The Brief

In November 2021, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the first 18 projects in the state’s plan to build a public broadband infrastructure system which would help bridge the digital divide between those who have access to high speed internet and those who don’t. That list included underserved communities of Southeast and South Los Angeles, Oakland and the Coachella Valley.

The plan is part of a “once-in-a-lifetime,” $6 billion state and federal investment, which includes $3.8 billion to build a backbone network of high-capacity fiber lines throughout the state, state officials said.

Over the last two years, the California Department of Technology, the agency responsible for mapping the broadband infrastructure, used community input and analysis from the state Public Utilities Commission to create its “ideal” map for the broadband network, said Mark Monroe, deputy director of the department’s middle-mile broadband initiative, at a July meeting.

Then this summer, some community leaders and advocates noticed that portions of the initially proposed broadband network would no longer be built with available funds. Instead, some of the neediest communities were pushed to an unfunded “phase 2” portion of the plan.

“It feels like we’re getting sent to the back of the line again,” said Isabel Aguayo, mayor of the Southeast L.A. city of Paramount.

Advocates and state and community leaders confronted state officials, asking why after years of working with community members to build an infrastructure system that would bridge the digital divide, some parts of the plan were suddenly defunded or deprioritized. Meanwhile, portions of the network infrastructure in wealthier areas, like Beverly Hills, have already been leased.

The Department of Technology responded recently to CalMatters that the governor is committed to funding the entire network with a 2024 budget allocation and that the project will no longer be completed in separate phases.

But the state is facing a $30 billion budget deficit, and some community leaders and advocates are skeptical that the governor will be able to keep his promise. They also said they’re frustrated by the state’s lack of transparency regarding changes to the network.

Broadband for all

Advocates of digital equity and state leaders worked for years to push for the 2021 law that would fund the new broadband infrastructure.

In California, 15% of households, or about 2 million residents, don’t have access to high speed internet, said Niu Gao, a researcher for the Public Policy Institute of California.

Often a few internet service providers have a monopoly over service in an area, which means they can determine pricing and choose where to do business. That has left lower-income and Black, Latino, tribal and rural communities underserved or paying unaffordable prices for internet access, Gao said.

The COVID pandemic shed light on an existing internet equity problem.

School districts provided hotspots and free devices to help students who lacked computers and internet accessibility at home, so they could complete school assignments while their schools were closed. But even with the technology, a lack of broadband infrastructure meant many students experienced slow internet speeds, which made it difficult for them to stay on track.

A 2021 photograph of two elementary-age Salinas girls doing their homework in a Taco Bell parking lot using the restaurant’s WiFi went viral, creating a flurry of concern over the now obvious digital divide.

The same year Newsom signed the bill approving broadband funding, saying the state was committed to addressing internet connectivity challenges the pandemic exposed. The state would use mostly federal dollars, including funds from the American Rescue Plan Act.

“This $6 billion investment will make broadband more accessible than ever before,” he said, “expanding opportunity across the spectrum for students, families and businesses — from enhanced educational supports to job opportunities to health care and other essential services.”

The broadband system would include “middle-mile” broadband networks and “last-mile” networks. Middle-mile broadband network refers to the fiber optic backbone network that will be built out across the state. Last-mile networks connect homes, businesses and schools to that larger state network.

The state would own and manage the system and municipalities, nonprofits, internet service providers and education agencies would tap into the network, in theory creating competition and lowering broadband prices for all Californians, said Gao, the public policy researcher.

Will Newsom keep his promise?

The California Department of Technology said in its July Middle-Mile Advisory Committee meeting that unexpected costs and inflation meant the funds allocated to the project weren’t enough to cover the 10,000 miles of middle-mile broadband that the state planned. The money would only cover 8,300 miles, leaving the remaining 1,700 miles of broadband unfunded.

In Los Angeles, middle-mile broadband infrastructure plans along major highways in South and Southeast L.A. cities were initially cut from the phase one plans, while infrastructure plans for Beverly Hills and West L.A. moved forward.

And in the Bay Area, broadband infrastructure in suburban Livermore and Pleasanton were in phase one plans, but some communities in Oakland were relegated to phase two, said Patrick Messac, director of Oakland Undivided, an organization that aims to help bridge the digital divide.

