Did the Court of Appeal err in declaring the provision of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights (Health & Saf. Code, § 1439.51) that criminalizes the willful and repeated failure to use a resident’s chosen name and pronouns unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment?

Held:

[1] The present version of Code Civ. Proc., § 526a, as amended in 2018, does not allow standing to sue state officers or entities such as those in the instant case; [2] On the merits, plaintiff’s facial challenge to Health & Saf. Code, § 1439.51, subd. (a)(5)’s pronouns provision failed because the provision constitutes a regulation of discriminatory conduct that incidentally affects speech and was not subject to First Amendment scrutiny as an abridgment of the freedom of speech; [3] Section 1439.51, subd. (a)(5), was not subject to intermediate scrutiny, but even assuming it was, it easily satisfied that test; [4] Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the remote possibility of prosecution and enforcement by way of criminal penalties for particularly egregious violations of § 1439.51, subd. (a)(5)’s pronouns provision rendered it facially unconstitutional.

This case was decided on 11/6/2025. Chief Justice Guerrero authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Groban, Evans, and Jenkins concurred.

Review on this issue had also been granted with briefing deferred in:

• Office of the State Public Defender v. Bonta [original proceeding] review granted 3/12/25 (S284496).