PLF Lawsuit: California Legislature Tries to Cover Up Communications with Coastal Commission

Pacific Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit Tuesday November 10, 2026, in Sacramento County Superior Court, challenging the State Assembly Rules Committee’s refusal to disclose communications with the California Coastal Commission. They are seeking to enforce California’s public records laws.

The case developed from requests for communications between the Legislature and the Coastal Commission over the past five years. According to PLF, the requested records could reveal how lawmakers have addressed concerns about the Commission’s ability to impose fines that help fund their own projects.

Despite the California Public Records Act (CPRA) defining California’s transparency requirements, the Rules Committee failed to produce responsive records, repeatedly missed statutory deadlines, and broadly asserted exemptions without identifying withheld documents or explaining why they should remain secret.

In Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Legislature, PLF named the Assembly Committee on Rules, the Joint Rules Committee, and Lia Lopez in her official capacity as Chief Administrative Officer.

PLF explains:

When Californians want to build new houses, update their aging homes, or invest in other improvements to their property, they must first apply for a permit from their local government, at which point they should be free to begin building. Instead, the Coastal Commission often intervenes, investigating alleged violations of the Coastal Act and even appealing already granted permits to itself.

From there, the agency leaves permit applicants waiting an average of 148 daysfor a hearing. It can reopen decided permits, demand costly revised plans, and require follow-up environmental reviews. The agency finds “substantial issue” with over 97% of the permits it appeals to itself. When it takes issue with a project, it imposes new, burdensome conditions that force permit applicants to jump through endless hoops—or even sign away their constitutional rights—just for the right to build.

In early 2026, PLF researchers submitted requests under the Legislative Open Records Act (LORA) for communications between the Legislature and the California Coastal Commission within roughly the prior five years. 

The Assembly Rules Committee refused, asserting that responsive records fell under LORA exemptions for correspondence of individual Members and their staff and/or records made confidential by other law. It produced only one document, a 2024 Coastal Commission public-education report, after a renewed request and claimed the rest were exempt as “personal” communications.

PLF’s verified petition seeks an order under Gov. Code § 9077 compelling disclosure, and argues the exemptions cannot be used to hide official communications between branches of government.

“The Coastal Commission has taken on for itself the role of a judge, jury, and beneficiary when it comes to Californian coastal regulations, deciding who to find guilty and how much to impose in penalties. But the Commission has a vested interest in finding violations and imposing exorbitant fines, because it uses those fines to fund its own policy priorities,” said Tanmay Shukla, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. “That is a clear conflict of interest. The public has a right to know what the Legislature is doing to address this problem — or if it’s enabling the Commission instead.”

Can the Legislature shield records that may reveal its dealings with a powerful state agency from public scrutiny? PLF says Californians have a right to know how their government operates and that lawmakers must comply with the same public records laws they impose on others.