Although state officials previously spoke about the plan in terms of a “phase one” and “phase two,” after inquiries from media and digital equity advocates, they now say that work for the entire 10,000 miles is underway, although much of it is not yet funded.

“No one area is being prioritized over another by (the California Department of Technology),” said Bob Andosca, a spokesperson for the department. “The work will be authorized immediately in every area where Caltrans completes pre-construction work, and many projects will proceed simultaneously.”

A screenshot of the California Department of Technology’s Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative webpage.

(

Image via Wayback Machine on Aug., 11, 2023

)

Daniel Lopez, a spokesperson for the governor’s office, said closing the digital divide has been a top priority for Newsom.

“The governor’s commitment to that mission has not wavered and his January (proposed) budget will double down on the state’s work to deliver high-speed internet access to all communities across California and will fund the full 10,000 miles of middle-mile projects,” Lopez said.

The governor’s office did not answer specific questions about how much funding would be needed to cover the entire network, nor how the budget allocation would be possible if the state is facing a budget deficit.

“It’s really hard for the people of Oakland to trust more promises when so many have been broken in the past, and the state describes this broadband for all as a once-in-a-generation investment,” said Messac of Oakland Divided.

“The governor’s commitment to that mission has not wavered and his January (proposed) budget will double down on the state’s work to deliver high-speed internet access to all communities.”DANIEL LOPEZ, A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICELeaders of the California Community Foundation say they’re grateful the governor has committed to funding the whole network, but they worry the rollout has not been equitable and they are skeptical the project can be completed by the December 2026 deadline, given the overall budget deficit.

Jarrett Barrios, chair of the Digital Equity Team’s Angeleno Project, said the underserved communities were “lifted up” as the reason for seeking funding for a broadband project.

“Communities get overlooked again and again and again and that’s why they are underserved,” he said. “And it becomes habit.”

Assemblymember Mia Bonta, a Democrat from Oakland, met with top-level members of Newsom’s administration at the end of the legislative session to discuss the shortfall in funding.

“Assemblymember Bonta was upset to see a pattern in which the communities that were deprioritized were low-income and communities of color,” said Tomasa Duenas, her spokesperson. “This includes a major portion of Oakland that has historically been underserved by broadband but has a huge need for proper infrastructure … She, along with the California Legislative Black Caucus and others, will be watching to make sure (Newsom) keeps his promise. Too much is at risk.”

Rural and underserved cities left behind

The state’s $6 billion investment includes $2 billion for state grants to go to local governments, internet service providers, nonprofits, libraries and education agencies that plan to build last-mile networks connecting to the state’s network.

The technology department received 483 applications from entities in every county, requesting a total of $4.6 billion, more than twice the grant money available.

But with the changes to the middle-mile plan, some communities that applied for those grants are wondering if their work was in vain.

The middle-mile changes likely will determine which municipalities and agencies are prioritized for the grants. The farther away a last-mile project is from the middle-mile network, the more expensive it is, making broadband projects in underserved communities less tenable, said Shayna Englin, director of the California Community Foundation’s Digital Equity Initiative.

Some groups chose to scale back ambitious plans because they no longer know what middle-mile networks are guaranteed.

Others have chosen to wait to see if the state Public Utilities Commission has answers about which projects will be funded or delayed, Englin said.

One of those project applicants is the Gateway Council of Governments, a group of 26 Southeast Los Angeles-area cities, including Compton, Paramount, Bellflower and Lakewood.

The leaders of the council were excited to learn in November 2021 they would be prioritized. They immediately got to work.

The group applied for the state grant and invested two years developing a cost analysis and initial design plan to link their communities to the state’s broadband network, said Andrew Vialpando, a spokesperson for Paramount’s mayor. Now the group has chosen to scale back its plan, cutting out six underserved cities, including Paramount, Compton and Bellflower.

“It was something we were all getting behind,” said Compton Mayor Emma Sharif. “We were excited about it. All of a sudden we looked up and said ‘Wait a minute, what happened?’ It was devastating for us. This is something I was really hoping to bring to my community.”

Similarly 40 rural counties that make up the Rural County Representatives of California came up with a joint plan to build last-mile projects in 37 jurisdictions. They weren’t expecting the state to change the plan.

