also known as WVROs.
• AB 2179 would make workplace violence restraining order procedures match other civil restraining order

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee heard several measures focused on campaign finance, legal ethics, notarization, domestic violence, immigration detention transparency, workplace violence restraining orders, and divorce relief for domestic violence survivors. Senator McNerney presented SJR 18, which condemns Citizens United and urges limits on corporate spending in elections; there was no opposition testimony, and committee members voiced support. Assembly Member Kalra presented AB 2305 to bar private equity, hedge funds, and other corporate lenders from influencing litigation decisions, with support from the Consumer Attorneys of California and other stakeholders; no opposition appeared, and the bill was framed as protecting client-centered legal judgment. Assembly Member Irwin’s AB 1977, sponsored by the Secretary of State, made technical and procedural fixes to the Online Notarization Act to support implementation by 2030, with support from notary groups and no opposition. Assembly Member Rogers’ AB 1657 would allow temporary restraining orders in domestic violence cases without prior notice in certain circumstances, and Assembly Member Lee’s AB 1801 would tighten public notice and hearing requirements for contracts involving private immigration detention facilities; both drew broad support and no opposition. Assembly Member Patel’s AB 2179 would extend electronic filing and remote appearance rules to workplace violence restraining orders, and Assembly Member Hart’s AB 1875 would let courts shorten or waive the six-month divorce waiting period for domestic violence survivors; both were supported and had no opposition testimony. The committee then took formal votes. The consent calendar passed 12-0. SJR 18 passed 10-2. AB 2305 passed 12-0. AB 1801 passed 10-2. AB 1657 passed 12-0. AB 2179 passed 8-0. AB 1875 passed 10-0. AB 1977 passed 8-2. The chair announced the committee would adjourn until the following Tuesday, June 16, at 1:30 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• the restraining order.
• Yeah, so the rules around a permanent restraining order are still the same.
• restraining orders, also known as WVROs.
• is facing pressing needs related to their restraining order.
• AB 2179 would make workplace violence restraining order procedures match other civil restraining order

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Someone, if possible, to identify the individual or individuals who are in danger of death or injury.
• SB 295 increases the penalties imposed on individuals convicted for violation of a temporary restraining
• SB 295 increases the penalties imposed on individuals convicted for violation of a temporary restraining
• This increases the penalties imposed on individuals convicted for violations of temporary restraining
• order permanent restraining restraining order permanent restraining order<00:41:24.000><c> or</c><00

