California legislators reject two bills banning transgender women in female sports
The Brief
Both AB 89 & 844 failed in committee in the California Legislature.
Gov. Newsom recently said trans women in female sports is 'unfair'.
Proponents vow to continue fighting to keep trans women out of female sports.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Two bills that would've banned transgender athletes in girls' and women's sports were rejected on Tuesday in the state legislature. With Democrats holding the majority, both bills failed as committee members voted along party lines.
A local political analyst says this vote not only clarified how most voters in California feel, but it was also a message to President Trump about his agenda.
"This was framed, very much, as something being done in opposition to the Trump Dept. of Education," said Melissa Michelson, Menlo College Political Science professor.
After Assembly Bills 89 and 844 were defeated on Tuesday, political analyst Melissa Michelson says Democrats are pushing back on President Trump's educational agenda, which they say would abandon transgender rights, even with the threat of losing federal funding.
"For Democrats, they just see this as a win. They can position themselves as the party of opposition, blocking the Trump agenda. Also, being in community with transgender people," said Michelson.
What they're saying
"In Nazi Germany, transgender people were persecuted and barred from public life," said Rick Chavez Zbur, Democratric Assembly member from Los Angeles.
Tuesday morning in Sacramento, legislators debated the issue and listened to testimony for hours before taking a vote. Sophia Lorey, a spokesperson for the California Family Council, testified during the hearing and sent KTVU this statement, saying in part:
"Today, they didn't just kill a bill. They sent a message to every female athlete that her safety, privacy and fairness don't matter," said Lorey.
Gov. Newsom also recently called having trans women in female sports 'deeply unfair' while on a podcast. Still, advocates for the gay and trans community believe the bills are a deflection from the issues Californians care most about.
"Dealing with rising healthcare costs, dealing with public safety concerns. Instead, they're focusing on a statistically tiny number of students who just want to play sports alongside their teammates, just like any other kid would," said Tom Temprano, Managing Director for Equality California.
What's next
The California Family Council says this fight isn't over. They plan to support another bill for girls' rights in sports authored by Assembly member Shannon Grove and do what they can to get it to the Senate floor for a vote this year.
The Source
Equality CA, CA Family Council, LegiScan, KCRA, previous KTVU reporting
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Mahmoud Khalil Blasts Trump After Release: 'They Chose The Wrong Person'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil has said the Trump administration "chose the wrong person for this" after he was freed from a Louisiana ICE detention center on Friday on a judge's orders. Khalil, a Syrian born former Columbia University student, was detained by federal immigration authorities on March 8 after the Department of Homeland Security alleged he was a national security threat, something he has strongly denied. Newsweek contacted the Department of Homeland Security and Columbia University for comment on Saturday via email outside of regular office hours. Why It Matters Since coming to power in January, the Trump administration has targeted foreign born university students who it claims have been involved with disruptive pro-Palestinian activism on campus, with a number having their visas revoked and being detained by ICE. Trump has sought to crack down on pro-Palestinian activism in universities more broadly following a series of Gaza solidarity camps on campuses around the country from April to July 2024. The administration moved to ban Harvard from enrolling foreign students after it rejected demands related to campus activism, though this was later blocked by a judge. What To Know Khalil was released on bail shortly before 8 p.m. ET on Friday after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz concluded he is not a flight risk as he's married to a U.S. citizen, has no criminal record and a baby at home. He spent more than three months in custody after being detained in March outside his apartment on the Columbia University campus. Khalil was involved with pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia and was involved in mediating with university leaders. On June 11, Farbiarz ruled Khalil could not be detained or deported based on Secretary of State Marco Rubio's determination. However, two days later, Farbiarz said he would not order Khalil's release after the Trump administration said he committed fraud on his green card, which the former student's legal team then appealed. Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil speaking after his release from federal immigration detention on Friday, June 20, 2025. Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil speaking after his release from federal immigration detention on Friday, June 20, 2025. Matthew Hinton/AP Speaking to reporters after his release, Khalil said: "Hundreds of men who I left behind me shouldn't have been there in the first place. The Trump administration are doing their best to dehumanize everyone here whether you are a U.S. citizen, an immigrant, or just a person on this land doesn't mean you are less of a human." Asked by a reporter from The Guardian whether he had any message for the Trump administration, Khalil replied: "Trump and his administration they chose the wrong person for this. That doesn't mean that there is a right person for this. "There's no right person who should be detained for protesting a genocide, for protesting their university, Columbia University, that is investing in the genocide of the Palestinian people so this is my message." Khalil added that after returning home he would "hug my wife and son," stating he'd only been allowed to spend one hour with his son under supervised conditions whilst in detention. What People Are Saying DHS told Newsweek via email in a statement: "This is yet another example of how out of control members of the judicial branch are undermining national security. Their conduct not only denies the result of the 2024 election, it also does great harm to our constitutional system by undermining public confidence in the courts." Dr. Noor Abdalla, Mahmoud Khalil's wife, in a statement: "After more than three months we can finally breathe a sigh of relief and known that Mahmoud is on his way home to me and Deen, who never should have been separated from his father." Alina Das, one of Khalil's attorneys and co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at New York University School of Law, in a statement: "No one should fear being jailed for speaking out in this country. We are overjoyed that Mr. Khalil will finally be reunited with his family while we continue to fight his case in court." What Happens Next Despite his release, the legal case against Khalil remains open and he could still face deportation from the U.S. if the Trump administration wins its case. For now Khalil has regained his green card and will be allowed to travel to visit family in New York and Michigan, for court hearings in Louisiana and New Jersey and for lobbying in Washington, D.C.