The most recent change to the maps the group used for its planning happened on or around Sept. 29, the day that applications were due, said Tracy Rhine, senior policy advocate with the Rural County Representatives of California. That change means a project they hoped to build in the majority Latino, farmworker community of Greenfield in Monterey County may no longer be viable.

Both groups still submitted their grant applications by the deadline. They said they’re unsure if they’ll receive the grants and haven’t received clarity or guidance from the state Public Utilities Commission about how to modify their applications based on the middle-mile network changes.

The California Public Utilities Commission, the agency in charge of disbursing funds for last-mile projects, declined interview requests from CalMatters. It did provide a statement in response to questions.

Terrie Prosper, a spokesperson for the state Public Utilities Commission, wrote applicants got “extensive technical assistance” before the applications were due and commission staff continues to work with applicants.

In the July 21 meeting, Public Utilities Commission officials said the grants will be disbursed in the first quarter of 2024.

The Department of Technology declined CalMatters’ request to interview department officials but answered questions via email.

In order to roll out the middle-mile network in the most cost efficient way, the Department of Technology is using a mix of methods, including purchasing or leasing existing fiber optic networks, which the state would operate and maintain, along with building new infrastructure. The state so far has spent $1.8 billion on various lease, purchase and joint-build agreements that will deliver 6,500 miles of the middle-mile network.

Most of that, $1.2 billion, went to leases for existing infrastructure. The state has contracts with 10 lease providers — private sector companies, government organizations and nonprofits — covering about 4,699 miles of the network. That includes leases for infrastructure in Beverly Hills and parts of West L.A.

Advocates also say the state is underestimating the number of households lacking broadband services because agencies are relying on flawed information from service providers.

Based on such Federal Communications Commission data, less than 10% of the population, or 20 million people, lack broadband internet, Gao, of the Public Policy Institute of California, said. However reports from broadband research organizations estimate about 42 million people are underserved.

Prosper, from the Public Utilities Commission, said state and federal officials acknowledge their broadband data is flawed.

Regardless, Sharif, Compton’s mayor, said cities in the second phase are keeping an eye on the broadband funding decisions, hoping Newsom will keep his promises.

“Our cities can’t afford to be pushed aside and forgotten,” she said. “These are critical steps to closing the digital divide, and we want to make sure we are part of that and that we are being thought of.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom claimed a major victory for his signature mental health court on Thursday, but critics say his math appears more than a little fuzzy.

Posting on X, Newsom wrote the CARE Court program “has now helped 10,000+ Californians get the lifesaving support and care they need and deserve – reaching (his administration’s) goal of 7,000 to 12,000 ‘initially served.’”

The administration’s most recent data on the program, which Newsom introduced with much fanfare in March of 2022, says CARE Court has reached just 1,470 people with treatment agreements or plans as of June. The data describes an additional 4,887 people who didn’t receive a formal CARE agreement or plan, but ended up getting services outside of the program. CARE is short for Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment Court.

The number of people included in treatment agreements or plans continues to fall far short of the administration’s initial projections, which estimated that 7,000 to 12,000 people would qualify for the program.

The figure is up from September 2025, when a CalMatters investigation found that only 528 people had been enrolled in CARE agreements or plans, and that many of those enrollees continued to struggle. A new in-depth report from the state, which provides detailed data on CARE Court participation, also shows that people who use CARE Court are experiencing better housing outcomes and increased access to mental health treatment and medication.

“I’ve had clients say, ‘This is the longest I haven’t been arrested,’ and that gives me goosebumps,” Katia Benthale, deputy public defender for Ventura County, said in a news release from the governor’s office touting CARE Court.

The governor’s office referred CalMatters’ questions to the state’s Health and Human Services Agency. Rodger Butler, a spokesperson for the agency, said CARE Court has reached more than 10,000 people – a conclusion the administration came to by adding together the 5,484 petitions filed as of June, plus the 4,887 people who first engaged with CARE Court but ended up getting services elsewhere.

But he acknowledged that math could double-count people, as some individuals may have been the subject of a petition and then received services elsewhere. And he acknowledged that it includes people who had their petitions dismissed without receiving services, and those whose petitions are still being processed and have yet to receive services.

Even so, the state stands by its framing of CARE Court as a success.

“Taken together, the picture is clear: thousands of Californians living with serious mental illness have been connected to care because of CARE,” Butler said in an email.

