2026 Updates to Racial Justice Act

The Legislature Laid Down the Law

The 2026 updates to Racial Justice Act were made with a clear purpose. The Legislature instructed the courts that they are to stop playing games and get the job done. They were not subtle about it.

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(d) Systemic racism and the White supremacy on which it is founded have remarkable powers of adaptation. When courts recognize only the most egregious, historic manifestations of racism, they allow present-day racism to go uncorrected. (Roberts, “Racism, Abolition, and Historical Resemblance” (2022) 136 Harv. L.Rev. F. 37.) The Legislature intends that in applying the RJA, courts consider evidence of racism’s origins, insidious shifts, and current manifestations. (AB1071 Sec. 1 (d))

The Legislature called out the courts for acting as White supremacists. A throw down that is simply unheard of. And good for them for calling it like it is.

If any one of those privileged justices had to endure what Blacks have had to endure, they would have crumbled at 25% of the load placed on Blacks. I am in awe of how Blacks have managed to keep a positive attitude despite having every reason to not.

What You Need to Know About the
Racial Justice Act 2026 Updates

The reason for this article is to point out the new changes that were made to Penal Code sec. 745 as the result of Assembly Bill 1071 and Senate Bill 734. Both bills were signed into law and filed with the Secretary on the same day, Oct. 13, 2025.

Long story short, a bill that is given a higher chapter number is controlling. AB1071 was Chapter 721 and SB734 was Chapter 784, that means if there are any differences between the two (and there are), then SB734 prevails.

Also each bill had at the end a Section that dictates which of the many versions the bills contained would end up controlling, see SB734 Sec. 6 and AB1071 Sec. 5.

Here are the conclusions resulting from each:

In AB1071 Sections 2, 3, & 4 were the winners.
In SB734 Sections 2.5, 3.5, & 4.5 were the winners.

The winners were determined by the Chapter numbers stated above and the provisions of Sections 6 & 5.

For example Sec. 6 “…this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 1071, in which case Section 2 of this bill shall not become operative.”

So now we know who won. The next question is, what did they win?

One of the hardest things to ascertain about changes in the law is what is different. Below highlights the differences between the bills and the new aspects of the law that were added or material things deleted.

The Differences Between SB734 and AB1071

Other then two additional commas in the text of SB734 (compared to AB1071), the difference was this additional paragraph in Sec. 745:

(c)(3) If the defendant is represented by an attorney and the motion alleges a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a), based in whole or in part on the conduct of one or more law enforcement officers, the attorney shall serve a copy of the motion on the law enforcement agency or agencies that employed the officer or officers.

The inclusion of the following to Sec. 1473 (the habeas corpus statute) also changed a few of the number from 7-8, but the text that matters was SB734 (compared to AB1071) had the following difference, just like Sec. 745, now Sec. 1473 contains:

(e)(6) If the defendant is represented by an attorney and the petition alleges a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 745, based in whole or in part on the conduct of one or more law enforcement officers, the attorney shall serve a copy of the motion on the law enforcement agency or agencies that employed the officer or officers.

Also the difference between the two as to Sec. 1473.7 (not in custody relief):

(3) (B) If the motion alleges a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 745, based in whole or in part on the conduct of one or more law enforcement officers, the person shall serve a copy of the motion on the law enforcement agency or agencies that employed the officer or officers.

The New Text Added to Penal Code Section 745 by SB734

A few of the words in this segment were in the original, but its easier to read by just showing the new block:

(d) In any proceeding alleging a violation of subdivision (a), a defendant or petitioner may file a motion requesting disclosure to the defense of all evidence relevant to a potential violation of subdivision (a) inthe possession or control of the state. A motion filed under this section, a motion under paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 1473, or a motion under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 1473.7….

(e)(1) Before a judgment has been entered, the court shall impose any of the following remedies:

(A) Grant a defendant’s request for a mistrial.

(D) Any other remedy not prohibited by another law.

(h) As used in this section and for the purposes of a petition pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 1473 or a motion pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 1473.7, the following definitions apply:

Technically this was not a change in text, they just moved it to a stand alone subdivision:

(l) When the court finds there has been a violation of subdivision (a), the defendant shall not be eligible for the death penalty.

Some Big Changes to Penal Code Section 1473 Were Made

(d) This section does not limit the grounds for which a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted or preclude the use of any other remedies.

(e) Notwithstanding any other law, a writ of habeas corpus may also be prosecuted after judgment has been entered based on evidence that a criminal conviction or sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 745, if that section applies based on the date of judgment as provided in subdivision (j) of Section 745.