San Francisco Chronicle
29 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump can keep control of National Guard in L.A., court rules
President Donald Trump appears to have acted legally in taking control of the California National Guard and sending thousands of its soldiers to the streets in Los Angeles to combat immigration protesters and protect government property, a federal appeals court ruled, allowing the troops to remain in action. Under legal standards that require 'deference' to the president's decisions, it is 'likely' that Trump 'lawfully exercised his statutory authority' based on a law that 'authorizes federalization of the National Guard when the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,' the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 3-0 ruling late Thursday. The panel consisted of two Trump appointees, Judges Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, plus Judge Jennifer Sung, appointed by President Joe Biden. The ruling extends an order the court issued June 12 blocking a decision earlier that day by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco that found Trump had acted illegally and ordered removal of 4,000 National Guard troops from Los Angeles streets. Trump said he took action after violent protests against workplace raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents injured officers and destroyed federal property. A lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom contended, and Breyer agreed, that local and state police had conditions under control. But the appeals court said there was enough evidence of violence to support Trump's decision, under the deferential standards of federal law. The day before the president issued his order, 'there is evidence that … protesters threw objects at ICE vehicles trying to complete a law enforcement operation, pinned down several (federal) officers defending federal property by throwing 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects,' and used 'large rolling commercial dumpsters as a battering ram' in an attempt to breach the parking garage of a federal building,'' the panel said, quoting court filings by the Trump administration. 'Federal property has been damaged and federal employees have been injured,' the court said. 'The Constitution assigns the power to 'call forth the Militia' to Congress, and Congress has delegated portions of that power to the President.' Federal law also requires a president who wants to take control of a state's National Guard to issue any such orders 'through' the state's governor. California's lawsuit contended the law gives Newsom authority to decide whether to federalize the guard, and that Trump had failed to consult with the governor or seek his approval. But the appeals court said the president had complied with the law by notifying California's adjutant general, the guard's commanding officer, who reports to Newsom. The panel rejected one of the Trump administration's arguments — that courts had no authority to determine the legality of the president's orders because the case raised political questions that are immune from judicial review. But the court said the administration's overall position was supported by an 1827 Supreme Court case, Martin v. Mott, that said a member of the New York state militia could be prosecuted for refusing President James Madison's order to join U.S. troops in the War of 1812. Under that ruling and subsequent cases that followed it, the panel said, 'we must give a great level of deference to the President's determination' that conditions in Los Angeles justified calling up National Guard troops. Breyer held a brief hearing Friday and told lawyers for the state and the federal government to file arguments by Monday on an issue not addressed by the appeals court: the possible application of the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law that generally forbids the use of military troops for civilian law enforcement. It could be used to challenge the Trump administration's decision to send 700 U.S. Marines to join the National Guard troops in Los Angeles. While Breyer acknowledged that the 9th Circuit panel had rejected his order to remove the National Guard from the city streets, he said those commissions are normally limited to 60 days, and asked the opposing lawyers for arguments on whether and how that time period could be extended. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law,' the governor said. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office represents Newsom in the suit, said the ruling was disappointing, but 'this case is far from over.' In Los Angeles, 'our state and local law enforcement officers responded effectively to isolated episodes of violence at otherwise peaceful protests and the President deliberately sought to create the very chaos and crises he claimed to be addressing,' Bonta said in a statement. 'While the court did not provide immediate relief for Angelenos today, we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.' The court's decision was criticized by the leader of a religious advocacy group, People Improving Communities through Organizing, which is taking part in protests against immigration raids. 'Regardless of what three judges say about the legality of unleashing the National Guard on peaceful protestors, its immorality was affirmed the moment President Trump made this decision,' said Joseph Tomás McKellar, executive director of PICO in California, in a statement. 'While we respect the rule of law, we'll keep fighting until these inhumane immigration raids stop.'
