CFRW CAPITOL UPDATE – October 2, 2025

Summary of AB 144 and the West Coast Health Alliance

In response to the Trump administration and Robert F. Kennedy Jr, California passed AB 144 and in addition joined Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii to create the West Coast Health Alliance (WCHA). These steps ensure that West Coast states maintain their own separate immunization policies against federal agencies even when they withdraw vaccine recommendations.
But AB 144 was not a straightforward piece of legislation. It was pushed through in the final 48 hours of the legislative session using a gut-and-amend tactic— a completely different bill where the language was completely rewritten at the last minute. As a result, the public never had a chance to weigh in, and lawmakers had no real opportunity to hear testimony, debate, or thoroughly vet the measure before it became law.
California’s AB 144 shifts vaccine decision making from federal authorities (like the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). The law:

• Establishes a baseline list of immunizations and preventive services recognized federally as of January 1, 2025.
• Authorizes CDPH to modify or expand recommendations without lengthy rulemaking.
• Requires doctors, pharmacists, and other providers to follow state, not federal, guidance when administering vaccines.
• Mandates that state regulated insurance plans and Medi-Cal cover CDPH recommended vaccines at no cost.
• Bundles in updates to clinical laboratory licensing fees.

At the same time, California joined Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii in forming the West Coast Health Alliance (WCHA), a regional coalition that issues unified vaccine recommendations. The alliance was created to maintain scientifically grounded guidance amid their concerns over federal politicization. In September 2025, WCHA released recommendations for COVID-19, flu, and RSV vaccines that are broader than federal guidance for groups like pregnant women and all individuals six months and older.
Implications:

• More local control and agility: California can adapt vaccine guidance quickly to new outbreaks or variants.
• Broader insurance coverage: If CDPH recommends a vaccine, insurers must cover it with no copays.
• Regional consistency: WCHA aligns recommendations across West Coast states
• Potential conflicts: Federal programs (like Vaccines for Children) may not fully align with state guidance, creating administrative and reimbursement challenges.
• Trust and credibility questions: State led guidance raises concerns about politicization.

AB 144 and the West Coast Health Alliance mark a significant shift in public health governance. California and partner states are taking vaccine authority into their own hands, aiming to ensure access to their own choice of vaccines regardless of federal guidance and studies while also creating new complexities in how vaccine policy is coordinated nationwide.

SB 771- Social Media Accountability for Algorithmic Amplification of Harmful Content
 
Signed by Governor Newsom, SB 771 takes effect January 1, 2027. The bill would fine large social media companies up to $1 million if their algorithms amplify content that violates state civil rights or harassment laws. It treats algorithmic recommendations as the platform’s own actions, not just user speech, and presumes companies know how their systems work.
 
The law will likely face major legal challenges under Section 230 and the First Amendment, since the First Amendment specifically states “Congress shall make no law… abridging free speech” and this is directly a government agency passing a law that defines what speech is acceptable, going beyond merely censoring incitement to violence, a point many people in other parties have been interpreting incorrectly.
 
Likely Legal Challenges / What Courts Would Examine

• Federal preemption / Supremacy Clause: If SB 771 conflicts with Section 230 (federal law), courts could find that the state law is preempted. Section 230 has been interpreted by many courts as providing immunity for user content, even some algorithmic recommendation. SB 771 would likely be challenged under this.
• First Amendment: Content regulation must be narrowly tailored. If SB 771 is interpreted to force removal / suppression of protected speech (even distasteful speech) simply because it is amplified by algorithm, courts may see that as unconstitutional overreach.
• Vagueness / Overbreadth: Terms like “relay content via algorithms,” “reckless,” “knowing,” “aiding, abetting,” etc., could be challenged for being vague. Platforms could argue the law doesn’t give sufficient guidance as to what behavior triggers liability.
• Burden and proof: Plaintiffs must meet high burdens to prove knowledge, causation, that algorithms acted in a way that violates a civil rights statute. Also, very large damages exposure could be viewed as punitive or excessive.

Bottom Line: Can SB 771 be Implemented/Fine Platforms Despite Section 230?
Yes — but probably not without changes, legal clarification, or court decisions that narrow Section 230 immunity (especially around recommendation algorithms). SB 771 is essentially pushing into that area: it is trying to treat algorithm driven amplification as something that goes beyond what Section 230 protects.
If courts accept that amplification / recommendation is an action in itself (rather than “merely” hosting content), then SB 771 could survive. If not, then it may be blocked or struck down or require amendments. Also, it will likely lead to major litigation to test these issues.

SB 627- No Secret Police Act
 
Signed by Governor Newsom, SB 627 takes effect in 2026 and bans law enforcement officers from wearing extreme facial coverings like ski masks or balaclavas while on duty in public, with limited exceptions for medical, wildfire, or tactical needs. The bill requires agencies to adopt public policies by July 1, 2026, restricting face coverings, and imposes penalties if violations occur, ensuring greater accountability and preventing “secret police” (as they call it) practices in California.
 
Federal Immunity and the Supremacy Clause: Making this law unenforceable
 
In response to California’s SB 627, the “No Secret Police Act,” Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli issued a statement asserting that the state lacks jurisdiction over federal operations. He emphasized that, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law supersedes state law, and thus, California’s law cannot dictate federal law enforcement practices Essayli directed federal agencies to disregard the state mandate, maintaining that it has no effect on federal operations. This stance underscores the ongoing tension between state and federal authorities regarding law enforcement policies and jurisdiction.