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on SB 284, which would remove the requirement that wiretapping applications to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill as drafted and instead proposed a new emergency-wiretap procedure allowing county prosecutors to seek immediate judicial authorization in exigent circumstances, followed by AG review and a follow-up application within 48 hours. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney’s office supported creating an emergency exception, citing a kidnapping case involving a missing material witness and the need to obtain live phone location data quickly, but asked that the AG be required to respond clearly within the follow-up period. The AG said the current wiretap process often arrives incomplete and noted a prior Honolulu application that was returned for more information and then abandoned. The committee also heard public testimony, including one speaker in support and another in opposition, and discussed whether the proposed emergency process should include imminent danger findings and what happens if the follow-up application is not approved. No vote or final action was taken in the transcript. The committee then took up SB 295, which increases penalties for violating temporary restraining orders and orders for protection and makes related changes. The Deputy Public Defender opposed the bill’s higher penalties, arguing that not all restraining-order cases involve domestic violence and that the measure could affect family disputes, property conflicts, custody battles, and other non-domestic situations. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney supported the bill, saying it would create a more uniform and efficient charging framework and that violations of court orders can be serious even when the conduct appears minor in isolation. Domestic violence advocates also supported the measure, emphasizing the need for meaningful enforcement and deterrence; one witness cited statewide data showing thousands of TRO petitions but relatively few convictions and fines. A representative from the Domestic Violence Action Center supported the bill but requested amendments to reduce unintended consequences for survivors. During discussion, the committee focused on the proposed minimum sentence, with the Domestic Violence Action Center recommending reducing it from 15 days to 5 days. The witness explained that longer minimums can create hardships such as job loss, housing instability, and child care problems, while still allowing time for survivors to access shelter and services. The committee chair indicated support for amending the bill to reflect that recommendation. The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney also clarified that the bill is intended to address violations of already-issued protective orders after judicial review, not the initial issuance of restraining orders, and said the office supports eliminating the distinction between domestic and non-domestic protective-order violations because charging decisions are often made under time pressure. Multiple individuals and organizations signed up in support, and one witness testified in opposition. No vote or final committee action was announced in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Individuals may speak once per hearing.
• As I mentioned, we've got about 40 individuals signed up to testify today.
• , or individuals may not be recognized publicly for their own safety as well.
• We move on now to the last individual signed up to testify.
• We do this by listening deeply to individual stories.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a late-file hearing on several bills, with Chairs Michael Day and Lydia Edwards outlining hearing rules, testimony limits, and written-testimony procedures. The first bill discussed was H. 4876, a proposal to strengthen supports for survivors of abuse. Representative Carol Faiola testified on behalf of a constituent who described how a lifetime restraining order was effectively undermined after a family member’s death, arguing the bill should limit abusers’ legal standing after death, improve survivor notification and privacy protections, expand coercive-control definitions, and create education and resource programs. The committee then heard testimony on H. 5111, which would strengthen the Massachusetts Antitrust Act. Representative Dave Rogers and Attorney General’s Office antitrust chief Anthony Mariano said the bill would give the state more tools to pursue anti-competitive conduct, including conduct with multi-state effects, while allowing enforcement even when federal authorities are also involved. They said it would increase penalties, clarify that invitations to conspire are violations, protect labor markets, remove limits affecting some housing transactions, and extend the statute of limitations. The committee also heard support for a related “universal 1983” bill, S. 2976/H. 2976, creating a state cause of action for constitutional violations by federal, state, or local officers acting under color of law; supporters said it would fill gaps in remedies against federal officers while preserving qualified immunity. Testimony also supported H. 4783, a bill affirming the rights of people experiencing homelessness. The Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless said the measure would push back against growing criminalization of homelessness, especially after the Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision and local encampment bans, and would protect the use of public spaces without discrimination based on housing status. On H. 4826, condo owners and advocates said Chapter 183A is outdated and leaves owners with too little say and too few remedies against mismanagement, citing problems such as unsafe water, major assessments, and lack of meaningful dispute resolution. The committee also heard strong support for H. 5116, renaming the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court the Judge Leslie E. Harris Courthouse, with testimony from family members, legislators, attorneys, and community leaders describing Judge Harris’s mentorship, community service, and commitment to second chances. Later testimony covered S. 2975, a bill to deter ICE courthouse arrests and protect access to justice; CPCS, law students, and defense advocates said courthouse arrests chill participation by defendants, witnesses, and victims and disrupt pending cases. The committee also heard support for H. 5244, repealing an archaic law criminalizing concealment of a child’s death, with advocates arguing it has been used to punish pregnancy loss and should be removed. The hearing concluded with additional testimony in favor of S. 2976 and more support for the Judge Harris courthouse renaming, after which the chairs closed the hearing and reminded the public how to submit written testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• So if you have a group of individuals, this is to the elected officials.
• And one of the issues was around the issues of restraining orders.
• And one of the issues was around the issues of restraining orders.
• He didn't have a restraining order.
• He didn't have a restraining order.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing opened with procedural remarks and acknowledgments of Rosh Hashanah, followed by testimony on several criminal justice bills before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. A major focus was S. 1061, the “Raise the Age” bill, which would gradually move 18- to 20-year-olds into the juvenile justice system. Supporters included youth and young adult advocates, former juvenile court Judge Jay Blitzman, ACLU and CPCS representatives, Roca, United Way, Citizens for Juvenile Justice, and Senator Brendan Crichton. They argued that young adults are still developmentally immature, that juvenile court services improve education and rehabilitation, and that adult-system involvement leads to higher recidivism and racial disparities. Committee members asked practical questions about how the bill would work, and witnesses explained that it would expand access to juvenile court diversion, probation, and DYS services for the covered age group. The chairs also noted a notice issue, clarifying that the hearing had been posted seven days in advance rather than the usual ten. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to revise accomplice and joint venture murder liability and sentencing. Representative Sam Montaño and Senator Liz Miranda supported the reform, arguing that current law can impose life sentences on people with limited or no knowledge of a killing and that the doctrine contributes to racial bias and disproportionate punishment. A law professor, a former defendant, and advocates from the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls described cases where people were punished far beyond their actual role and said the bill would better align charges and sentences with individual culpability. Related testimony also supported a proportionality-focused reform to reduce the harshness of joint venture sentencing. Several other public safety and criminal justice bills drew testimony. Senator Robin Kennedy supported a bill redefining strangulation in domestic violence law, saying the current “substantial pressure” standard is too vague and that strangulation is often lethal without visible injury. District Attorney Ryan and a retail business executive backed a bill on organized retail theft, saying it would give prosecutors more flexible charging options and better address coordinated theft rings. Representative Vieira and the family of Kiana Barros urged action on Kiana’s Law, which would improve restraining-order notification and enforcement after Barros’s daughter was killed after an order was not served. The hearing also included support for the HALO Act, which would create a 25-foot safety zone around first responders and penalize harassment or obstruction, and for a bill to enhance courthouse security by creating specific protections for judges and their families. No votes were taken during the hearing."} 0}]}

