Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 46 into law on Monday, June 29, 2026, significantly expanding the authority of California judges to deny mental health diversion to defendants deemed a risk to public safety. This new legislation, authored by Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen (D-Elk Grove), effectively removes strict legal benchmarks that previously limited the discretion of local courts in these critical decisions.
The legislative overhaul represents a significant victory for law enforcement groups and prosecutors, who campaigned for three years to address what they described as a dangerous loophole in the state’s criminal justice system. Agencies such as the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office sponsored the bill, with the Orange County District Attorney’s Office co-sponsoring, emphasizing the need for these changes.
Mental health diversion, established under California Penal Code section 1001.36, was originally intended to provide treatment pathways for individuals whose diagnosed mental illness directly contributed to their offense. However, according to sponsoring and co-sponsoring agencies, recent state court rulings narrowed how judges could evaluate diversion requests. These rulings often compelled judges to approve diversion even when proposed treatment options were minimal or inadequate, and despite defendants' track records of failed rehabilitation.
AB 46 officially restores full judicial authority, allowing judges to thoroughly evaluate whether a defendant poses an undue risk to community safety and whether a proposed treatment plan is clinically sound. The new law also reinforces the constitutional rights of victims, which are protected under Marsy’s Law during court proceedings. Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer lauded the governor's signature, stressing that the legislation would prevent mental illness from being used to avoid accountability for dangerous criminal behavior.
While the law garnered bipartisan legislative support, it faced strong opposition from a segment of Democratic lawmakers and a broad coalition of criminal justice reform advocates. Organizations like the California Public Defenders Association (CPDA), along with various civil rights groups, contend that restricting diversion pathways will inevitably lead to vulnerable individuals re-entering a cycle of incarceration. Critics argue that the previous standards properly prioritized healthcare intervention over imprisonment, and that expanding judicial power to reject diversion relies on an overestimation of public danger rather than proven outcomes.
The bill's legislative journey involved significant debate, yet it ultimately passed with bipartisan backing despite the strong pushback from its opponents.
