The California State Senate has signed off, unanimously and without much suspense, on SB 995, the Masuma Khan Justice Act, a bill aimed at tightening the screws on privately operated immigration detention centers after a wave of complaints about moldy food, limited access to clean water and delayed medical care. The measure cleared the Senate on a 39-0 vote as part of a nine-bill package from Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez and now heads to the State Assembly. Supporters say the bill would finally give state agencies real power to inspect these facilities and hit operators with penalties when they fail to meet California health and safety standards.
Sen. Pérez has framed the bill as “rooted in the simple principle that if detention centers operate in California, they must meet California’s standards,” according to a statement from Sen. Pérez's office. Her office also notes that eight companion bills, covering everything from insurance reforms to social media data protections and corporate reporting, cleared the Senate alongside SB 995 and are likewise en route to the Assembly.
What the Masuma Khan Justice Act Would Do
SB 995 would authorize several state inspecting agencies, including the Department of Public Health, the Office of the State Fire Marshal, the State Water Resources Control Board and Cal/OSHA, to conduct periodic inspections of “involuntary residential facilities” that house 50 or more people. The bill directs those agencies to use standards that line up with those applied to licensed residential health facilities.
The proposal allows unannounced inspections when there is an imminent threat or a reported outbreak, requires operators to file annual compliance reports and authorizes civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation per day. It also keeps intact the agencies’ authority to suspend or revoke state permits for serious violations. The enforcement framework is detailed in the bill text on LegiScan.
Other Bills in Pérez’s Package
SB 995 is one piece of a broader effort. The package includes SB 1103, the REPAIR Act, which would require large home-improvement retailers to publicly report any on-site immigration enforcement activity and to disclose their surveillance and data-sharing practices.
Another measure, SB 1105, the Protect California Rights Act, would prohibit state and local agencies from taking part in federal operations that violate California’s protections against racial profiling or the criminalization of protected speech. SB 957, known as the SHIELD Act, would require social media platforms to notify Californians when federal agencies seek their personal data, according to committee materials. Those bills and the rest of the package are summarized by Davis Vanguard along with the Senate committee analysis for SB 957.
Why Advocates Pushed the Bill
Backers say SB 995 is a direct response to an alarming series of first-hand accounts from inside privately run detention centers, including hunger strikes and reports of detainees being denied medication or served spoiled meals. The bill is named for Masuma Khan, an Altadena resident whose detention drew public attention, as reported by the Los Angeles Times. It is co-sponsored by legal advocacy groups including Public Counsel, which has circulated messages from detainees to underscore what they describe as an urgent need for stronger oversight.
Legal Challenges and What Comes Next
All nine bills in the package now move to the Assembly, where they will go through hearings, amendments and floor debates. Supporters are gearing up for a full-court press to secure final votes, while opponents prepare to test the measures on legal and operational grounds.
That next stage matters because California laws that brush up against federal immigration enforcement have already drawn courtroom fire. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently granted an injunction that halted parts of a related identification law, highlighting the likelihood of constitutional challenges and federal preemption fights ahead. Coverage of that appellate decision appeared on NBC Los Angeles.
Supporters argue the package threads a needle between public-safety concerns and basic humane treatment for people held in facilities operating within the state. Critics warn it will pile new burdens on operators and spark protracted legal battles. With the Assembly now taking its turn, the bills are poised to become a central flashpoint this summer for advocates, local officials and legal teams on both sides.