Transcript Highlights:

• Epstein's network involved powerful and influential individuals.
• In other words, the reason for filing the restraining order?
• If they sign this ex parte order, it is only a temporary restraining order, not a permanent restraining
• If they sign this ex parte order, this is only a temporary restraining order.
• It's not a, uh, only a temporary restraining order. It's not a permanent restraint.

Summary: The committee first took up SCR 30 by Senator Connick, which memorializes Congress to compel the Department of Justice to release unclassified Epstein-related records. Senator Connick gave personal remarks about child sexual abuse and the need to hold powerful people accountable. Representative Newell supported the resolution, and the committee reported it favorably without opposition. Next, the committee considered SCR 40 by Senator Selders, urging Congress to timely pass defense appropriations that fully fund and align with the National Defense Authorization Act. The measure was briefly explained as a statement of support for military readiness and proper appropriations, and it was moved favorably with no opposition. The main substantive discussion centered on SB 259 by Senator Barrow, which would authorize an online portal for civil protective order applications. A Supreme Court protective order registry representative explained that the portal would let domestic and dating violence survivors complete petitions online, with the same judicial review, service, and hearing process that exists now; the bill would not eliminate manual filing. Members asked about fees, guidance for applicants, verification, judicial review, public access, and the risk of false filings. The witness and several members emphasized that the process remains temporary and ex parte at the outset, that final orders are issued by judges, and that the registry is not public. A domestic violence coalition representative also testified in support. Representative Newell moved favorable, Representative Edmondson objected, and the committee reported the bill favorably by a 10-1 vote. Finally, Representative Baham presented HR 245 condemning political violence in the United States. He cited recent and historical examples of political attacks and argued that violence against public figures and activists is harmful regardless of party. Members voiced support, no one objected, and the resolution was adopted before the committee adjourned, with the chair noting it was the last meeting of the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• violence restraining orders.
• violence restraining orders.
• It's about 18% due to restraining orders.
• Because the restraining orders could be temporary restraining orders or six-month restraining orders
• or that type in nature, or five-day restraining orders, 21-day restraining orders, or so.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Individuals may speak once per hearing.
• As I mentioned, we've got about 40 individuals signed up to testify today.
• This restraining order has been... ...now survivor, and have a lifetime restraining order in place for
• We move on now to the last individual signed up to testify.
• We do this by listening deeply to individual stories.

