In this episode, host Michelle Cannon engages with Lozano Smith Litigation Practice Group Co-Chair Sloan Simmons and Student Practice Group Co-Chair Kyle Raney to discuss the current state of the law in California under Mirabelli v. Bonta and Mahmoud v. Taylor.  The discussion reviews developments and what is anticipated in the courts through the conclusion of 2026 in relation to these cases and parallel litigation, and covers best practices and policy options for school officials due to the current status of the law.

Show Notes & References

• 1:34 – Case background: Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) 606 U.S. 522 (Client News Brief 28 – July 2025)
• 10:24 – Advice for local education agencies (LEAs) on how to respond to overly broad opt-out requests
• 11:18 – Status of Mozert and Peloza cases (Mozert v. Hawkins County Bd. of Ed. (6th Cir. 1987) 827 F.2d 1058; Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 1994) 37 F.3d 517)
• 12:25 – California Department of Education (CDE) guidance on Mahmoud
• 12:38 – Case background: Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026) 607 U.S. 492 (Client New Brief 9 – March 2026)
• 16:28 – Regino vs. Blake (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2026) 2026 WL 121667 (now pending on appeal before Ninth Circuit)
• 20:36 – Litigation before Ninth Circuit on Assembly Bill (AB) 1955; Chino Valley Unified School District, et al. v. Newsom, et al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-3686; City of Huntington Beach et al. v. State of California, Court of Appeals Case No. 26-25
• 21:44 – Background on AB 1955 (Client New Brief 8 – March 2026)
• 30:52 – Takeaways for LEAs on pending litigation cases
• 32:26 – Recommendations for updating LEA policies and practices
• 34:51 – More takeaways for LEAs and staff

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Public employees and officials have the right to participate in political activity, but important restrictions apply when personal advocacy intersects with public employment and agency resources. In this episode, host Michelle Cannon connects with Lozano Smith attorneys Scott Cross and Gail Zurek to discuss how public employees and officials can distinguish between permissible private political activity and conduct performed in an official capacity. The conversation explores campaign activity during work and personal time, the use of agency facilities and resources, political forums and campaign materials, and the rules governing uniforms, agency logos, and equipment. The discussion also examines how public agencies may provide neutral information about ballot measures without engaging in advocacy, along with restrictions involving campaign solicitations, political benefits, and the Levine Act.

Show Notes & References

• 1:23 – Public employees and the right to participate in political activity
• 2:27 – Differentiating between personal (private) activities vs. official (public) activities
• 4:01 – Prohibited use of agency resources for campaign purposes (Government Code section 8314)
• 4:23 – Examples of agency resources
• 6:22 – The importance of where the political activity is taking place (public forums versus limited-public forums)
• 10:08 – Considerations around public agencies hosting political forums and remaining viewpoint neutral
• 12:00 – Distributing campaign materials on sidewalks in front of school grounds
• 14:59 – Prohibition on participation in campaign event while wearing their agency uniform (Government Code section 3206)
• 15:48 – Rules for teachers displaying campaign materials in the classroom
• 19:44 – Ballot measures on local agency issues
• 20:45 – Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206 and Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1
• 21:51 – Solicitation of campaign contributions (Government Code section 3205)
• 23:11 – Offering benefits in exchange for political support (Government Code section 3204)
• 24:07 – The Levine Act (Government Code section 84308)

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

California’s SB 848 introduces significant new requirements for educational agencies related to ensuring the safety of students. In this episode, host Michelle Cannon connects with Lozano Smith attorneys Carolyn Gemma and Brianna Ramos to discuss the background behind these new requirements and what educational agencies need to know as implementation continues. The conversation explores key changes, including new legal obligations regarding employment screening, comprehensive safety plans, mandated reports, and employee trainings. The discussion provides practical insights to help educational agencies understand the law’s various effective dates and take steps to maintain compliance moving forward.

Show Notes & References

• 1:22 – Background information on Senate Bill (SB) 848
• 1:45 – Multiple effective dates that educational agencies should know about
• 4:05 – Employment screening process since January 1, 2026
• 4:33 – Assembly Bill (AB) 2534 and screening process for certificated job applicants
• 6:35 – Egregious misconduct under the law
• 8:16 – Repercussions for hiring educational agencies who do not comply with the required screening process
• 9:02 – What if a former educational agency does not respond to a hiring agency’s inquiry?
• 10:34 – Disclosure requirements for former employer agencies regarding past employee egregious misconduct
• 13:07 – California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) statewide database
• 14:52 – Requirements related to professional boundaries
• 16:24 – Requirement regarding comprehensive school safety plans
• 18:28 – Who is considered a mandated reporter under SB 848
• 19:15 – Volunteers under Penal Code definition
• 19:45 – Contractors
• 20:26 – New training requirements for mandated reporters
• 23:34 – CDE/California Department of Social Services training model for compliance with SB 848
• 24:02 – Next steps for educational agencies going forward to keep up to date with compliance

