The Brief

A highly anticipated — and controversial — new program, championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, will begin in Los Angeles County on Dec. 1. It’s called CARE Court and will allow family members to ask a judge to step in with a treatment plan for loved ones living with severe and untreated mental illness.

The basics of CARE Court: People living with a serious and untreated mental illness, like schizophrenia, could be referred for a court-ordered, voluntary care plan that could last up to two years. The petition could be filed by people including county behavioral health workers, first responders or family members.

“I would have had my petition by the first day,” Mike Estrada said from his home in Berkeley.

A feeling that the process is ‘a constant slap in the face’ 

For years, Estrada struggled to get help for his mother, Josie Estrada, who lived with schizoaffective disorder. The experience exasperated him so much that in 2020 he produced a one-hour documentary on her story, Benevolent Neglect.

The film is sprinkled with grainy family footage and stills of Josie’s life in California’s Central Valley. Estrada points out that his mother was “adored by the family.”

The documentary also includes videos shot on Estrada’s cellphone during some of Josie’s more difficult moments.

“In 2007, my mom began experiencing hallucinations. During acute episodes, she’d hear people inside the house,” Estrada tells the camera.

Estrada said the voices would tell his mother not to take her psychiatric medications. For more than a year, Josie lived out of her car after her erratic behavior got her evicted from her apartment. Time and time again, Estrada would plead with first responders to hospitalize her.

Often the people who were supposed to help would be hamstrung by a lack of psychiatric beds and what Estrada sees as overly strict criteria for hospitalizing someone against their will.

“As a family it’s just a constant slap in the face. Constant disrespect. In the meantime, our loved one is suffering, deteriorating before our eyes,” Estrada said.

His mother died in 2019, but he’s hopeful CARE Court will give families like his more leverage to get help.

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaking in March 2022 with local mental health service providers and officials about CARE Court.

(

Robert Garrova / LAist

)

Officials report an ‘unprecedented demand’ 

There are concerns, however, about whether the county’s behavioral health care system will have enough staff to meet the need.

In June, L.A. County supervisors voted to expedite hiring for CARE Court.

“In order to meet a variety of our expectations, including CARE Court — we’re focused on setting up the court infrastructure — the point is the judge will have to have a place to send that individual,” Supervisor Holly Mitchell said during the board meeting.

“I think the supervisors were right to be concerned about what kind of infrastructure is in place,” Dr. Lisa Wong, director of the L.A. County Department of Mental Health, told LAist.

“We’ve been having this unprecedented demand for mental health services in our system, so we know that the system is stretched. And we know that with CARE Court, we’re going to be working with some really high acuity individuals,” Wong added.

Wong said hiring has improved this year, but it’s still a major stress point as the county works to bring thousands more behavioral health beds online. And, Wong points out, the initial petition is just the beginning.

“What happens when that person has to go into treatment and how do we keep them engaged?” she said.

Defense attorneys' role

Some of that help will come from the new Independent Defense Counsel Office, which is separate from but administered by the Public Defender’s Office.

A new panel of about 50 specially selected attorneys will work with an estimated 1,900 respondents within the first six months of CARE Court.

“It will not only be there to represent the client’s legal interests and protect their civil liberties, but also to serve as a facilitator and an encourager and a supporter throughout the treatment program,” said Marco Saenz, Independent Defense Counsel program director.

He said those lawyers might encourage respondents to follow through with treatment, but they’ll also work to hold the behavioral health system accountable in providing services.

But the success of CARE Court will ultimately hinge on the participant

“Under the statute, the respondent can walk away at any time,” Saenz told LAist. “It’s completely voluntary. How that will work, we will see.”

Coercion or voluntary? 

CARE Court may be voluntary, but civil liberties groups continue to warn about stripping of individual rights.

If the care plan fails, the person could be hospitalized or referred to a conservatorship. That could mean forced treatment down the line.

Some 40 groups including JusticeLA, Disability Rights California and ACLU California Action signed a letter in 2022 opposing CARE Court. It reads, in part, that the plan is: “a system of coerced, court-ordered treatment that strips people with mental health disabilities of their right to make their own decisions about their lives.”

Mike Estrada would have been OK with conservatorship for his mother.

“I wanted her to have some chance of building her life back. And there was no way it was going to happen without her being stabilized,” Estrada said.

Mike and Josie Estrada.

(

Courtest Mike Estrada

)

There are also continued concerns about whether the public guardians’ offices throughout the state will be able to handle the potential increased conservatorship caseload. Public guardians' offices are responsible for guiding care for people who are deemed unable to do so themselves because of a serious mental illness.