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a late-file hearing on several bills, with testimony limited to three minutes per individual or set time limits for panels. Chairs Michael Day and Lydia Edwards outlined hearing rules, written testimony procedures, and confidentiality protections before moving through the agenda. The committee heard testimony on bills including H.4876, H.5111, H.4783, H.4826, H.5116, H.5244, S.2975, and S.2976. On H.4876, supporters described it as the “Overcomers Law,” aimed at strengthening supports for survivors of abuse by limiting abusers’ legal standing after death, requiring survivor notification of an abuser’s death, expanding coercive control definitions, improving privacy protections, and creating education and resource programs. On H.5111, the Attorney General’s Office and legislative sponsors backed changes to strengthen Massachusetts antitrust enforcement, including broader jurisdiction over multi-state conduct, higher penalties, clearer treatment of invitations to conspire, labor-market protections, housing-related changes, and a longer statute of limitations. The committee also heard support for H.4783, which would reaffirm the rights of people experiencing homelessness and push back against criminalization of homelessness, and for H.4826, which would update condominium law to give owners more rights and nonjudicial dispute-resolution options. A large portion of the hearing focused on H.5116, which would rename the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court the Judge Leslie E. Harris Courthouse. Representative Worrell, the Harris family, senators, prosecutors, lawyers, educators, and community advocates testified in strong support, describing Judge Harris’s legacy of fairness, mentorship, community service, and support for young people and Black legal professionals. The committee also heard testimony on S.2975, which would prohibit civil immigration arrests in courthouses to protect access to justice, and S.2976, which would create a state cause of action for constitutional violations by federal officers. Finally, H.5244 was supported as a repeal of an archaic criminal statute that advocates said has been used to punish pregnancy loss and should be removed from the books. No votes were taken; the hearing concluded after all registered testimony was heard.

Transcript Highlights:

• Epstein's network involved powerful and influential individuals, and the public deserves the confidence
• Powerful and influential individuals, and the public deserves the confidence that no one is above the
• In other words, the reason for filing the restraining order?
• If it's a civil side, it's the protective order, temporary restraining order provision.
• If they sign this ex parte order, this is only a temporary restraining order.

Bills: HR245, SCR30, SCR40, SB259

Keywords: transparency, justice, Epstein, Maxwell, investigation, human trafficking, government accountability, domestic violence, protective orders, online application, judicial administration, Louisiana, 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This individual lured a 14-year-old girl from her home.
• violence restraining orders.
• It's about 18% due to restraining orders.
• Because the restraining orders could be temporary restraining orders or six-month restraining orders
• or that type in nature, or five-day restraining orders, 21-day restraining orders, or so, they become

