Let’s Talk - Lozano Smith Podcast

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.