SB 747 adds Civil Code §53.8 — the “No Kings Act” — creating a state-law private cause of action for any person who, acting under color of law, deprives a California resident or person in California of rights secured by the U.S. Constitution. The statute mirrors many features of federal Section 1983 claims: it authorizes damages, equitable relief in most cases, a venue choice tied to where the conduct or defendant is located, and discretionary awards of attorney’s fees, costs, and expert fees to prevailing plaintiffs.
The bill also codifies key limits: defendants may raise absolute or qualified immunity to the same extent available under federal law; sovereign immunity is not waived; injunctive relief against judicial officers is sharply narrowed; civil claims must be filed within two years of accrual; and the law applies retroactively to March 1, 2025, although monetary recovery for violations between March 1 and the statute’s effective date is capped at nominal and compensatory damages. These mechanics create a new accountability path for constitutional harms while preserving several traditional immunities and procedural constraints.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a state statutory cause of action for deprivations of U.S. Constitutional rights committed “under color of” law, modeled on 42 U.S.C. §1983. It authorizes damages, equitable relief (with limited exceptions), discretionary fee and expert-fee awards, and sets venue rules and a two-year statute of limitations.
Who It Affects
State and local public officials and employees, municipal governments and their insurers, judicial officers (with limited exposure), private parties acting under color of law, plaintiffs asserting constitutional violations, and the civil-defense bar that represents public entities and officials.
Why It Matters
Provides plaintiffs a state-court alternative to federal §1983 litigation, potentially changing litigation strategy, forum choice, and settlement dynamics in constitutional cases. By importing federal immunity doctrines but imposing a short limitations period and retroactive constraints, the bill recalibrates accountability and fiscal risk for California public actors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 747 establishes a standalone state-law path for people harmed by official action that violates the U.S. Constitution. The statute applies when a person acts “under color of” law — language that the bill explicitly defines to include federal, state, territorial, and D.C. statutes, regulations, customs, or usages — and it allows the injured party to sue in state court for damages or equitable relief, subject to the statute’s limits.
The bill borrows immunity rules from federal law: defendants may assert absolute or qualified immunity to the same extent those defenses arise under 42 U.S.C. §1983. At the same time, the bill preserves any sovereign-immunity defenses otherwise available under California law.
For judicial officers, the statute generally bars injunctive relief unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable; judges are also insulated from fee awards unless their action was clearly in excess of jurisdiction.Procedurally, SB 747 adopts a venue rule aligned with the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act: plaintiffs can sue either in the county where the challenged conduct occurred or where the defendant resides or does business. The statute gives courts discretion to award reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expert fees to prevailing plaintiffs, but with the judicial-officer exceptions noted above.Two time-related features will shape many cases: the bill imposes a two-year statute of limitations measured from accrual, and it applies retroactively to March 1, 2025.
For constitutional violations that occurred between March 1, 2025, and the law’s effective date, monetary recovery is limited to nominal and compensatory damages. Finally, the statute includes a severability clause and declares itself an urgency measure to take immediate effect.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 53.8 creates a state-law cause of action for deprivation of U.S. Constitutional rights committed “under color of” law, extending to acts based on federal and state statutes, regulations, customs, or usages.
Venue mirrors the Tom Bane Act: the plaintiff may file in the superior court where the conduct occurred or where the defendant resides or has a place of business.
Subdivision (d) permits defendants to assert absolute or qualified immunity to the same extent as defendants in federal Section 1983 litigation; subdivision (e) preserves sovereign-immunity defenses.
The statute establishes a two-year statute of limitations for all claims under §53.8, measured from the date the cause of action accrues.
The law applies retroactively to March 1, 2025, but for violations between March 1, 2025 and the statute’s effective date, monetary relief is limited to nominal and compensatory damages only.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Name of the act (No Kings Act)
This subsection simply names the statute the “No Kings Act.” The title signals intent and will appear in pleadings and case law, but it has no operative effect on remedies or defenses.
Substantive cause of action and judicial-officer limitation
Subsection (b) is the operative hook: it makes “every person” who, under color of law, deprives a California citizen or person within California of U.S. Constitutional rights liable in state court for redress — damages, equitable relief, or other appropriate remedies. The provision carves out one important limit for judicial officers: courts may not grant injunctive relief against a judge acting in a judicial capacity unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. That narrows the typical equitable toolbox when the defendant is a judge.
Venue — county of conduct or defendant residence/place of business
This subsection imports a venue rule used in the Tom Bane Act, giving plaintiffs flexibility to sue where the challenged conduct occurred or where the defendant lives or does business. That choice can materially affect defense strategy, discovery logistics, and settlement leverage because local courts have distinct calendars and familiarity with local actors.