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

California’s AB 126 introduces significant changes to charter school oversight and authorizer responsibilities. In this episode, host Sloan Simmons connects with Lozano Smith’s Charter Practice Group Co-Chairs, Ed Sklar and Erin Hamor, to discuss the background behind these reforms and what they mean for charter schools and authorizers. The conversation explores key changes, including expanded oversight requirements, enhanced fiscal monitoring obligations, fraud reporting responsibilities, and further clarifications to California’s Charter Schools Act. The discussion provides practical insights to help authorizers prepare through policy updates, strengthened protocols, and improved documentation practices.

Show Notes & References

• 1:22 – Background on Assembly Bill (AB) 126 and the implementation of increased oversight for charter schools
• 1:55 – A3 Charter Schools
• 5:52 – Moratorium on online non-classroom-based charter schools
• 7:33 – Oversight requirements now in place for charter authorizers
• 11:40 – Financial impact on school districts overseeing charter schools
• 13:12 – Looking ahead to July 1, 2027
• 17:08 – Auditing obligations for authorizers
• 18:14 – Other significant trailer bill provisions
• 19:18 – The erosion of the “mega waiver”
• 20:17 – Looking ahead to practical concerns and impacts on authorizers

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons is joined by Lozano Smith’s Title IX Practice Group Co-Chairs, Sarah Fama and Monica Batanero, to discuss the Supreme Court’s opinion on two cases addressing transgender participation in girls’ school athletics:  West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox.  The discussion covers the Court’s holdings, legal reasoning, and implications for schools navigating student participation, safety, and competitive fairness. The episode also explores the impact on California schools, including related Title IX issues, pending litigation, and challenges to California’s existing legal framework.

Show Notes & References

• 1:28 – Supreme Court rulings in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (2026) 609 U.S. 
• 2:25 – Background on B.P.J. and Hecox cases
• 5:32 – What the Supreme Court decided
• 6:50 – Reasoning and analysis of the Court
• 8:00 – Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority: “The term ‘sex’ in the 1972 Title IX statute, the 1974 Javits Amendment, and the 1975 Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term ‘sex’ at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context.”
• 9:17 – Safety and competitive fairness
• 11:56 – Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020) 590 U.S. 644 – (Client News Brief 86 – December 2020)
• 15:12 – Biological females who identify as male in male sports
• 17:31 – Concurrences and dissents of justices
• 19:16 – What happens now?  The state of the law in California
• 20:49 – Pending litigation in lower courts
• 21:28 – United States v. California Interscholastic Federation and California Department of Education, July 9, 2025 – (Client News Brief 31 – July 2025)
• 21:53 – United States v. Maine Department of Education (No. 1:25-cv-00173)
• 22:33 – Viability of challenges to U.S.A. v. CIF/CDE; AB 1266 and CIF Bylaws

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

The decision of who conducts an investigation carries important legal implications and shapes how the process unfolds. In this episode, host Sloan Simmons is joined by Lozano Smith attorneys Trevin Sims and Kara Walton to explore how public agencies approach selecting internal, outside, and attorney investigators and how those choices can affect confidentiality and attorney-client privilege. The discussion covers disclosure decisions around how investigative findings are shared or released, and how those choices can affect whether information remains protected or subject to waiver. Join us as we examine practical considerations for managing investigations while balancing transparency, privilege, and related legal obligations.

Show Notes & References

• 1:39 – Selecting an investigator
• 3:55 – The process of retaining an attorney investigator
• 6:56 – Outside investigators and attorney-client privilege
• 8:05 – Who holds attorney-client privilege
• 10:05 – The pros and cons of intentional, partial waivers of attorney-client privilege and inadvertent disclosures which risk waiver of the privilege
• 13:28 – “Clawing back” disclosures (Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 63 Cal.4th 1 and Newark Unified School District v. Superior Court (Brazil) (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 33)
• 14:15 – Releasing a Summary of Findings verses full disclosure of investigation report
• 17:06 – Complaints and litigation possibilities post-disclosures
• 17:33 – Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) and appeals to the California Department of Education (CDE)
• 18:10 – CDE requests for full disclosure of investigation reports
• 20:30 – Discrimination and harassment investigations (BP/AR 4030s) and appeals to California’s Civil Rights Division (CRD)
• 21:03 – Litigation and discovery requests for attorney-client privileged reports
• 23:26 – Investigations into employee misconduct and union requests for information (RFI)
• 26:23 – Requests for reports under the California Public Records Act (CPRA)

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Who has the authority to make educational decisions for a student? In this episode, host Michelle Cannon is joined by Lozano Smith attorneys Amanda Cordova and Anna Wood to discuss the legal framework surrounding educational rights, including special education considerations. The conversation explores custody arrangements, caregiver authority, AB 495, and when students hold their own educational rights. Join us as we explore practical guidance for navigating custody orders and other common educational rights issues faced by school districts.