“Everybody keeps saying, ‘We need facilities, we need facilities, there’s no room at the inn.’ And that’s true. If you talk to my members throughout the state, they are struggling to find placements,” said Tom Scott, executive director of the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, Public Conservators.

What's next

As CARE Court continues to roll out across the state, Estrada wants families like his to be allowed input in the process. And he wants to see counties held accountable for making it work.

Some counties, including San Diego, San Francisco and Orange County have a head start on L.A., because their CARE Court efforts launched in October.

According to California Health and Human Services, as of early November, there were a total of 80 CARE Court petitions statewide.

Saenz said the case volume in some places outside of L.A. County has been lower than what was anticipated.

But as a nearly 30-year veteran public defender who has represented “innumerous” clients living with mental illness, Saenz said he’s holding out hope that CARE Court will be able to help a population that is not generally reached.

“It’s another tool in our toolbox, and to the extent that we’re participants in it ... we’re going to be there to be supportive in any way we can,” Saenz said.

“But time will tell.”

The rent, as we all know, is too damn high.

So is California’s poverty rate.

The two things are related.

That’s the not-so-surprising finding of a new analysis published by the Pew Charitable Trusts: If California’s rents dropped to the national average, the state would slash its poverty rate by 30%. The child poverty rate would decline by 36%.

The report is meant to highlight an important, if sometimes overlooked, aspect of poverty: It isn’t just about how much a person makes.

“Anti-poverty programs will be much more effective if we address people’s expenses, and rent is the number-one line item for most Americans,” said Pew researcher Alex Horowitz.

Case in point: CalFresh, the state’s food stamp program, saw an increase of $13.1 billion in benefits between 1989 and 2023. Over that same period, rising rents ate away 78% of that increase, according to the analysis.

California’s official poverty rate, which currently matches the national average of 10.7%, has always been a misleading stat. Using another official measure that takes into account each state’s housing costs, the percentage of Californians living in poverty rockets up to 17.8% — the second highest rate in the country after Louisiana.

That makes bringing down rents an especially effective anti-poverty program. If the state’s rents fell by 20%, child poverty would decline by roughly a quarter, the report found.

Twenty percent may seem impossibly ambitious in a state where rents often only seem to go in one direction (with some noteworthy exceptions), but that’s roughly how much typical rents declined in Austin and Minneapolis between 2021 and 2025. Pew researchers attribute that feat of affordability to local policy changes that have allowed for more housing construction.

Those policies — allowing for denser housing in cities, reducing parking requirements for new developments, encouraging the construction of ADUs — mirror many of the laws adopted at the state level in California. Those laws have yet to result in a major increasein new housing, but proponents are optimistic that a building boom is on the horizon.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The largest planned deportation program in U.S. history swept up more than 38,000 people in California since February 2025. The federal government purchased detention facilities, in part to avoid scrutiny from local governments. Protests erupted against the detentions and the facilities, and police dispersed those protests with the help of stun grenades.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday signed a package of immigration bills that Democrats aim to disrupt the deportation program in California, limit the tactics of immigration enforcement agencies and open up federal agents to civil liability. The most significant bills will likely be tested in federal court.

They range from prohibiting immigration agents from using electric shock gloves to creating a bill of rights for people held in detention and extending the state’s power to investigate conditions inside detention centers.

The new laws come in the midst of an escalation in Trump’s deportation plan, with weekly immigration arrests hitting new records across the state.

“This is about stepping up where the federal government has failed our communities,” Newsom said in a written statement. “We will continue protecting our people, upholding the rule of law, and making clear that if the federal government operates in California, we will hold them accountable.”

The most sweeping change would allow anyone to sue federal agents for violations of their constitutional rights. Under federal law, the only legal relief available now to people who sue agents of the U.S. government is a “Bivens” action, named after the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case in which a man successfully sued drug enforcement agents who violated his Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure.

Supporters of the bill, which they call the No Kings Act, say it “closes that accountability gap [by] providing for a clear statutory pathway to sue any official — federal, state, or local — who violates the Constitution.”

“ICE and Border Patrol have terrorized California communities with impunity. That ends today,” Sen. Scott Wiener, the San Francisco Democrat who wrote the law, said in a written statement after Newsom signed it.

The bill’s opponents, which include dozens of California law enforcement agencies, argue that the law isn’t necessary, and that it will “promote second-guessing of a public employee’s actions made in good faith.”

The actions of immigration enforcement agents — including whether they are acting within their duties when they detain or kill someone, and whether they are following the laws of the state in which they’re operating — are at the center of court battles between California and the Trump administration.

The January fatal shootings of two American citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who were protesting the Trump administration’s deportation program in Minneapolis, underscored the stakes for California Democrats who demanded more accountability of federal agents. Dozens of people have been injured in protests, or when the agents misidentify a person as a deportation target.

