Newsom Vetoes AB 2164, California’s Extradition Shield for Gender-Affirming Care

On September 20, 2026, California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 2164, which would have barred the governor from honoring out-of-state extradition requests tied to gender-affirming or reproductive health care that is legal in California. He said the bill would improperly limit future governors’ executive authority.

The veto does not repeal any of California’s existing protections for patients and providers. What it leaves in place is the governor’s discretion over one specific kind of request: when another state asks California to hand over a person charged there for health care provided here. For readers following the broader arc of how these questions reached the statehouse, our transgender history and education hub traces the longer story.

What did AB 2164 propose?

AB 2164 would have written a firm rule into state law: California’s governor could not recognize a demand to extradite someone facing criminal liability in another state for providing, receiving, assisting with, or materially supporting health care that California law protects.

The bill, titled “Legally protected activities,” was authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda). According to the Legislative Counsel’s digest of the version amended in the Assembly in April and published on LegiScan, it covered both reproductive health care services and gender-affirming health care services. That version also would have extended California’s existing protections to people who had acted in another U.S. jurisdiction, so long as what they did was lawful where they were at the time.

The bill was not unlimited. The Bay Area Reporter noted that it carried exemptions, such as extradition required by federal law. The April text also preserved extradition where the demanding state alleged in writing that the accused had been physically present in that state when the alleged crime occurred and afterward fled. That distinction matters: the U.S. Constitution requires states to return fugitives who flee, while requests involving people who never left California have historically been left to a governor’s discretion.

According to the Bay Area Reporter, the bill passed the Legislature on August 25.

Why did Newsom veto the bill?

Newsom said his objection was to the limit on executive power, not to the health care protections themselves.

In his veto message, released with the governor’s September 20 legislative update from the Office of the Governor, Newsom wrote that the bill “would prohibit future governors from recognizing a request for extradition of a person subject to criminal liability based on allegations that the person engaged in specified health care activities.”

He continued: “While I share the author’s views on the importance of protecting these important healthcare services, extradition is an exclusively executive function. When discretionary, that discretion belongs with the Governor. I am troubled by the precedent that would be set if an outgoing administration agreed with the Legislature to erode the executive authority of an incoming Governor based on their shared policy preferences, regardless of how righteous and well-intended those actions may be.”

Newsom is in his final months in office. He is term-limited after two four-year terms, and California will elect his successor in November. His argument, stated in its strongest form, is institutional: a governor who agrees with a policy should not use that agreement to strip powers from whoever holds the office next, because the same move could later be used to bind a governor on any issue.

What protections does California already have?

California already has several layers of shield-law protection, and the veto leaves all of them in place.

Under existing law, as summarized in the Legislative Counsel’s digest, state and local law enforcement may not knowingly arrest or participate in the arrest of anyone for legally protected health care activity that is lawful in California. State and local agencies are also barred from cooperating with or sharing information with out-of-state or federal law enforcement about such activity. What existing law does not do is remove the governor’s discretion: the governor “may” surrender a person charged in another state for an act committed in California that allegedly resulted in a crime elsewhere.

Newsom pointed to that record in the veto message, writing that California has “passed into law the nation’s strongest protections for people seeking and providing those services.” According to the Bay Area Reporter, earlier laws he signed made it state policy to reject out-of-state court judgments that remove transgender children from their parents’ custody over gender-affirming care. Last year’s Senate Bill 497, authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), barred health care providers from complying with subpoenas seeking gender-affirming care records and made unauthorized sharing of certain state health data a misdemeanor.

Who supported AB 2164, and how did they respond?

The bill’s supporters included medical associations, reproductive rights groups, and LGBTQ organizations, and several of them said the veto leaves a gap.

The California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus listed AB 2164 among its supported bills this year. The lead sponsor was the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine (ACT). Before the veto, Planned Parenthood of California argued that “by removing discretionary authority in these circumstances, the bill ensures that California healthcare providers cannot be arrested or extradited to states seeking to criminalize care that is lawful under our state’s laws.”

After the veto, Bauer-Kahan told the Bay Area Reporter, in its story “Newsom vetoes bill aimed at protecting providers of transgender care”, that she was “disappointed by the Governor’s veto,” adding that California “should be strengthening its protections; not leaving gaps that could expose Californians to out-of-state prosecution.”

Pavitra Abraham, director of state campaigns for Reproductive Freedom for All California, told the paper the veto “leaves California’s protections for abortion providers in the hands of whoever occupies the governor’s office.” She pointed to the Republican candidate for governor, Steve Hilton, who she said has been clear about his intention to extradite providers.

Lizzy Hinkley, ACT’s legal director, said the group would work with California’s next governor to enact the provisions. She described Newsom’s reasoning as “cold comfort to Californians living and working in the real world post-Dobbs.”

How does California compare with other states?

California’s decision leaves it outside a group of states that have written a firm extradition bar into law.

ACT said 18 governors have “signed identical provisions into law without fanfare.” Several states that have passed shield laws in recent years extended them from reproductive care to gender-affirming care. Our earlier report on how New Jersey extended its extradition bar to gender-affirming care shows what one of those laws looks like in practice.

The disagreement in California was not about whether the care should be protected. Newsom and the bill’s supporters said they share that goal. It was about where the protection should live: in a statute that binds every future governor, or in the discretion of whoever holds the office. For context on how these state-level fights fit together, see our guide to transgender politics and public policy.

What happens next?

For now, California’s existing shield laws remain unchanged, and extradition decisions of this kind remain with the governor.

According to the Bay Area Reporter, several other LGBTQ-related bills were still awaiting Newsom’s signature or veto, with a September 30 deadline to act. The question of who sits in the governor’s office after January is now directly tied to this issue, a point both the bill’s supporters and the veto message itself make in different ways. This article reports on legislation and public statements; it is not legal advice, and anyone with a specific concern should consult an attorney.

The veto also fits a pattern our coverage has followed through the midterm season, in which Democrats have divided over how far to go on transgender policy. Newsom’s stated reason here was institutional rather than a change of position on the underlying care, but the decision will be read in that political context.

Frequently asked questions

What was California’s AB 2164?

AB 2164 was a 2026 California bill by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan that would have barred the governor from recognizing out-of-state extradition requests against people facing criminal charges for providing, receiving, or supporting reproductive or gender-affirming health care that is legal in California. The Legislature passed it, and the governor vetoed it on September 20, 2026.

Why did Gavin Newsom veto AB 2164?

Newsom said extradition is an exclusively executive function and that the discretion belongs with the governor. He wrote that he was troubled by the precedent of an outgoing administration agreeing with the Legislature to limit an incoming governor’s authority, while saying he shared the author’s views on protecting the care.

Does the veto change California’s existing shield laws?

No. The veto leaves existing protections in place, including limits on state and local law enforcement arresting people for legally protected health care activity and limits on sharing information with out-of-state investigators. The governor still has discretion over certain extradition requests. This is reported information, not legal advice.

Who supported AB 2164?

Supporters included medical associations, LGBTQ groups, and reproductive rights organizations. The California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus listed it as a supported bill, the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine was the lead sponsor, and Planned Parenthood of California and Reproductive Freedom for All California both backed it.

Do other states have laws like AB 2164?

Yes. The Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine said 18 governors have signed identical provisions into law. Several states with shield laws, including New Jersey, have extended protections that first covered reproductive care to gender-affirming care as well.

Could a similar bill pass in the future?

Supporters say they intend to try. The Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine said it would work with California’s next governor to enact the provisions. Any new effort would depend on the Legislature and on the governor elected in November 2026.