Immunity defenses preserved and limited to §1983 analog
Subdivision (d) explicitly allows defendants to assert absolute or qualified immunity to the same extent available under federal §1983 case law “under like circumstances”; subdivision (e) reiterates that sovereign immunity is not waived by the statute. Together, these clauses attempt to replicate federal immunity doctrines while preserving existing state-law immunities. Practically, the bill invites California courts to interpret federal immunity precedents when resolving state-law claims under §53.8.
Fees, costs, and expert-fee awards; judicial officer fee exception
This subsection gives courts discretion to award prevailing plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expert fees. It creates a narrow exception for judicial officers: judges sued for judicial acts cannot be held liable for fees or costs unless they acted clearly in excess of jurisdiction. That dual rule both incentivizes private enforcement and protects judicial independence from fee exposure in most cases.
Two-year statute of limitations
Subsection (g) establishes a blanket two-year limitations period from accrual for any action under §53.8. That short window will accelerate case intake and create tight deadlines for investigation and pleading — and it may preclude claims that would survive longer limitation periods elsewhere.
Severability
The severability clause makes clear that if part of §53.8 is struck down, the remainder should survive where possible. This is standard drafting but signals lawmakers anticipated litigation over the statute’s scope and sought to preserve intact portions.
Retroactivity, damages limitation for pre-effective claims, and definition of color of law
Subdivision (i) makes the statute retroactive to March 1, 2025; for violations occurring between March 1, 2025 and the statute’s effective date, only nominal and compensatory damages are available. Subsection (j) clarifies that “color of any law” expressly includes federal statutes, as well as state, territorial, and D.C. statutes, regulations, customs, or usages — an express expansion of the clause’s drafting scope that may broaden the statute’s reach to acts tied to federal authority when committed in California.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Individual plaintiffs alleging unconstitutional conduct — the statute supplies a state-court route to monetary and equitable relief when federal litigation is impractical or unavailable, and it permits fee-shifting and expert-fee recovery to make contingency or pro bono representation more viable.
- Civil-rights and public-interest lawyers and legal aid organizations — fee and expert-fee awards make it easier to bring meritorious cases on contingency or with limited funding, potentially increasing representation for marginalized plaintiffs.
- Advocacy organizations and watchdogs — a state remedy tailored to California facts and actors gives local advocates a tool to pursue systemic reforms against state and local practices without relying solely on federal courts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local governments and municipal insurers — new liability exposure and defense costs arise because state-law claims can be brought in addition to or instead of federal suits, potentially increasing settlement exposure and insurance claims.
- Individual public officials and employees — though immunity defenses are preserved, officials will face investigation, depositions, and litigation costs; insurers and employers may still bear indemnity obligations where available.
- Judicial officers — while the statute limits injunctive relief and fee exposure for judges, they still face reputational risk and possible nominal/compensatory liability in narrow circumstances (e.g., actions clearly in excess of jurisdiction).
- State courts — a likely uptick in filings alleging constitutional violations will increase caseloads, demand for discovery resources, and need for specialized judicial familiarity with immunity doctrine.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is accountability versus bounded liability: the bill expands state-level avenues to hold actors accountable for constitutional deprivations, but it simultaneously preserves and imports immunity doctrines, limits injunctive relief against judges, imposes a short two-year deadline, and constrains retroactive monetary relief — meaning the statute seeks to increase remedies while tightly controlling exposure and preserving core immunities.
SB 747 blends federal principles with novel state mechanics, which creates several implementation knots. First, the statute imports federal immunity doctrines by reference but leaves open how California courts will apply federal precedents in a state-law setting; courts may diverge from federal §1983 interpretations, producing doctrinal uncertainty about the scope of qualified and absolute immunity under §53.8.
Second, the two-year limitations period is short and could bar claims that would survive in other contexts, making accrual questions (when a plaintiff “knew or should have known”) a likely battleground.
Retroactivity presents another complication. The law applies back to March 1, 2025 but caps monetary relief for the pre-effective period at nominal and compensatory damages; litigants and courts will have to sort when claims accrued, whether equitable relief can be obtained for conduct in that window, and how the damage cap interacts with injunctive relief and fee awards.
Finally, the statute’s express inclusion of “color of” federal law broadens its textual reach toward actors implementing federal authority in California — but federal sovereign immunity and other federal defenses may limit practical enforcement against federal entities, raising thorny choice-of-forum and preemption questions that the bill does not resolve.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.