Advocates — both those who want more people ordered into treatment and those who view involuntary treatment as a violation of someone’s civil liberties — continue to criticize the program.

‘I though it would be the answer’

Family memberswhose loved ones live with untreated serious mental illnesses were once among CARE Court’s biggest cheerleaders. As the years pass, these families have increasingly voiced frustration with the program.

“The governor, I don’t know what county he’s seeing these results in,” said Gigi Crowder, chief executive of NAMI Contra Costa.

Crowder said the families she knows whose loved ones most need the help — unsheltered with severe mental illnesses — are not being served by CARE Court.

“Those family members are still pretty frustrated because they thought it would be the answer and it has not been,” she said. “Shoot, I thought it would be the answer.”

Disability rights advocates have long criticized CARE Court as being a poor use of state funds, and part of a larger swing toward forced treatment. They, too, are questioning the numbers that the administration is touting as evidence of its success.

They believe families are giving up on the program, a trend they see reflected in state data. It shows the proportion of CARE Court petitions filed by someone with a personal relationship to the participant dropping from 67% to 26%.

“It’s not surprising because CARE Court is not delivering on what it told families it would,” said Monica Gilbert, associate director and senior counsel of Public Policy for Disability Rights California. Newsom’s administration attributes that decline to a concurrent increase in petitions filed by mental health providers, likely due to more outreach, training and technical assistance.

Gilbert and Keris Myrick, the organization’s board chair, both sat on the state’s CARE Act working group and said they weren’t given a chance to review the report before it was published.

“Are we really involved, or are we window dressing?” Myrick said.

Is CARE Court helping with housing?

The new CARE Court report says that more people are using the program, and many are getting housing and services, but it also flags areas of concern. The time it took for courts to rule on CARE Court petitions varied widely from county to county, with median waits reaching three months in more densely populated areas. Counties also continue to dismiss large numbers of CARE Court petitions. Among the hundreds of people dismissed from CARE Court, nearly three-quarters received no county mental health or addiction services.

More than half of participants with active CARE plans or agreements experienced what the report called an “event that may signal a need that was not addressed,” while in the program. Those events included jail or prison encounters, conservatorships, hospitalizations and death.

When Newsom launched CARE Court, a major selling point was that it would help people living on the streets with serious mental illness. But CalMatters reporting found that it struggled to help unhoused Californians.

About a quarter of CARE Court participants were homeless when they started the program, according to the new state report. That low number is notable, said Samuel Jain, a senior policy attorney at Disability Rights, because the “governor’s whole thing is it’s supposed to be a panacea to solve the homelessness crisis.”

Of those enrolled in CARE Court, many participants’ housing situation changed for the better, the report said. The proportion of CARE Court participants living in temporary or permanent housing grew from 53% to 71%. Nearly half of all people who started CARE Court while homeless became sheltered or housed.

After five months in CARE Court, 87% of participants were accessing a mental health service and 61% were receiving medication, according to the report.

Legislators have called CARE Court a work in progress, and each year they pass new laws designed to fix perceived gaps in the program. Two such laws made it onto the books this year. One makes it easier for first responders, such as firefighters and EMTs, to refer people into CARE Court. The other lets family members give information about a participant to that person’s CARE Court treatment team, in the hope that it might be helpful for their treatment.

Two other bills, which would have created a direct path between CARE Court and the mental health conservatorship program, died before reaching Newsom’s desk.

Gov. Gavin Newsom this week vetoed a bill that would’ve stopped the Department of Motor Vehicles’ practice of keeping excess proceeds from the sales of towed cars.

The DMV’s handling of the money came under scrutiny following a CalMatters investigation that showed the agency had kept millions of dollars in proceeds without notifying the cars’ owners.

People who can’t afford the fines and fees after their cars get towed sometimes leave their vehicles at the storage yards, which can sell cars to recoup the costs through what’s known as a lien sale. The DMV can keep the money.

State law does not require the agency to tell people that they could claim their money, and after three years, owners lose their right to the money.

The bill by state Sen. Kelly Seyarto, a Republican from Murrieta, would have forced the DMV to turn those funds over to the state Controller’s Office to be treated like unclaimed property. It was passed by the Legislature.

