The Brief

California voters are considering whether to roll back some of the criminal justice reforms enacted a decade ago as concerns about mass incarceration give way to public anger over property crime and a fentanyl crisis that has plagued the state since the covid-19 pandemic hit.

Proposition 36, on the November ballot, would unwind portions of a 2014 initiative, known as Proposition 47, that reduced most shoplifting and drug possession offenses to misdemeanors that rarely carried jail time.

Critics say that has allowed criminality to flourish and given those suffering from addiction little incentive to break the cycle. The law also has become a political weapon for former President Donald Trump and other Republican politicians who have tried to tie it to Vice President Kamala Harris to paint her as soft on crime. As California attorney general she took no position on the issue.

Much of the Proposition 36 debate has focused on the increased penalties for shoplifting, but the drug policy changes are even more dramatic. In addition to boosting penalties for some drug crimes, the measure would create a new “treatment-mandated felony” that could be imposed on people who illegally possess what are called “hard” drugs, including fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, and have two or more prior convictions for certain crimes.

Those who admit to the new felony would be required to complete drug or mental health treatment, job training, or other programs intended to “break the cycle of addiction and homelessness.” Those who complete the treatment program would have their charges dismissed, while failure could bring three years in prison.

The measure has opponents, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, warning about renewing a “war on drugs” that once helped swell California’s prison population.

Supporters counter that stricter penalties are necessary as overdose deaths from fentanyl crowd morgues. They also point to studies showing that more than 75% of people experiencing chronic homelessness struggle with substance abuse or a severe mental illness.

“We crafted this not to move people into any kind of custody setting, but to incentivize them into treatment,” said Greg Totten, chief executive officer at the California District Attorneys Association and a spokesperson for the initiative’s supporters.

Totten and others cast the measure as a way to revive drug courts, which they say waned in effectiveness after Proposition 47 removed the stick from what had been a carrot-and-stick approach.

Drug courts are led by a judge with a specialized caseload, use a collaborative approach to promote rehabilitation, and have been found to be effective in California and nationwide. Participants in California had “significantly lower rates of recidivism,” according to a study in 2006 commissioned by the Judicial Council of California: 29% were rearrested compared with 41% of a group who didn’t receive treatment.

The Center for Justice Innovation, a nationwide research and reform group that grew out of the New York state court system, found that drug court caseloads dropped across California after Proposition 47.

Still, advocates who favor decriminalization challenge the idea that the approach is effective and say coerced treatment violates people’s rights. Meanwhile, Lenore Anderson, a co-author of Proposition 47, said “we cannot pretend that this sort of feel-good idea that we’re going to arrest and incarcerate out of it is going to work. It never has.”

Proposition 47 led to an increase in property crime, but there is no evidence that changes in drug arrests sparked any increases in crime, found a recent study by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

The latest reform effort leaves many questions, said Darren Urada of the University of California-Los Angeles Integrated Substance Abuse Programs. He was the principal investigator on UCLA’s evaluation of an earlier attempt to promote treatment.

“When policies are properly implemented, treatment obtained through courts can help people. However, there are a lot of details here that are not clear, and therefore a lot of opportunities for this to go poorly,” Urada said.

For instance, the ballot measure doesn’t say what would happen to someone who enters treatment but relapses, as is common; how long they would have to complete the program; or what would constitute completion for someone in long-term treatment for mental illness or substance abuse.

Those details were deliberately left vague so that local experts like community corrections partnerships, which are already established under existing law, could decide what works best in their jurisdictions, Totten said.

Totten expects a range of approaches including diversion programs and inpatient and outpatient treatment, and that judges would be guided by the recommendations of treatment professionals.

“I’m hopeful that that will help people who are really struggling with addiction, living on the streets, who engage in petty theft and other crimes in order to support their habit — that it will be a doorway into treatment for them,” said Anna Lembke, a Stanford University addiction expert.

The November ballot measure also would allow judges to send drug dealers to state prisons instead of county jails and boost penalties for possessing fentanyl. It would make it easier to charge someone with murder if they provide illegal drugs that kill someone.

The changes could increase California’s prison population, currently about 90,000, and its county jail and community supervision population, currently around 250,000, each by “a few thousand people,” projects the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. Opponents of the measure project that the increase would be far higher: 65,000 people, most for drug offenses and most of them people of color.

Newsom, one of the initiative’s most outspoken critics, argues that the November ballot measure lacks any funding; would reduce the $800 million in Proposition 47 savings, much of which has gone to treatment and diversion programs; and would only aggravate an existing lack of treatment alternatives.

