Legal Opinions of the Attorney General -
Yearly Index

Opinions published in 2026

Opinion Question Conclusion(s) Issued
26-601 DALILA BARAJAS, VERONICA AGUIRRE, GINGER L. WALLIS, CRYSTAL ROSEMARIE ARBALLO, TERRI SANTILLAN, MELISSA COBINE, LAURA COBINE, PAUL COBINE, VICTOR RESENDEZ, AMANDA RAMIREZ, LUTHER WALLIS, TERESA M. PIERE, THE COUNTY OF KINGS, and LUPE VILLA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS OF THE COUNTY OF KINGS (the Relators) have applied for leave to sue ALVARO PRECIADO, LETICIA GAMEZ, PABLO HERNANDEZ, and DAVID REYNOSA (the Defendants) in quo warranto to remove them from the Avenal City Council. We conclude that the application meets all three of the Attorney General’s criteria to grant leave to sue: quo warranto is the appropriate remedy; the application raises a substantial legal issue; and resolution of that issue would serve the public interest. Consequently, we GRANT leave to sue. 06/17/2026
26-401 Proposed relator JEFFREY CARR applies to this office for leave to sue JACLYN LABARBERA in quo warranto to remove her from her public office on the Anderson Union High School District Board of Trustees. The application asserts that LaBarbera, while serving in that position, assumed a second and incompatible public office as a member of the Shasta County Board of Education, in violation of Government Code section 1099, and by doing so forfeited her seat on the Anderson Union High School District Board. We conclude there is a substantial legal issue regarding whether LaBarbera is simultaneously holding incompatible public offices. Consequently, and because the public interest will be served by allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed, the application for leave to sue is GRANTED. 06/25/2026
25-902 Is Fresno County Ordinance No. 25-008, which regulates the possession or transportation of commercial copper wire, preempted by state law? No, Fresno County Ordinance No. 25-008, regulating the possession or transportation of commercial copper wire, is not preempted by state law.

Official Citation: 109 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 67 		05/28/2026
25-603 Government Code section 27011 prohibits county officers from depositing money into the county treasury “from any private and unofficial source,” and makes doing so a crime. Does the deposit prohibition in that statute apply to: (a) funds from a federal or state government grant program that is administered by a nonprofit entity that receives the grant money from the government and then distributes the grant funds to the county (and other grant recipients) pursuant to the terms of the grant program, or (b) gifts or donations to a county from a nongovernmental entity or individual? (a) No, the deposit prohibition in section 27011 does not apply to government grant money distributed to a county through a nongovernmental intermediary that administers the grant program. The word “source” means “originator” or “first cause,” and under each meaning, the “source” of the money is the government: The “originator” of the grant money is the government, and the “first cause” of that money is a government enactment creating the grant. In circumstances where the government distributes grant funds to a nongovernmental intermediary, which then distributes the funds to the county as a grant recipient pursuant to the terms of the grant program, the funds are still “sourced” from the government. Because the government is a public entity, the money for deposit is not from a “source” that is “private and unofficial.”

(b) No, the deposit prohibition in section 27011 does not apply to gifts or donations to a county from a nongovernmental entity or individual if a county board of supervisors (or its delegate) exercises its authority under Government Code section 25355 to accept the gift or donation, which the treasurer may then receive into the treasury under section 27010 of that code. But if the gift or donation is not accepted under those gift statutes, the deposit prohibition would apply.

Official Citation: 109 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 46 		05/27/2026
25-601 If the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations determines that the prevailing wage for a journey-level classification is the rate set by a collective bargaining agreement, and that agreement provides a separate classification for a foreperson who performs on-site work while supervising the work crew, does the Labor Code require the Director to publish the prevailing wage rate for the foreperson classification? No. We do not reach a categorical conclusion for all forepersons, but instead evaluate the requestor’s definition—“experienced workers who perform on-site work with the tools of the trade while also having responsibility for reading the plans and directing the work of the crew.” The Labor Code does not require the Director to publish the prevailing wage rate for forepersons as defined by the requestor, because California’s prevailing wage law does not cover supervisory work. It is individuals’ duties, and not their titles, that determine whether individuals are entitled to prevailing wages, however. That means that forepersons who perform work in a covered craft in addition to performing supervisory work are entitled to wages at no less than the applicable prevailing rate for the work they perform in the craft. 06/23/2026
25-102 May a federally recognized Indian tribe located exclusively within the exterior boundaries of the State of California conduct intrastate commercial cannabis activity with state licensees off tribal lands without obtaining a commercial cannabis license from the California Department of Cannabis Control, if the tribe has adopted laws substantially comparable to California’s cannabis regulatory framework? No. With limited exceptions, California law requires every entity that engages in intrastate commercial cannabis activity with California licensees to hold a license issued by the Department of Cannabis Control. To engage in such activity off tribal lands, a tribe must hold a California commercial cannabis license.

Official Citation: 109 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 58 		05/28/2026
24-1101 Do the exemptions from local building and zoning ordinances set forth in Government Code section 53091 apply to all California “public water systems,” including those privately owned by mutual water companies? No, the exemptions from local building and zoning ordinances set forth in Government Code section 53091 do not apply to privately owned public water systems, such as those owned by mutual water companies, but apply only to publicly owned water systems.

Official Citation: 109 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 35 		05/20/2026
24-1002 DAVID E. KENNEY has applied for leave to sue MARK M. SKVARNA in quo warranto to remove him from the office of Superintendent of Schools for the Montebello Unified School District. We conclude that the application does not raise a substantial question of law or fact that would be cognizable in an action under Code of Civil Procedure section 803. For that reason, the application for leave to sue is DENIED.

Official Citation: 109 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1 		02/12/2026
24-802 The SAN DIEGO POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION has applied for leave to sue the CITY OF SAN DIEGO and the SAN DIEGO CITY COUNCIL in quo warranto. In a previous quo warranto lawsuit, the superior court invalidated San Diego City Charter provisions added by a 2012 ballot initiative, Proposition B. The Association contends that the earlier quo warranto judgment requires the City to restore pre-Proposition B benefits coverage in the San Diego Municipal Code. The Association’s proposed lawsuit meets all three of the Attorney General’s criteria to grant leave to sue: quo warranto is the appropriate remedy; the application raises a substantial legal issue; and resolution of that issue would serve the public interest. Consequently, we GRANT leave to sue.

Official Citation: 109 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 14 		04/22/2026
24-702 May a person simultaneously serve as a Director of the Mono County Tri-Valley Groundwater Management District and as a Director of the White Mountain Fire Protection District? No. A person may not simultaneously serve as a Director of the Mono County Tri-Valley Groundwater Management District and as a Director of the White Mountain Fire Protection District because the two offices are legally incompatible under Government Code section 1099.

Official Citation: 109 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 25 		05/05/2026