Amid rising tensions between California and the federal government over immigration policy and legal protections, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two bills, Senate Bill 1 (SB1) and Senate Bill 2 (SB2), into law.

These measures aim to expand funding for legal aid programs supporting the state’s most vulnerable residents. The legislation is part of a broader state effort to counter potential federal enforcement actions and provide essential legal services to those in need.

After signing the bills, Newsom issued a statement emphasizing that the funding will support people with disabilities, homeless youth, victims of human trafficking and wage theft, those facing unlawful evictions, and immigrants:

"I am signing Senate Bill X1 2, which will bolster funding for legal services programs that are vital to safeguarding the civil rights of California’s most vulnerable residents, including people with disabilities, youth who are homeless, victims of human trafficking and wage theft, people facing unlawful evictions, immigrants, and more."

However, he also asserted that none of the funding would be used for immigration-related legal services for noncitizens convicted of serious or violent felonies:

"None of the funding in this bill is intended to be used for immigration-related legal services for noncitizens convicted of serious or violent felonies."

In light of the enormous controversy surrounding California immigration and Newsom's ongoing conflict with President Donald Trump, we conducted a close examination of each bill's texts to apprehend whether Newsom's claims are accurate.

What the Bills Actually Say

Senate Bill 1 and Senate Bill 2 amend the Budget Act of 2024, providing $50 million in total grants to expand legal aid programs across California. Specifically, the bills state:

SB1: Litigation Against the Federal Government, Key Excerpts

"Notwithstanding any other law, the Department of Finance, upon providing advance notice of at least 10 days to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, may augment any item of appropriation in Section 2.00 for the purpose of defending the state against enforcement and legal actions taken by the federal government, filing affirmative litigation challenging actions taken by the federal government, and taking administrative action authorized under state law to mitigate the impacts of actions taken by the federal government."

"Total augmentations authorized by this subdivision shall not exceed $25,000,000, and funds allocated pursuant to this subdivision shall be available for encumbrance until June 30, 2026, and for expenditure until June 30, 2028."

SB1 primarily funds the California Department of Justice to defend the state against federal legal challenges and take administrative action to mitigate federal policies affecting California.SB2: Legal Aid for Vulnerable Communities, Key Excerpts

"$10,000,000 to Item 0250-101-0001 to be distributed by the Judicial Council, through the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission of the State Bar, as grants to qualified legal services projects and support centers, as defined in Sections 6213 to 6215, inclusive, of the Business and Professions Code, to provide civil legal services for indigent persons."

"$10,000,000 to Item 5180-151-0001 to be available for grants or contracts, and state operations… to provide immigration-related services, including removal defense."

"$5,000,000 to Item 0250-101-0001 to be available to be distributed through the Judicial Council as a supplement to its existing contract with the California Access to Justice Commission as a one-time expansion of the commission’s grants to nonprofit providers of legal services."

Do the Bills Restrict Funding for Certain Noncitizens?

In his statement, Newsom claimed that none of the funding in these bills was intended for immigration-related legal services for noncitizens convicted of serious or violent felonies. However, the actual text of the bills does not impose this restriction. Nowhere in SB1 or SB2 does it state that legal funding cannot be used for immigrants with serious or violent felony convictions.

Instead, Newsom acknowledged that this limitation is not explicitly written into the law and encouraged the Legislature to pass follow-up legislation to clarify the restriction. His statement reads:

“To the extent further clarification is necessary, I encourage the Legislature to pass subsequent legislation providing that this funding is to be allocated consistent with the restrictions set forth in paragraph 3 of subdivision (b) of Section 13303 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.”

This means that while Newsom may intend for the funding to exclude serious felons, there is no legal mechanism in SB1 or SB2 that enforces this restriction.

Transparency and Oversight Measures

The bills include significant reporting requirements to track how funds are spent. Agencies receiving grants must submit detailed reports to the legislature, listing:

"Following the award of all funding made available pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Judicial Council shall provide a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee that includes, at a minimum, the grant awardees, grant amounts, and grant period."

Additionally, the Department of Social Services and the Judicial Council must notify lawmakers of how immigration-related legal services funds are distributed. However, none of these provisions explicitly restrict legal aid based on a recipient’s criminal history.

Conclusion

Gov. Newsom’s statement about who qualifies for legal aid under SB1 and SB2 is somewhat misleading. While he presents the bills as ensuring that legal services will not go to noncitizens convicted of serious felonies, the bills themselves do not include that restriction. Instead, he acknowledges that future legislation would be needed to impose such a limitation.

The bills do significantly expand legal assistance for vulnerable Californians, including immigrants, and contain oversight provisions to ensure accountability in fund distribution. However, critics arguing that the bills lack explicit safeguards against funding legal aid for serious felons are technically correct—such restrictions are not written into the law as signed.

As the debate continues, the question remains whether the Legislature will introduce follow-up legislation to clarify or impose the restrictions Newsom referenced.