“I support the author’s goal of helping vehicle owners recover excess proceeds that rightfully belong to them,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement. “However, this bill divides responsibility between two state agencies without establishing a clear process.”

The governor said the bill would force new costs without clearly getting more funds into the hands of car owners. He noted that the DMV has now created a tool to make it easier for car owners to find out if they’re owed money. The agency’s tool mimics one created by CalMatters.

As originally written, Seyarto’s bill would’ve required the department to notify owners within 14 days of receiving the surplus, but that provision was removed as the bill was amended in the legislative process.

Most lien sales don’t cover the towing and storage fees. However, CalMatters found that the DMV collected more than $8 million from nearly 5,300 cars sold at auction between 2016 through the fall of 2024.

The U.S. Supreme Court formally opens a new term on Monday, with big test cases on religion, bans on semi-automatic weapons, climate change, immigration and — waiting in the wings — election law cases.

It used to be that the first Monday in October marked the beginning of a new Supreme Court term. And that's still true, technically. But for all practical purposes, the formerly quiet summer months after the court finishes its opinions in all argued cases no longer exists.

Indeed, as Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck observes, the number of emergency appeals has ballooned during the Trump administration, while at the same time, fully briefed and argued cases have dropped precipitously over the years.

"So now we have twice as many full court rulings on emergency applications as we have on the merits docket," Vladeck observes, adding, "That is a very new phenomenon."

The difference is that decisions on the emergency docket are rendered quickly, with little briefing, no oral arguments, and ultimately little or no explanation of the ruling. In contrast, a decision on the merits is typically worked on for months after full briefing and lengthy oral arguments.

Of late, the court seems to be making an effort to offer some limited explanations of its emergency docket rulings, but lower court judges, both liberal and conservative, complain that isn't enough to provide them with adequate guidance. And the Trump administration often takes what used to be the rare step of getting to the Supreme Court by leapfrogging over lower appellate courts that the administration views as hostile.

With that backdrop, here are the cases the court will be hearing in the coming weeks:

Climate change

The opening case, to be argued Monday, tests whether state and local governments can sue energy companies for allegedly deceiving the public about the damaging effects of fossil fuels.

"The theory is that the energy company defendants deceived the public for many years," says Deepak Gupta, who teaches at Harvard Law School and practices law in Washington, D.C. What the companies were telling the public for years, he says, is "the opposite of what the company's own scientists knew, and the local cost of that deception."

That said, however, most court observers see the case as an uphill battle for environmentalists.

Religion

Perhaps the biggest case of the term so far, in terms of ripple effects, involves religion, a subject on which the court's conservative supermajority has dramatically changed its legal doctrine. Indeed, for the better part of a century, the Supreme Court emphasized the First Amendment's separation of church and state, with the free exercise of religion playing an important — but secondary — role. Since President Trump's appointment of three new justices, however, things have changed.

"It's literally the opposite of what the law was not that long ago, and it's just a complete shift," observes Michigan State University law professor Frank Ravitch.

The court may, in fact, be on the verge of requiring taxpayers to fund religious schools that refuse to admit LGBTQ students and parents. Last term the justices deadlocked on the issue in a separate case after Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself because of a conflict. The 4-4 tie vote automatically left in place an Oklahoma Supreme Court decision that barred overtly religious charter schools from being funded by the taxpayers. But this year the issue is back in a case from Colorado. The case centers on a state law that provides universal preschool programs that are open to all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation or gender identity.

St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton, Colo., wants the state funding guaranteed in the state's universal pre-K law. But it doesn't want to admit LGBTQ students or students with gay or trans parents. The parish maintains such admissions would violate the church's right to the free exercise of religion. The state counters that funding the church school would violate the state's anti-discrimination law.

The court's conservative majority has, in multiple cases, ruled in favor of religious exemptions from generally applicable laws. Until now, however, the court has never said that religious schools are entitled to full taxpayer funding. But given the current court's views, and with Justice Barrett participating in the Colorado case, taxpayers could well end up having to fund religious schools in Colorado and elsewhere.

Bans on semi-automatic weapons

In December, the court will hear a case testing whether state and local governments violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms when they ban semi-automatic weapons, like the AR-15.

Former Solicitor General Don Verrilli, Jr. articulates two different ways to look at the question.

