In summary
In a settlement with Attorney General Rob Bonta, the city agrees to train employees on abortion access laws. But city officials deny any wrongdoing in how they handled permits for a third-trimester clinic.
Beverly Hills officials worked behind the scenes to prevent an abortion clinic from opening in the city last year, violating state constitutional protections for reproductive rights, according to an investigation by the California Department of Justice.
The city must now conduct comprehensive training for its employees about state and federal protections for abortion clinics and develop a procedure for reporting potential future violations to the state under a stipulated judgment being announced today by Attorney General Rob Bonta.
Bonta, who is weighing a run for governor in 2026, touted the “first-of-its-kind” settlement as a benchmark for other local governments to ensure they are fulfilling their legal obligation to maintain access to abortion.
“It is troubling that, even here in California where access to reproductive healthcare is a constitutional right, Beverly Hills officials have taken actions reminiscent of those in extremist red states by illegally interfering with, and ultimately preventing a new reproductive healthcare clinic from opening,” Bonta said in a statement. “We believe that reproductive healthcare is a fundamental right and will ensure that this right is upheld, free from political interference, and hold accountable those who break the law.”
But Beverly Hills, which faces ongoing litigation from the clinic operator, continues to deny any wrongdoing. In a statement, the city disagreed with Bonta’s allegations and noted that the settlement included no fines or penalties and could not be used in court.
“The City reaffirms and pledges that it did not and will not discriminate against any reproductive healthcare provider and strongly supports a woman’s right to choose,” Mayor Lester Friedman said.
One member of the city council, John Mirisch, said he voted against the stipulated judgment and accused Bonta of singling out Beverly Hills, a Jewish-majority city, while ignoring a rise in anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses over the past year.
“I cannot support political theater from the Attorney General’s office, aimed at scoring cheap political points by grandstanding using the Beverly Hills name, while at the same time other important issues are left by the wayside,” Mirisch said in a statement.
The situation in Beverly Hills caught the attention of activists and state officials because it exposed the limits of California’s positioning as a haven for abortion rights. Despite voters statewide overwhelmingly adding “reproductive freedom” to California’s constitution in 2022, local opposition, geographic barriers and legal restrictions can still prevent access to the procedure.
Conservative politicians have blocked at least two other proposed abortion clinics from opening in their communities over the past two years, while many California counties have no clinics at all. Because abortion is prohibited in the state once a fetus can live outside the womb — around 24 weeks of pregnancy — except when the life or health of the mother is threatened, most providers will not treat women who need abortions late in their pregnancy, forcing them to leave California for care.
DuPont Clinic, a Washington, D.C., provider that performs abortions into the third trimester, had sought to add an office in Beverly Hills to fill that gap. But before it even opened, the clinic became a target of anti-abortion protesters — who projected the words “MURDER MILL” onto the side of the building during a demonstration and spoke out at a city council meeting in April 2023 — raising fears among city officials about security and disruptions.
Email records show that Beverly Hills, which has publicly professed support for abortion rights, subsequently placed a hold on approved permits for the project while staff reviewed whether the abortion clinic was an allowed use for the property. At the same time, city officials, including from the police department, met with opponents and Douglas Emmett, Inc., the company that owned the building, to discuss safety concerns.
The Justice Department concluded that the city “unlawfully interfered with DuPont’s opening by improperly delaying the issuance of approved building permits and actively engaged in a pressure campaign against the property owner” until it terminated the lease in June 2023.
This included suggesting without any evidence that the clinic “would cause security threats against the building’s other tenants, going so far as to say that the building would be subject to violent protests, bomb threats, and ‘lone-wolf’ active shooters,” according to a summary of the findings, and then claiming that the city would be “so overwhelmed by this fictitious threat that they’d be unable to provide resources to the landlord and building — threatening to abandon their sworn responsibility to uphold public safety.”
When Douglas Emmett rescinded its lease, DuPont Clinic sued both the landlord and Beverly Hills, alleging that they “colluded and conspired with the protestors to try to drive DuPont out of the City.” Though they denied the characterization, local abortion rights activists launched a campaign to hold Beverly Hills accountable for what they believe was a betrayal of the city’s public commitment to reproductive freedom in order to avoid more disturbances from anti-abortion groups.
It’s unclear whether what impact the Justice Department agreement might have on DuPont’s case or its effort to open a clinic in California. A lawyer for the company said it was reviewing the filing.
Earlier this year, the Legislature approved and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a new law to create a streamlined approval process for reproductive health clinics that meet certain development criteria. The measure — which could make it easier for clinics to open even in communities that largely oppose abortion — was part of a wave of legislation to tamp down on a surging rebellion in more conservative parts of California against the state’s liberal governance.