“Prop. 36 takes us back to the 1980s,” Newsom, a Democrat, said in August as he signed a package of 10 property crime bills that he and legislative leaders tout as an alternative to the broader ballot measure.

Yet, illustrating the contentiousness of the debate, the ballot measure has been endorsed by some Democratic leaders, including San Francisco Mayor London Breed, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who often highlight its treatment requirement.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

President Donald Trump called the Supreme Court's decision against his sweeping use of tariffs "deeply disappointing" and slammed the members of the court who ruled against him.

Trump called the justices who opposed his tariffs "fools" and "lapdogs," charging that they were acting because of liberal partisanship, though three of those ruling against him were appointed by Republican presidents and two were Trump appointees.

"I think it is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country," he said.

The court — in a 6 to 3 decision —found that a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

The ruling was the president's most significant defeat at the Supreme Court since he returned to office, and threatens to upend one of Trump's favorite and most powerful tools of his economic and foreign policy agenda.

The decision injects even more uncertainty into the future of tariffs, but Trump made clear that he has no plans on giving up on his agenda.

Calling it his "favorite word in the dictionary," Trump has repeatedly credited his use of tariffs with helping him stop wars and pressure world leaders to bend to U.S. interests.

He boasted about the economic benefits. A recent Congressional Budget Office report found that tariffs were expected to help reduce the deficits by about $3 trillion over a decade. But that same report found that U.S. consumers - not foreign companies - were paying the vast majority of that money.

But while talking with reporters Friday, Trump sought to put a positive spin on the court decision. He said that it would provide certainty for the U.S. economy and that he plans to seek alternatives, which he laid out specifically.

"Their decision's incorrect. But it doesn't matter, because we have very powerful alternatives that have been approved by this decision," he said.

Trump cited a dissent written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh who listed laws that the administration could pursue, including "the Trade Act of 1974 sections 122, 201, 301, and the Tariff Act of 1930 section 338."

He acknowledged that those processes may be more cumbersome, but had stronger legal standing. He also cited Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, that allows the president to impose tariffs to address trade deficits. But those tariffs are limited to 15%, and only for 150 days, after which Congress would have to approve them.

"While I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court's decision today made the President's ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear, rather than less. I don't think they meant that. I'm sure they didn't," Trump said.

And he said he would sign an executive order today to continue certain tariffs under alternative authorities, including adding a "10% global tariff."

That rule would also eventually need approval from Congress, after 150 days, which could be difficult with an election approaching.

Republicans are facing pressure from constituents about high costs and the business community that is afraid to invest with all the economic uncertainty.

A recent NPR/Marist poll finds that a majority of Americans — 56% — feel tariffs or fees on imported products from other countries hurts the U.S. economy.

The former Senate majority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell praised the Supreme Court's decision.

"Congress' role in trade policy, as I have warned repeatedly, is not an inconvenience to avoid," the Kentucky Republican said. "If the executive would like to enact trade policies that impact American producers and consumers, its path forward is crystal clear: convince their representatives under Article 1" of the Constitution."

But Trump, who has expressed frustration with gridlock in Congress, expressed confidence that he would continue to be able to employ tariffs unilaterally.

"Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic," Trump said. They are so happy and they're dancing in the streets. But they won't be dancing for long. That I can assure you."
Copyright 2026 NPR

A judge has ruled that the city of Los Angeles cannot move forward with a program that would allow local officials to remove and dismantle more recreational vehicles the city deems a nuisance.

The city planned to roll out a new state law that gives L.A. County authority to dispose of abandoned or inoperable RVs worth up to $4,000. The previous threshold was $500.

Some city officials who support the new law say L.A. must have the tools to get unsafe and unsanitary RVs off the streets for good.

But opponents argued the law does not apply to the city of L.A. — only the county — and that the city’s “illegal” actions would harm vulnerable Angelenos who live in RVs, according to court documents.

In a new ruling issued Thursday, Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin agreed with the opponents. The judge said the new law “provides no such authority to the City of Los Angeles.”

The backstory

The ruling stems from a legal challenge by a coalition of housed and unhoused residents in West L.A. around the city’s implementation of Assembly Bill 630, which became law Jan. 1.

The L.A. City Council voted in December to approve a motion instructing various city departments to “immediately implement” the law.

The CD11 Coalition for Human Rights then asked a judge to intervene, claiming L.A. is “recklessly charging ahead” with a program it’s not authorized to execute, according to court documents.