Show Notes & References

• 2:30 – Overview of educational rights
• 4:05 – Educational rights unique to parents of students who qualify for special education
• 5:45 – Parents and others who qualify as educational rights holders
• 7:23 – Custody arrangements for divorced, separated or unmarried parents
• 9:53 – Disagreements between parents with joint legal custody and how school districts should respond
• 11:32 – The importance of asking for custody orders
• 12:03 – Rights of parents who do not hold custodial rights
• 13:25 – What school administrators should be looking for when they receive a custody order
• 16:30 – Stepparents and caregivers, and assigning educational rights
• 18:23 – Assembly Bill (AB) 495 and caregiver’s affidavit (Client News Brief 46 – November 2025)
• 19:12 – Adult students holding their own educational rights

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons is joined by Lozano Smith attorneys Sarah Garcia and Karina Demirchyan to discuss why student attendance has become a critical issue for local educational agencies and how attendance concerns can evolve into legal and special education obligations. Drawing on recent legislative updates and real-world experience, the conversation highlights funding considerations, attendance terminology, notification requirements, and when chronic absenteeism may trigger child find duties and further intervention.

Show Notes & References

• 1:21 – Why attendance is a critical issue for Local Educational Agencies (LEAs)
• 1:57 – School funding and average daily membership (Senate Bill (SB) 98)
• 2:05 – Optional attendance recovery program (SB 153)
• 2:19 – New excused absences (SB 1138) (See Client News Brief 45 – October 2024)
• 2:51 – Truancy (AB 461) (See Client News Brief 58 – December 2025)
• 3:09 – Lozano Smith Podcast Episode 99: New Laws Impacting Students Heading into 2026
• 3:49 – Heightened attention on attendance from California Department of Education (CDE) and supporting data
• 6:18 – Correlation between attendance and discipline
• 7:51 – Legal requirements for LEAs regarding attendance
• 9:16 – Terminology (chronic absenteeism, truancy, habitual truancy, and chronic truancy)
• 14:51 – Notification requirements for truancy letters (SB 691) (See Client News Brief 45 – October 2024)
• 16:56 – When attendance issues become a special education issue
• 21:44 – Child find and evaluating absent students for special education
• 22:34 – Factors that LEAs should be looking for with attendance when considering referring a student for assessment
• 25:18 – School Attendance Review Board (SARB)
• 27:11 – Effective attendance and behavior interventions
• 28:44 – Parent training
• 30:56 – Cautionary tales and anecdotes from the field

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

In this episode—the 100th Lozano Smith Podcast episode—host Sloan Simmons joins Partners Alyse Pacheco Nichols and Crystal Pizano to discuss strategic planning and best practices for responding to requests under the California Public Records Act. Alyse and Crystal’s respective expertise in Governance and Municipal practice areas lends a practical discussion useful for local educational agencies and municipalities faced with the ever-increasing number and complexity of public record requests.

Show Notes & References

• 2:02 – Sequence of events when Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) receive requests for information
• 5:12 – Unclear requests and seeking clarification
• 6:39 – The value of understanding who a requester is and the motivations behind any requests
• 10:21 – Contextual clues to help LEAs know what types of records to identify for disclosure
• 12:28 – Requests that may relate to anticipated litigation or politically sensitive subjects
• 15:48 – Large-scale email PRA requests and how to go about gathering documents
• 19:04 – Best practices for large requests
• 22:48 – Partnering with legal counsel

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons joins Student Practice Group Co-Chair Ruth Mendyk and student practitioner Rebal Halabi-Boutros for the year’s annual student legislation round-up.  Ruth and Rebal discuss the most significant bills passed by the close of this year’s legislative session and their impacts going into 2026.

