Chris Micheli

Tension Between Legislative and Judicial Branches on Statutory Interpretation  By Chris Micheli             Is there a natural tension between the legislative and judicial branches of state government on statutory interpretation? I suggest that there is an inherent tension between the two separate, but co-equal branches. Why?             Recently I came across the following provision in a bill from the 2026 California Legislative Session:   This paragraph shall not be interpreted to require coverage as provided in Division 7 (commencing with Section 16000) of the Vehicle Code. While the Legislature occasionally puts in state statute these types of provisions (another common one requires a statute “to be liberally construed”), as a practical matter, the legislative branch cannot tell the judicial branch how to interpret the law (because the role of the judiciary...

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...