What the officials say

Councilmember Traci Park, who introduced the council motion in October, told LAist previously that nuisance RVs create health and safety issues that put entire neighborhoods at risk. Park said residents want solutions, not frivolous lawsuits.

Shayla Myers, an attorney with Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, told LAist after the ruling Thursday that the lawsuits aren’t frivolous when the petitioners keep winning.

“It is incredibly unclear why the city did not simply accept the plain language of AB 630 and instead forced our client to go to court, wasting court resources, city resources at a time when the city doesn't have resources to spare,” Myers said.

City Attorney Hydee Feldstein-Soto’s office did not respond to LAist’s requests for comment on the city’s implementation of AB 630.

What’s next

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass proposed AB 630 in partnership with Assemblymember Mark González, who introduced the California assembly bill. González said in a statement to LAist last month that his office is “working with our partners to clarify the law to ensure the City can fully implement AB 630."

González has introduced another bill, AB 647, that would expand the language of the law to include “any public agency” within L.A. County.

Go deeper: West LA coalition challenges city's rollout of new RV law

This story was originally published by The LA Local on Feb. 20, 2026.

In an old asphalt parking lot off of Crenshaw Boulevard, L.A. County homelessness officials have been testing out their first RV-based transitional housing program.

For some of the residents of the 11 RVs parked in the South L.A. lot today, it’s the closest thing to stable housing they’ve had in years.

The 24-hour, 14-spot RV safe parking lot is a unique, albeit tiny, component of the county’s massive homeless service ecosystem, tailored specifically to RV dwellers who aren’t ready to relinquish their vehicles.

“We got everything. We got water. We got restrooms. People are so nice,” said Mikolaj Marciniak, who has been living with his partner in an aging RV for over a year. “Sometimes all you need is a little bit of help.”

The RV safe parking lot program has guided a dozen RV dwellers to permanent housing in its nearly first year of operation, a result that’s convinced L.A. County officials to keep the program rolling at least another year.

More than 72,000 people are homeless on a given night in L.A. County and RVs are the most common type of shelter for people living outdoors, according to the county’s 2025 count, with nearly 6,300 counted across the county last year.

Mikolaj Marciniak stands in his RV, parked in LA County’s RV safe parking lot. The transitional housing program has helped connect a dozen people to permanent housing.

(

Isaiah Murtaugh

/

The LA Local

)

Residents of the RV safe parking lot get access to a mobile bathroom unit, a stocked outdoor kitchenette and a few pieces of exercise equipment. Marciniak told The LA Local before he moved to the lot, RV life was difficult, with neighbors wanting him and his partner to move along. Twice, he said, their tires were slashed.

But in the fenced lot, he said, life is calmer.

“You are protected,” said Marciniak, who moved to the U.S. from his native Ukraine in 2020. “You feel [that] you belong.”

The couple has been living in the RV lot less than a year and is already looking for a permanent apartment through a housing voucher program.

Since the program began, nine of the RV safe lot’s residents have moved into permanent housing, with three more on their way, according to Mel Tillekeratne, executive director of Shower of Hope. The nonprofit provides case management for residents and helps connect them with medical and housing services.

“It’s not just about removing a RV off the street,” Tillekeratne said. “It’s making sure the person in there, whether it’s a senior, a young couple, that they go somewhere safe, and they’re happy and they don’t have to worry about homelessness again.”

RVs line up in an RV safe parking lot in South LA.

(

Isaiah Murtaugh

/

The LA Local

)

The lot, outside a vacant former county probation office, is not a permanent installation. The county is finalizing plans to extend the program by another year with funding from the county’s Measure A homeless service and affordable housing sales tax, according to Isela Gracian, senior deputy on homelessness and housing for L.A. County Supervisor Holly Mitchell

“There is more need. The challenge is that people believe it’s too high of a cost for the number of people it serves,” Gracian said. “Sometimes we need to have a program that’s a bit more expensive if it meets the needs of the people it serves.”

Mitchell, said Gracian, does not want to be part of the “whack-a-mole” game of shuffling RVs from block to block as residents and businesses call with concerns.

“The true solution is having homes” Gracian said. “The additional outcome is improvement to the physical environment for communities.”

The budget for this year’s Measure A revenue was sorted out early this month. County supervisors will hold a hearing on the rest of the budget for the county’s new homeless services and housing department on Feb. 27.

This year is the first for the L.A. County Homeless Services and Housing department, created after the county voted to pull back hundreds of millions in funding for the regional L.A. Homeless Service Authority.

Gracian said the county is still sorting out how the new department will work. It will take over the bulk of the former LAHSA funding this summer.