On the one hand, the AR-15 "can deliver upwards of 100 bullets per minute" without any enhancements, and 500 bullets per minute with various enhancements. On the other hand, he notes that millions of Americans own AR-15s, "and it would be quite disruptive to suggest all these Americans ... would be dispossessed of their weapons."

Lawyer Erin Murphy, who has litigated lots of cases on behalf of gun owners, says the "single most important question is who gets to decide what guns you have," and he argues it makes no sense to say, "You've got this right against the government, but the government decides which arms you can get."

Immigration

The Trump administration has repeatedly taken positions in immigration cases that no other administration has adopted. Most recently, the court announced it would hear arguments and decide a case testing whether the Department of Homeland Security may deport migrants to so-called "third countries," when their countries of origin refuse to accept them. Since Trump began his second term, his administration has deported thousands of people to third-world countries where they have no connections, may not speak the language, have often been jailed and allegedly subject to torture. The court has twice blocked lower court decisions that prevented the third-country policy, and now the justices have said they will hear arguments about the policy in December.

In a second immigration case, the issue is the Trump administration's policy of detaining undocumented immigrants without a bond hearing, regardless of how long they have been in the U.S.

Possible cases: The 10 Commandments and much more

There are many more cases waiting in the wings that the justices may take up. Among them is a case that seeks to reverse a nearly half-century-old Supreme Court precedent; it bars public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. Now, however, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Alabama have passed laws that conflict with the Supreme Court's 1980 ruling, and the lower courts are split on the question. That split all but guarantees that the Supreme Court will revisit the question.

Another case that could make it to the court this term tests whether states can regulate Kalshi, the $40 billion prediction market behemoth that has sports fans betting on everything from the next pitch to the point spread or, at the other end of the spectrum, betting on the outcome of Supreme Court cases.

And then there are cases that the Trump administration has slow-walked for close to two years, after quickly losing in the lower courts. Prime examples are the administration's attempt to deny medical research grants to Harvard University, and other attempts to deny security clearances to law firms, as well as seeking money damages from law firms Trump views as hostile. Earlier this year, the Justice Department told a federal court in Washington that it was dropping the law firm cases. But the next day it went back to court to reverse course.

"They don't want to take up cases that they're going to lose, but on the other hand, they have a boss who wants everything taken up there [to the Supreme Court]," says Stanford University law professor Pam Karlan.

Georgetown's professor Vladeck adds that in his view, "The real story of the upcoming term hasn't been written yet because what we're going to look back on as the biggest cases of the term … are not on the docket yet."

Elections

More immediately, the probability is that, like it or not, the justices will be drawn into the election. The Trump administration has sought to influence elections in numerous ways, and it's unclear what efforts the administration might take going forward.

Democrats have a battalion of lawyers lined up to deal with problems on the ground — whether it's moving polling places at the last minute or having federal agents stationed near polling places. But if there are serious voting problems, they will likely end up at the Supreme Court's door — on the emergency docket.
Copyright 2026 NPR

Malibu is pushing back the next phase of its speed camera program along a deadly stretch of PCH to November. The 60-day warning period was originally set to start in November, where drivers going 11 or more miles per hour over the speed limit will get a warning instead of a fine.

The delay, the city says, is needed so adjustments can be made to camera installations.

Yesterday, a Nobu worker was killed about a block from the upscale Japanese restaurant on PCH. CBS LA reports that a juvenile had crashed into the employee's parked vehicle.

When fines start

Malibu officials announced the delay of the program's warning phase last week after a testing period in September recorded around 100,000 speeding violations in less than 10 days.

Enforcement at the 10 cameras along a 21-mile stretch of Pacific Coast Highway will start sometime after the end of the warning period. According to the city, violations will result in fines, but not driver’s license points or insurance penalties.

Why Malibu added speed cameras

Since 2010, traffic collisions on that part of PCH have killed more than 60 people, the city says. In 2023 alone, there were 220 reported crashes there, with 93 injuries and seven deaths — including four Pepperdine University students who were standing along PCH when a driver hit and killed them. The driver, who is charged with murder, is scheduled to stand trial beginning Dec. 1.

Following that incident, Malibu City Council declared a local emergency over dangerous conditions posed by reckless and speeding drivers.

In 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 1297 into law to allow Malibu to install the speed cameras