Summary: The hearing focused on the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People (MMIP) grant program under the Board of State and Community Corrections and related Department of Justice efforts. BSCC reported that it now administers 36 MMIP grants across three cohorts, with awards ranging from $436,000 to $1 million, plus five collaborative grants at $2 million each, totaling $35.4 million awarded to federally recognized tribes. Testimony from tribal leaders and grantees described how the funding supports prevention, family advocacy, domestic violence services, law enforcement coordination, youth programming, culturally grounded healing, and new tribal public safety positions such as investigators, social workers, and drone operators. Speakers repeatedly emphasized that the crisis is longstanding, tied to generational trauma, and that the grant has helped build trust and infrastructure in tribal communities. Several witnesses and committee members urged continued and preferably ongoing funding, noting that demand now exceeds available one-time money. BSCC and tribal representatives described outreach efforts that increased participation from four applicants in cohort one to 20 in cohort two and more applicants than funding in cohort three. Tribes also raised implementation concerns, especially the burden of quarterly narrative reporting, limited staff capacity, and the need for flexible administration. BSCC said it uses steering committees, separate small- and large-project categories, orientations, monitoring visits, and technical assistance to support grantees. Tribal leaders and advocates stressed that the program should remain accessible without requiring a waiver of tribal sovereignty. The second major topic was DOJ’s update on AB 3099, the Tribal Assistance Program, and the tribal police pilot under AB 134. DOJ officials said the Office of Native American Affairs and the Division of Law Enforcement have been conducting outreach, trainings, listening sessions, and coordination with tribal, local, state, and federal partners to address Public Law 280 jurisdictional issues, improve reporting and data, and support Feather Alert and MMIP-related resources. DOJ said the AB 3099 report is in internal review and that the tribal police pilot is moving forward with the Yurok Tribe as a participant, with a July 1, 2026 start date. DOJ and tribal witnesses said the pilot’s main barriers are cost and, for some tribes, the waiver of sovereign immunity. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with broad support for expanding and sustaining MMIP-related funding and infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> harm's way and needed to be restrained. harm's way and needed to be restrained.
• </c> situation is that they can't restrain situation is that they can't restrain that<01:43:08.680><c
• <01:46:48.320><c> are</c><01:46:48.440><c> practicing</c> individuals are practicing individuals are
• restrained? restrained?
• </c> people that consent to be restrained? people that consent to be restrained? Okay. Okay. Okay.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting began as a Committee of Conference on House Bill 194, but the discussion quickly centered on whether to remove an attached bill, 504, because of concerns about a possible fee or tax and a House rule issue. Members debated the procedural posture of the bill, whether the House version had been non-concurred, and whether the conference committee could still resolve the issue by adopting the House amendment or reconsidering the non-concur. The exchange became tense, with one side warning that failing to pass the measure could jeopardize a linked rural health transformation grant worth about $20 million. The committee ultimately recessed without resolving the 194/504 dispute and planned to return the next day. The committee then opened conference on House Bill 609, which dealt with use-of-force/self-defense language and restraint/seclusion authority in health care settings. On the self-defense portion, House members argued strongly for restoring vehicle language, saying people should be able to defend themselves in a car the same way they can in a home, especially in carjacking or assault situations where no weapon is displayed. Senate members expressed concern about expanding deadly-force protections too broadly and suggested narrowing the language to focus on imminent harm to the person, not property, while also questioning where the provision should be placed in statute. The second major topic in HB 609 was who may order restraint or seclusion in clinical settings. House members argued that physicians are not always immediately available, especially in hospitals and emergency settings, and that APRNs and physician associates should be able to act in crises if properly trained and credentialed. Senate members raised concerns about scope of practice and asked whether the language implied patient consent was required; the Senate side explained that consent language was intended to address capacity and informed decision-making, not to require voluntary consent to restraint. The discussion ended with the sides still apart, though the Senate floated a compromise allowing physician associates to order restraint when no doctor is physically on the premises, while not yet extending that authority to APRNs. The committee took a short break to continue negotiations on the firearm/self-defense piece.

Transcript Highlights:

• restraining orders, also known as WVROs.
• AB 2179 would make workplace violence restraining order procedures match other civil restraining order
• This would allow that restraining order to be placed against any of those individuals that are part of
• the process of forcing an individual into a forced marriage.
• This would allow that restraining order to be placed against any of those individuals that are part of