(1) Any and all definitions and legal thresholds specified in Section 745 are controlling for purposes of claims alleging a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 745 contained within a habeas petition filed under this section.

(2) A petitioner, or their counsel, may file a motion for relevant evidence under subdivision (d) of Section 745 upon the prosecution of a petition under this subdivision, or in preparation to file a petition.

(3) A petition raising a claim of this nature for the first time, or on the basis of new discovery provided by the state or other new evidence that could not have been previously known by the petitioner with due diligence, shall not be deemed a successive or abusive petition.

(4) If the petitioner has a habeas corpus petition pending in state court, but it has not yet been decided, the petitioner may amend the existing petition with a claim that the petitioner’s conviction or sentence was sought, obtained, or imposed in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 745.

(5) The petition shall state if the petitioner requests appointment of counsel and the court shall appoint counsel if the petitioner cannot afford counsel and either the petition alleges facts that would establish pleads a plausible allegation ofa violation of subdivision (a) of Section 745 or the State Public Defender requests counsel be appointed. Newly appointed counsel may amend a petition filed before their appointment.

(6) [Changes already shown above.]

(7)(A)The court shall review a petition raising a claim pursuant to Section 745 and shall determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, . A prima facie determination shall be based on the petitioner’s showing and the record. The court may request an informal response from the state.

(B) If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing, that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause why relief shall not be granted and hold an evidentiary hearing, unless the state declines to show cause. The defendant may appear remotely, and the court may conduct the hearing through the use of remote technology, unless counsel indicates that the defendant’s presence in court is needed.

(C) If the court determines that the petitioner has not established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the court shall state the factual and legal basis for its conclusion on the record or issue a written order detailing the factual and legal basis for its conclusion.

(8) If the court finds a violation of subdivision (a), the court shall impose one or more of the applicable remedies as outlined in subdivision (e) of Section 745.

New Changes to Penal Code Section 1473.7

(e) In preparation for the filing of a motion pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the defendant may file a motion to obtain discovery as outlined in subdivision (d) of Section 745.

(f)(5) If the court grants a motion made pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the court shall impose one or more of the applicable remedies as outlined in subdivision (e) of Section 745.

Key Takeaways From the 2026 Updates

The Legislature made some pretty significant changes to sec. 1473, the literally changed habeas corpus procedure. That is unheard of.

The major changes applicable to all:

Discovery. The Legislature made it very clear, they do not want people being denied access to relief based on a claim of no evidence, while the state is holding that very evidence. (This is exactly what my lawsuit with the DOJ is about).

Attorney. The Legislature also wanted it to be very clear that the threshold to obtain an appointed attorney is very low. “The Legislature reaffirms that the threshold showing for appointment of counsel does not require a prima facie showing, as correctly held by McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, and should be construed as a minimal pleading requirement.” (AB1071 Sec.1 (b))

Remedies. The Legislature made it clear, if the showing is made, relief shall be granted.

Showing. Again, not being subtle about this one, the Legislature deleted the aspect that a showing of relief be made in order to have the government respond. The simplest way to explain this is that normally you have to prove wrong and that you would have had a good chance to win if that wrong did not occur. Now they are simply saying show us it was wrong.

An Example of Subtle Racism

An example of a violation that would not result in victory normally: the friend that asked me to investigate the racial issues that led to the filing of the lawsuit against the DOJ, had a probation report that was very racially slanted. Under my friend’s race the probation officer wrote “Other”. My friend is a few shades less than Wesley Snipes, there is no Other about him. That was a racist remark dating back to the original constitutional text, “and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” (U.S. Const. Article I, Section 2) “The phrase ‘all other Persons’ was a euphemism for slaves.” (Evenwel v. Abbott (2016) 578 U.S. 54, 96 (Alito, J., concurring, joined by Thomas, J.))

2026 Updates to the Racial Justice Act allow for more subtle racial statements to be redressable, the image shows Wesley Snipes the same darkness as my friend call "other" as to race. — Wesley Snipes in 2000’s ‘Disappearing Acts.’ Courtesy Everett Collection

Such a violation would not have resulted in prejudice (ironic use of the word) in the legal sense, but was proof of the underlying issue, the report was written with bias within the meaning of Penal Code sec. 745.

And yes, probation officers are law enforcement. See Pen. Code, § 830.5(a); § 1203.10(a); § 1203c(a)(1); Rule 4.411.5; Rule 4.411(b); People v. Ferguson (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 367, 374, 376; People v. Miller (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 216, 223.