A California bill advancing through the state Legislature would require medical providers and affiliated businesses to notify the state attorney general before complying with federal subpoenas seeking records related to abortion, gender-affirming or reproductive care — a measure that three independent constitutional scholars say may face substantial legal challenge.
Assembly Bill 1930, authored by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur of Los Angeles and co-sponsored by Attorney General Rob Bonta, passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote after 17 minutes of discussion and now moves to the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
The bill is California’s latest effort to shield patients and providers from Trump administration subpoenas that have sought patient records from clinics offering gender-affirming care for minors, placing state lawmakers in direct conflict with federal law enforcement authority under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
What the bill would require
Under AB 1930, any medical provider or business served with a civil, criminal or regulatory subpoena seeking records tied to abortion, gender-affirming care or other reproductive health services “shall not comply” until it has notified the attorney general’s office, affected patients and providers.
The recipient would have seven days to notify the attorney general, who would then have 30 additional days to review the matter before the recipient could comply with the order. Those who violate the requirement would face civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation.
The bill would also require that any entity issuing such a demand include an affidavit declaring that its investigation is not aimed at punishing providers for performing services protected under California law.
“No one should have to fear that seeking lawful medical care in the state of California could put their privacy and their safety at risk,” Zbur told the Assembly Judiciary Committee at a hearing last week.
The subpoenas that prompted the bill
The Trump administration issued federal subpoenas to 20 medical providers that offered gender-affirming care for minors, seeking patients’ medical records. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles was among those targeted. The U.S. Justice Department said at the time the subpoenas were part of an investigation into “health care fraud” and “false statements.”
Families of some patients sued to fight the subpoenas. The federal government backed off in January 2026 and did not receive the records.
Rady Children’s Hospital, which operates facilities in San Diego, Orange and Imperial counties, separately reported that the U.S. Health and Human Services inspector general was investigating the hospital — an inquiry that preceded the hospital’s decision to halt most gender-affirming services for minors, a decision that is now tied up in multiple court cases.
The bill is co-sponsored by Attorney General Bonta and Equality California, an LGBTQ+ civil rights group. Zbur was Equality California’s executive director before being elected to the Legislature.
Craig Pulsipher, Equality California’s legislative director, told the Judiciary Committee the measure builds “on California’s existing protections to ensure that patients can access health care without fear that their personal information will be weaponized against them.”
Scholars raise Supremacy Clause concerns
Three independent constitutional scholars consulted by CalMatters raised concerns about whether the measure would survive a federal legal challenge.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, summarized the controlling principle. “If there’s a conflict between federal law on the one hand, and state or local (law) on the other, federal law wins out,” he said.
Leslie Gielow Jacobs, a law professor at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, said the bill’s structure could give the federal government grounds to allege obstruction. “It looks like the federal government could say you’re impeding their law enforcement,” she said.
Vikram David Amar, a law professor at UC Davis School of Law, framed the central question as whether the bill is “impeding federal … objectives,” and said that if so, “it would be invalid under Supremacy.”
The scholars noted the bill is written to apply to any entity issuing subpoenas — not the federal government exclusively — which distinguishes it from a California measure a federal judge previously blocked. But they said forcing private health care providers to delay compliance with a federal subpoena deadline remained legally problematic regardless of that distinction.
Bill Essayli, who oversees the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, said in a statement that the measure would be unconstitutional. “Any effort by California to restrict the federal government’s lawful use of, or compliance with, subpoenas is unlawful and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause,” Essayli said.
The California Attorney General’s Office responded to a request for comment with an unsigned written statement. “Bills aren’t final when they’re introduced and can change throughout the legislative process,” it read. “Our office will continue to have conversations with stakeholders regarding AB 1930 and will address concerns as appropriate and needed.”
Opposition from business and detransitioners
The California Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill. In a letter to lawmakers, the Chamber said its members do not oppose the measure “out of support for misuse of subpoena powers,” but expressed concern that AB 1930 “will compel businesses to violate federal law in order to comply with state law.”
Layla Jane, a detransitioner who sued her health care provider over gender-reassignment surgery she received as a teenager, also testified against the bill, arguing it would shield providers from accountability and make it harder for patients to access their own medical records through subpoenas.
“This bill shields providers so they can keep chopping up bodies,” she told the committee. “It wraps the doctors, the clinics, the gender industry in a legal blanket and says, ‘You are protected from accountability no matter who you harmed.’”
Legislative context
California lawmakers have enacted more than a dozen laws in recent years designed to protect medical professionals and patients from conservative state and federal actions on abortion and transgender health care — a push that accelerated after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and other states began banning or restricting abortion. Existing California laws prohibit state law enforcement from extraditing medical professionals who may have violated another state’s laws on abortion or gender-affirming care, and bar medical facilities from sharing patient information about those services with out-of-state law enforcement.
AB 1930 is scheduled for its next hearing before the Assembly Public Safety Committee.