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
North Carolina Gov. Stein vetoes his first bills. They are on concealed carry and immigration
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein vetoed his first bills on Friday, blocking for now Republican legislation that would let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit and make state agencies and local sheriffs more active in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. Stein, who took office in January, issued his formal objections to three measures backed by the GOP-controlled General Assembly presented to him last week. The former attorney general also had the option to sign any of them into law, or let them become law if he hadn't acted on the legislation soon. The vetoed measures now return to the legislature, where Republicans are one House seat shy of holding a veto-proof majority. Its leaders will decide whether to attempt overrides as early as next week. Voting so far followed party lines for one of the immigration measures, which in part would direct heads of several state law enforcement agencies, like the State Highway Patrol and State Bureau of Investigation, to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But one House Democrat ended up voting for the other immigration bill that Stein vetoed. It toughens a 2024 law that required sheriffs to help federal agents seeking criminal defendants. GOP prospects for enacting the permitless concealed gun measure, a longtime aspiration for gun-rights advocates, appear dimmer, because two House Republicans voted against the bill and 10 others were absent. Gun bill would let 18-year-olds carry concealed handgun In one veto message, Stein said the gun legislation, which would allow eligible people at least 18 years old to carry a concealed handgun, "makes North Carolinians less safe and undermines responsible gun ownership." Democratic lawmakers argued the same during legislative debate. Current law requires a concealed weapons holder to be at least 21 to obtain a permit. The person must submit an application to the local sheriff, pass a firearms safety training course and cannot 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun" to obtain the permit. No safety training would be required if getting a permit is no longer necessary. 'Authorizing teenagers to carry a concealed weapon with no training whatsoever is dangerous,' Stein wrote. Gun-control groups praised the veto. Conservative advocates for the bill say removing the permit requirement would strengthen the safety of law-abiding citizens. 'Law-abiding North Carolinians shouldn't have to jump through hoops to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights," Senate leader Phil Berger said in a press release criticizing the veto and planning for an override vote in his chamber. Permitless carry is already lawful in 29 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. Immigration bills focus on state agencies, sheriffs One vetoed immigration bill would require four state law enforcement agencies to officially participate in the 287(g) program, which trains officers to interrogate defendants and determine their immigration status. An executive order by President Donald Trump urged his administration to maximize the use of 287(g) agreements. Stein wrote Friday the bill takes officers away from existing state duties at a time when law enforcement is already stretched thin. The measure also would direct state agencies to ensure noncitizens don't access certain state-funded benefits. But Stein said that people without lawful immigration status already can't receive them. The other vetoed bill attempts to expand a 2024 law — enacted over then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto — that directed jails to hold temporarily certain defendants whom ICE believe are in the country illegally, allowing time for immigration agents to pick them up. The vetoed bill would expand the list of crimes that a defendant is charged with that would require the jail administrator to attempt to determine the defendant's legal status. A jail also would have to tell ICE promptly that it is holding someone and essentially extends the time agents have to pick up the person. Stein said Friday while he supports sheriffs contacting federal immigration agents about defendants charged with dangerous crimes that they are holding, the law is unconstitutional because it directs sheriffs to keep defendants behind bars 48 hours beyond when they otherwise could be released for a suspected immigration violation. With the veto of this bill, House Speaker Destin Hall said, Stein sided with the 'most radical elements of his party's base over the safety and security of North Carolinians.' Latino advocates and other bill opponents had urged Stein to veto both immigration measures. They say the legislation would cause Hispanic residents to feel intimidated and fear law enforcement. Stein's vetoes help 'ensure North Carolina remains a safe state for everyone, including immigrants, who deserve equal treatment under the law," the group El Pueblo said in a news release.
