California Supreme Court Watch

#22-228 Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, S275272. (B306321; 78 Cal.App.5th 1081; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BC676283.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Does Penal Code section 148.6, subdivision (a), particularly subdivision (a)(2), constitute improper viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment? (2) Does Penal Code section 148.6, subdivision (a), particularly subdivision (a)(2), impose an impermissible burden on the ability to file, or on the City to accept, police misconduct complaints? (3) Is it error to compel the City to comply with a statute that has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit?

Petition for review granted; issues limited: 8/17/2022

Case fully briefed: 2/03/2023

Cause argued and submitted: 5/21/2025

Submission vacated: 7/09/2025

“The court vacated submission in this matter and directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the following issue: What impact, if any, does the United States Supreme Court decision in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton (June 27, 2025, No. 23-1122) 606 U.S. ___ [2025 WL 1773625], have on the issues presented in this case?”

Supplemental brief filed: 7/30/2025

Opinion filed; judgment reversed: 11/10/2025

Rehearing petition filed: 11/25/2025

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (2025) __ Cal..5th __.)

“The issue presented in this case is whether [Penal Code] section 148.6(a)’s provisions violate constitutional free speech rights. We conclude that they do….  [W]hile the Legislature had a legitimate and significant interest in remedying the harmful effects of abusive false claims of police misconduct, section 148.6(a) is not narrowly tailored to meet those objectives. Instead, the statute establishes an ill-defined, asymmetrical criminal provision (see § 148.6(a)(1)) that is accompanied by an unusual admonition requirement. Considered together, those elements ‘create[] a potent disincentive for citizens to file’ even well-intentioned complaints of police misconduct. (Hamilton II, supra, 325 F.Supp.2d at p. 1094.) Thus, while we reaffirm Stanistreet’s conclusion that the Legislature is authorized to take steps to protect the integrity of the peace officer complaint process (see Stanistreet, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 510), we part ways with Stanistreet by now concluding that, as presently drafted, section 148.6(a) ‘”burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.”‘ (Packingham, supra, 582 U.S. at p. 105 [describing intermediate scrutiny standard].)”

Justice Groban authored the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Kruger, Evans, and Jenkins* concurred.

Justice Liu filed a dissenting opinion.

In the news: Egelko, State Supreme Court to review California law that requires a warning for people reporting police misconduct, S.F. Chronicle (Aug. 17, 2022).

In the news: Cooley, Bar on False Police Misconduct Reports Is Unconstitutional, Metropolitan News-Enterprise (Nov. 12, 2025).