Chris Micheli

Considering Legislative Statements with Unambiguous Statutes  By Chris Micheli             As a general rule, California courts only consider extrinsic evidence (such as committee or floor analyses) when a statute is ambiguous. In other words, if a statute is clear, then the plain meaning of the language controls and there is no reason to consult other evidence of legislative intent. However, I raise the question whether legislative statements, such as findings and declarations, that are codified or uncodified by the bill adding or amending the statute at issue in litigation be considered by the courts regardless of whether the language is “ambiguous” to them. In other words, even if a statute is “unambiguous,” (although if it is that abundantly clear, why would there be litigation?) should the courts review legislative findings and declarations or statements of legislative intent in order to ensure that the court’s inter...

Statutory Exemptions from the Public Rulemaking Process  By Chris Micheli             Why does the California Legislature continue to adopt partial or full exemptions in statute from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)? A fundamental purpose of both the federal and California Administrative Procedure Acts is to allow public participation, including notice and comment, in the federal and state rulemaking processes. The only regulations that do not fall under the purview of the APA are those carved out by a statutory exemption. Providing notice to the public of the proposed rulemaking, as well as an opportunity to be heard during the rulemaking process, is key to having meaningful public participation in the quasi-legislative actions of executive branch agencies, departments, boards, commissions, and bureaus. And there are over 200 of those entities in California statute government. However, with any exemption from the f...

Supreme Court Cited a Lobbyist’s Memo as Legislative History  By Chris Micheli             As a general rule, California courts exclude or heavily discount statements by lobbyists as cognizable legislative history when interpreting ambiguous statutes. Based upon the landmark decision in Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. decided by the Third District Court of Appeal, California courts restrict cognizable legislative history to documents that shed light on the collective, objective intent of the Legislature as a whole, rather than subjective or unilateral opinions (which a lobbyist’s point of view likely represents).             As a result of the Kaufman decision, unilateral letters, testimony, or position papers submitted by lobbyists, individual interest groups, or private proponents or opponents are typically viewed as expressions...

Some Statistics from the 2025-26 Legislative Session  By Chris Micheli               Because I am a self-professed legislative geek, I share the following statistics from the recently-concluded 2025-26 California Legislative Session:   ·        There were 1,846 bills introduced during the 2026 Legislative Session. Of those bills: o    583 were Senate Bills. o    1,263 were Assembly Bills. ·        Total bills passed by the Assembly in 2026 Session: 857 (68% of introduced bills) ·        Total bills passed by the Senate in 2026 Session: 521 (89% of introduced bills) ·        There were 414 spot bills between the two houses in the 2026 Session. ·        There were 179 intent bills between the two houses in the 2026 Session. ·  ...

Why Might a Bill Be Referred to More than One Committee?  By Chris Micheli             Bills in the California Legislature are referred to at least one policy committee in each house, and just over 80% of those bills also get re-referred to the respective Appropriations Committees for a hearing on the fiscal impacts. In some instances, bills get “double-referred” or even “triple-referred” to multiple policy committees. In other words, these terms refer not to a policy and a fiscal committee, but rather to two or more policy committees.             Why might a bill be referred to more than one policy committee? As a general rule, a bill is referred to the committee(s) that have jurisdiction over the provisions of the bill based upon the rules of the respective house and past referral decisions.                In the Senate...

The Labyrinth of “Underground Regulations” in California Administrative Law  By Chris Micheli We know that California state agencies, departments, boards, commissions, and bureaus often issue guidelines, manuals, bulletins, or policy letters that have the practical force of law, but which completely bypass the formal public notice, comment, and Office of Administrative Law (OAL) review processes for regulations.             California law sets forth a statutory threshold under Government Code Section 11340.5. And OAL’s Regulations define an underground regulation. However, practitioners and the regulated community come across instances in which an agency's seemingly "internal guidelines" or "frequently asked questions" can inadvertently become an illegal, underground regulation if they are used as standards of general application. Recall that an “underground regulation” in California is any unadopted rule, guideline, or e...