Summary: The Assembly Judiciary Committee heard several bills focused largely on legal ethics, access to justice, public notice, water-rights notice, and protections for vulnerable people. AB 2305 would bar corporate investors such as private equity and hedge funds from directing or influencing litigation decisions; it was supported by the Consumer Attorneys of California and others, with the Civil Justice Association of California supporting if amended to add disclosure requirements. AB 2039 would tighten discipline for attorney misconduct, protect whistleblowers inside law firms, and restrict certain client-loan arrangements; it drew support from consumer attorneys and a support-if-amended position from CJA. AB 2109 would require the State Bar to adopt the National Conference of Bar Examiners’ Universal Bar Exam after the troubled February 2025 California bar exam; members discussed the need for broader review and possible reciprocity, but supported moving the bill forward. The committee also advanced AB 2115, which would issue a formal legislative apology to California Native peoples for the state’s role in historic violence and dispossession, with strong support from tribal leaders and Native organizations. Members spoke at length about the need for acknowledgment, healing, and a Capitol plaque memorializing the apology. AB 2179 would expand electronic filing and remote appearance options to workplace violence restraining orders, aligning them with other protective order procedures; it received support from local governments, prosecutors, labor groups, and advocacy organizations. AB 2534 would allow restraining orders based on forced marriage or attempts to compel marriage, and the committee heard powerful testimony from a survivor and support from family violence advocates. Two other measures addressed notice and transparency. AB 2323 would modernize public notice by keeping print publication as the legal standard while requiring online availability, with supporters emphasizing access, archival value, and the role of community newspapers; a special districts group opposed unless amended. AB 2125 would require courts in water-rights adjudications to consider proof of notice and receipts before proceeding, prompted by testimony from Ventura County farmers who said they lost water allocations without adequate notice. The committee approved the bills it heard, including several on consent, and later took roll-call votes to move the measures forward, generally sending them to Appropriations or to the floor as noted.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> individuals in support. individuals in support.
• I'm a strong individual capacity.
• </c> like the temporary restraining order. like the temporary restraining order.
• , one individual opposing.
• Is there anyone else individuals.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 963, which would make crimes against elders age 60 and over strict liability offenses by removing the requirement that the perpetrator knew or should have known the victim’s age. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the bill, arguing that removing the state-of-mind element would create unfair and subjective results and suggesting sentencing enhancements or broader vulnerability-based language instead. Supporters, including Sandy Wong and another testifier with elder-abuse experience, said the current knowledge requirement creates a loophole that lets offenders avoid the elder enhancement even when they target vulnerable older adults. No vote was taken on the measure in the portion provided. The committee also heard HB 384, which increases penalties for promoting minor-produced sexual images, extends probation terms for felony obscenity offenses, tolls the statute of limitations during a victim’s minority, and requires sex offender registration for certain felony obscenity offenses involving minors. The Public Defender opposed the bill as overly broad and warned of absurd results, while the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney supported it, saying the bill addresses sextortion and other exploitation cases where adults solicit images from minors and that the 3-year age-gap threshold preserves ordinary teen relationships. Committee members questioned whether the bill was aimed at adults only and whether the age-gap carveout was narrow enough; the prosecutor said it was intended to cover adult predators and not consensual peer conduct. No final action was reported. HB 1100, which renames the Neighbor Islands Blind and Visually Impaired Service Pilot Program to use “low vision” instead of “visually impaired,” was supported by the Department of Human Services and disability advocates, who said the current term is derogatory and that the change responds to the blind community. The department said it was beginning work on administrative rules and expected to seek an appropriation, with implementation hoped for in 2026. The committee then heard HB 1283, exempting paternity proceedings from mediation when domestic abuse is alleged; the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence and others supported it as consistent with divorce law and important for survivor safety. HB 689, creating safe harbor protections for survivors of sexual exploitation who seek medical or law enforcement help, drew support from HPD, Emua Alliance, the Judiciary, and others, who said it would prevent traffickers from using prostitution charges to silence victims. Finally, HB 383, reinstating mandatory minimum jail terms for successive violations of protective orders and removing the court’s ability to suspend those minimums, drew opposition from the Public Defender, who said some repeat violations stem from mental health or substance use issues, and support from the Prosecuting Attorney, who argued the bill treats protective orders like temporary restraining orders and preserves judicial discretion within a misdemeanor framework.