When an unarmed person in California is shot and killed by a police officer, the state attorney general can investigate the shooting under a 2020 program. Newsom signed a law that duplicates that legislation, but applies it to immigration agents who kill unarmed people.

The state program would face an immediate legal problem stemming from an 1890 U.S. Supreme Court case that forbids states from prosecuting federal law enforcement officers acting in the course of their duties. That case played a critical role earlier this year when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a California law Newsom signed last year that tried to compel masked federal agents to identify themselves.

Other new California laws focus on conditions in immigrant detention centers. Detainees have complained of filthy drinking water, among other issues — most of them confirmed by investigations by counties and civil liberties groups. The private detention facilities provide water for sale in their canteens, but the prices were significantly marked up.

One of the new laws extends California’s authority to investigate private detention centers, a power it uses for annual reviews of medical care inside the facilities.

Here are some of the immigration-related bills Newsom signed into law:

• Civil lawsuits against federal agents: Senate Bill 747, the so-called No Kings Act, allows civil lawsuits against officers over alleged civil rights violations.
• Banning electric shock gloves: Assembly Bill 2760 prohibits federal agents from using electric shock gloves. Lawmakers advanced the bill quickly in response to reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement bought thousands of the weapons.
• Civil rights for detainees: SB 942 declares a bill of rights of people held in immigrant detention centers, including access to healthcare and healthy food.
• State investigations: SB 1399 extends a law that empowers state agencies to investigate conditions in immigrant detention centers.
• 911 calls: SB 423 requires government agencies to release details of emergency calls coming from immigrant detention centers. The bill was prompted by CalMatters’ reporting on alleged sexual assaults at Otay Mesa Detention Center.
• Access to state property: AB 1807 prohibits immigration agents from using state-owned property.
• Shooting investigations: AB 1806 requires state prosecutors to investigate shootings by federal immigration agents.
• Crowd control: SB 937 forbids law enforcement agencies from using flash-bang grenades to break up protests.

CalMatters reporter Wendy Fry contributed to this story.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

A federal judge has now granted Paramount’s settlement agreement with 12 states that sued over the company’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, allowing the companies to soon close their $81 billion mega merger.

In a Wednesday order, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín ruled that the proposed consent decree was a “fair, reasonable, and good faith approach to address the competitive harms” alleged by the states’ lawsuit. Paramount previously called the antitrust challenge the last hurdle ahead of closing its Warner merger, and signaled that it aims to close its Warner acquisition as soon as early October.

Shortly after Martínez-Olguín’s ruling on Wednesday afternoon, the company announced that Ynon Kreiz — current chief executive at toy giant Mattel — will join Paramount on Oct. 5 and serve as co-CEO alongside David Ellison of the combined company.

A Paramount-Warner marriage will bring together two of Hollywood’s last five legacy studios. HBO Max, a library full of titles including “Harry Potter” and cable networks such as CNN will also find themselves under the same roof with CBS, the likes of the “Top Gun” franchise and the Paramount+ streaming service.

Top prosecutors from 12 states — led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta — sued in July with an initial goal of blocking the merger altogether. They alleged a Paramount-Warner combo would “extinguish competition” and lead to fewer choices for consumers, particularly movie theatergoers and cable customers.

Last week, the states agreed to settle these claims through new commitments from Paramount, including pledges to increase film production in the U.S. over the next five years, commit millions of dollars to a fund aimed at supporting workers displaced by the merger and establish new editorial monitoring of CNN and CBS.

When announcing the deal on Sept. 21, Bonta said the settlement was about “protecting people’s careers, the lives they’ve built here in California, the livelihoods their families rely on,” while maintaining it was not a vote of support for the merger.

Many critics of the tie-up, however, quickly decried the deal as capitulating to corporate pressure and said the proposed terms were too weak. Martínez-Olguín didn’t greenlight the terms right away — maintaining at a hearing on Thursday that the court isn’t merely a “rubber stamp” on a settlement of this kind and that she, like many others, still had questions.

The judge granted outside critics of the settlement — including members of the Block The Merger coalition and the League of United Latin American Citizens — a brief window to share their opposition with the court through amicus briefs. She also instructed Paramount and the settling states to respond to a letter from Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, who called for a more thorough review of the deal.

By Wednesday’s order, however, she concluded that the hopes for settlement terms to go further “do not rise to the level of legal violations upon which the Court can reject the parties’ negotiated resolution.”

The Block the Merger coalition on Wednesday maintained the settlement was a “toothless” deal.

