WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

A 5480

Protects individuals who provide or receive legally protected health activity from criminal or civil liability or professional sanctions imposed by jurisdictions outside the state; repealer

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Alex Bores and 39 co-sponsors

Shield patients and providers from out-of-state criminal/civil penalties or professional discipline for health care lawful in this state; blocks cross-border enforcement.

SUBSTITUTED BY S4914B
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · A 5480

Summary — A5480 (2025)

Protects individuals who provide or receive legally protected health activity from criminal or civil liability or professional sanctions imposed by jurisdictions outside the state; repealer

Main purpose / intent

A5480 is designed to shield people—patients and health-care providers—who engage in health activities that are lawful in this state from criminal or civil penalties, professional discipline, or other sanctions that might be asserted by governments or licensing authorities of other states or foreign jurisdictions. The bill aims to prevent extra‑territorial legal exposure and to reduce cross‑jurisdictional enforcement or cooperation that could chill access to lawful health care.

Note: the full bill text was not provided. This summary is based on the bill title and legislative history. Specific statutory language and detailed provisions are not available in the materials supplied.

Key provisions (as implied by the title)

Although the precise statutory language is not included, the title indicates the bill would likely do one or more of the following:

  • Establish that individuals who provide or receive health care that is lawful under this state’s laws cannot be held criminally or civilly liable by courts or authorities of other jurisdictions for that conduct solely because those jurisdictions prohibit it.
  • Prohibit state agencies, courts, and licensing boards from cooperating with or giving effect to out‑of‑state criminal investigations, civil subpoenas, arrest warrants, or professional discipline requests that target persons for engaging in health activities lawful in this state.
  • Bar recognition or enforcement within the state of out‑of‑state judgments, administrative orders, or professional sanctions that arise solely from protected health activity permitted here.
  • Create defenses or privileges for covered persons in state courts if they are subject to out‑of‑state claims arising from protected health activity.
  • Include a repealer clause that would rescind or amend any existing conflicting state statutes (specific statutes to be repealed are not shown in the provided materials).

Possible covered activities (based on common legislative context) could include reproductive health care, abortion-related services, gender‑affirming care, telehealth services, or other health activities protected by state law.

Who would be affected

  • Patients receiving legally authorized health services in this state.
  • Health-care providers (physicians, nurses, clinics, hospitals, telehealth providers, pharmacies) performing services lawful under state law.
  • State courts, licensing and disciplinary boards, and executive agencies (to the extent they would be restricted from cross‑jurisdictional cooperation).
  • Entities or individuals in other jurisdictions seeking to pursue criminal or civil enforcement or professional discipline for conduct that is lawful in this state.

Potential impacts and issues

  • May strengthen access to care by reducing fear of out‑of‑state enforcement against providers and patients.
  • Could generate interstate legal conflict (Full Faith & Credit, interstate comity, or federal preemption considerations) and likely prompt litigation testing constitutionality and limits on state authority to refuse cooperation.
  • May affect information‑sharing, extradition requests, and reciprocal enforcement mechanisms between states.
  • Professional licensing reciprocity or investigations that cross state lines could be limited.

Legislative/procedural status (selected)

  • Introduced: 2025‑03‑20; referred to Assembly Commerce, Economic Development and Agriculture Committee (later also referred to Judiciary, Codes).
  • Multiple print versions issued (A5480A, A5480B, A5480C).
  • Reported and ordered to third reading; reported to Rules and placed on calendar (Cal. 321).
  • 2025‑05‑29: Substituted by companion bill S4914B (i.e., Senate bill S4914B became the vehicle for the measure).
  • Primary sponsor: Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson; many cosponsors listed (see bill record).

Related legislation

  • Companion: S4914 / S4914B (Senate)
  • Prior‑session related: A7687

If you want, I can:
- Locate and summarize the full text of S4914B (the substitute/companion) to provide exact statutory language and a more precise account of the bill’s provisions; or
- Draft a short one‑page explainer on how state-level “shield” statutes like this have been interpreted by courts and how they interact with interstate law.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.