Show Notes & References

• 1:34 – New laws related to immigration enforcement (Assembly Bill (AB) 49) (See Client News Brief 41 – October 2025)
• 3:54 – Judicial vs. administrative warrants (See Attorney General Guidance)
• 4:43 – Immigration enforcement and the impact on average daily attendance (ADA) (AB 1348)
• 5:40 – Comprehensive school safety plans (Senate Bill (SB) 98) (See Client News Brief 41 – October 2025)
• 7:08 – Family Preparedness Act (AB 495) (See Client News Brief 46 – November 2025)
• 10:56 – Identification cards (AB 727) (See Client New Brief 54 – November 2025)
• 12:21 – Homeless students and health screenings (AB 677) (See Client News Brief 54 – November 2025)
• 13:22 – Smartphone use and the emergency exception (AB 962) (See Client News Brief 53 – November 2025)
• 17:50 – Antisemitism and discrimination (AB 715 and SB 48) (See Client News Brief 43 – October 2025)
• 20:54 – Prichett et al. v. Newsom et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 5:25-cv-09443-NW
• 23:00 – Governor Newsom’s statement on AB 715 and SB 48 (October 7, 2025)
• 23:16 – Graduation ceremonies and student adornment of cap and gown (AB 1369) (See Client News Brief 44 – October 2025)
• 28:11 – Cyberbullying (AB 772) (See Client News Brief 53 – November 2025)
• 33:43 – Readmission following expulsion (AB 1230) (See Client News Brief 58 – December 2025)
• 35:47 – Truancy (AB 461) (See Client News Brief 58 – December 2025)
• 38:24 – Diwali added to list of state holidays (AB 268) (See Client News Brief 58 – December 2025)

Update:  On December 17, 2025, a U.S. District Court judge in San Jose heard oral arguments on the motion for preliminary injunction to block AB 715 filed by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and a group of California teachers and students.  On December 31, 2025, the court issued a ruling denying the motion for preliminary injunction.  The court also scheduled a status conference for January 27, 2026, to determine next steps for how the lawsuit should proceed.

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons joins Title IX experts Sarah Fama and Sinead McDonough for a comprehensive discussion regarding the status of the law as it pertains to gender identity, students, and schools.  Topics covered include the current status of California and federal law and policy on point, as well as the wide-ranging scope of pending litigation poised to impact this area of school law.

Show Notes & References

• 1:54 – Foundational cases impacting Title IX policy (Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) 140 S. Ct. 1731) (Client News Brief 50 – June 2020)
• 2:55 – Grabowski v. Arizona Board of Regents (9th Cir. 2023) 69 F.4th 1110
• 5:51 – Parents for Privacy vs. Barr (9th Cir. 2020) 949 F.3d 1210 (Client News Brief 40 – May 2020)
• 10:48 – Roe vs. Critchfield (9th Cir. 2025) 137 F.4th 912 (Client News Brief 14 – April 2025)
• 12:49 – Jones, et al. v. Critchfield, et al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-5413
• 13:44 – Regino vs. Blake (formerly Staley) (9th Cir. 2025) (Client News Brief 17 – April 2025)
• 14:57 – Assembly Bill (AB) 1266
• 20:00 – United States v. Skrmetti (2025) 605 U.S. 495
• 22:24 – The law in California
• 23:25 – CIF (California Interscholastic Federation) Rule 300D and Guidelines for Gender Identity Participation
• 24:36 – Interactions with federal law
• 25:56 – Executive Order (EO) 14168 (Client News Brief 12 – February 2025)
• 27:01 – Tennessee v. Cardona decision
• 28:29 – Dear Colleague letter – February 4, 2025
• 30:32 – Federal government’s approach and reaction to CIF and AB 1266 (USDOE Press Releases: February 12, 2025; March 27, 2025; June 25, 2025)
• 34:00 – Related Supreme Court cases (Little v. Hecox, Case No. No. 24-38; West Virginia v. B.P.J., Case No. 24-43)
• 35:09 – T.S. et al. v. Riverside Unified School District et al., U.S.D.C., Central District of California, Case No. 5:24-cv-02480-SSS-SP, and order on motion to dismiss, (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2025) 2025 WL 2884416
• 36:25 – Protections for student privacy and their interactions with parental rights
• 39:22 – Mirabelli vs. Olson et al.¸U.S.D.C., Southern District of California, Case No. 3:23-cv-00768-BEN-VET
• 40:00 – The SAFETY Act (AB 1955)
• 44:13 – The dynamic between the federal government and California post-AB 1955 enactment (United States of America v. California Interscholastic Federation et al., U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 8:25-cv-01485-CV-JDE)
• 50:26 – Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, Case No. 25-77
• 52:19 – Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) 606 U.S. 522 (Listen to Episode 97 Mahmoud v. Taylor) (Client News Brief 28 – July 2025)
• 53:31 – Access to facilities
• 55:15 – Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board (4th Cir. 2020) 972 F.3d 586
• 56:06 – Million Dollar Question: Does Title IX protect individuals based on gender identity or not?

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.