“Allowing the Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery merger to move forward with no meaningful structural remedies will cost jobs, mute creativity, weaken independent journalism, and damage our First Amendment rights,” Block the Merger said in a statement. But, the coalition added, “if there is one discernible benefit to the approval of this corporate takeover, it’s that people are now wide awake and paying attention –- and their anger is not going to fade away.”

The Writers Guild of America, which had filed its own suit shortly after the states in July, also reached a settlement agreement with Paramount last week — concluding that it couldn’t continue its legal fight alone.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Inglewood is staring down the barrel of a $30.8 million budget deficit next year, the city’s largest in at least two decades, but officials said locals don’t need to be worried. 

Inglewood’s budget ballooned after SoFi Stadium opened in 2020. City officials roughly doubled their spending from the general fund — the pot of money that pays for basic services from police to parks. 

Revenue also boomed in the first few years after the stadium’s opening, but since then hasn’t quite kept up with what’s been spent. 

City officials downplayed the projected deficit last week, saying in reports and presentations that reserves of more than $150 million will cover the gap this year and that they expect increased tax and other revenues to help take care of the problem in the future.  Mayor James Butts said locals have no reason to worry, and that the city’s reserves have enabled officials to be ambitious in their planning. 

Whether they have to dip into those savings at all depends on how locals vote for a ballot measure on Nov. 3. Officials predict Measure AT could wipe out the deficit entirely by bringing in as much as $45 million to $50 million extra in taxes on tickets to major events.

But_, if Inglewood continues to spend more than it takes in over the coming years and pulls too much out of its reserves, city officials could be pushed to lay off staff and cut funding for services, as they did during a fiscal crisis 15 years ago.

The City Council approved the budget proposal in a 4-0 vote at its Tuesday meeting. Councilmember Eloy Morales Jr. was absent.

Here’s a breakdown of Inglewood’s budget

Inglewood’s annual general fund revenue has grown by about $100 million over the last 10 years, driven in large part by increased property taxes and admissions tax.

But that growth has plateaued over the last five years, while expenditures continued to grow. The city plans to spend $279 million out of its general fund this year, more than double its annual spending prior to 2020.

(

The LA Local

)

The city’s total budget is $675 million. It includes the general fund as well as special funds that pay for things like major construction projects and affordable housing.

Police take the largest bite out of Inglewood’s general fund, followed by the public works and parks departments.

Outside the general fund, the city has also budgeted $239 million for capital projects.

(

The LA Local

)

Some of Inglewood’s largest sources of general fund revenue are property tax, sales tax and admissions tax. 

Property tax revenue has grown by leaps and bounds over the last five years, according to budget documents, but admissions tax and sales tax haven’t matched the growth.

(

The LA Local

)

Officials hope city reserves and a ballot measure will fill the deficit

Inglewood has had budget issues before. The deficit approached $18 million in 2010, just before Mayor James Butts was elected, while reserves fell to around $11 million.

This time around, officials say Inglewood has over $150 million in reserves. 

Butts said those reserves have allowed the city to take an aggressive approach to improving streets, traffic lights and other city infrastructure.

“We put the money there because we want the city to be rehabilitated,” Butts said.

Pulling from reserves, though, isn’t something a city can do indefinitely. City Manager Louis Atwell wrote in a budget report that staff expect tax revenue to keep increasing and new developments to give the city an additional boost. With staff keeping an eye on operating costs, Atwell wrote, those revenues would narrow the city’s budget gap down the line. 

This year’s election could also come into play. The two city ballot measures voters will see — AT and BB — are the product of a larger battle between the city and its stadiums over billboard advertisements and the development deal that brought SoFi Stadium to Inglewood.

Either measure could have a substantial effect on the city’s books. 

Inglewood currently pulls in a 10% tax on SoFi Stadium tickets, but with an annual ceiling on how much the city can get. Measure AT, backed by billboard company WOW Media, would remove the cap and add a new 2.5% tax for the Intuit Dome.

Officials estimated it would bring in between $45 million and $50 million extra annually, more than enough to cover the city’s current deficit. Atwell cautioned, though, that the figures aren’t guaranteed and could depend on economic conditions, the timing of the measure’s roll-out and other factors. 

On the flip side, officials said Measure BB could curtail billboard fees and ratchet the deficit up to almost $39 million. 

The initiative would ban most commercial advertising on the large video billboards that have cropped up along the city’s main roads. Measure BB would cut off a revenue stream that, according to past budget documents, has brought the city between $3 million and $7.5 million. 

City officials itemized how much Inglewood made from billboards in each of the last 10 years, but did not do so in this year’s budget. 

The ballot measures are just a few items on a packed Inglewood ballot that includes elections for mayor, two city council members and three Board of Education trustees.