California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been playing hide the ball with the truth about the disastrous and deadly Pacific Palisades fire and the state's culpability in it since it rekindled on Jan. 7, 2025. This week, the governor lost another court maneuver in his attempt to deny Palisades fire victims the ability to sue the the State of California.
On Friday, the California Supreme Court denied Newsom administration's latest stall tactic, that would have required yet another "review and request to stay the Palisades Fire Litigation," according to Trey Robertson, who represents 4,000 Palisades victims. If the court had decided differently, those victims would have been completely iced out of their efforts to seek relief... and discovery.
We've already seen the state run from liability in the case, but the secrets that would pour out from discovery in a court case of this kind could fill that entire empty Pacific Palisades reservoir. It's still empty, by the way.
The State of California has the right to defend itself against liability in the fire, of course. But there's something else at play here. Newsom's administration has fought the thousands of victims every step of the way as they seek what could be billions of dollars in damages from the state's complicity.
The decision means that "justice is coming for the Palisades Fire victims," Robertson said in an X post.
Breaking News: The California Supreme Court has denied the State of California's petition for review and request to stay the Palisades Fire Litigation. The Supreme Court denied the State's request to overturn the trial court's order overruling the State's demurrer to the… pic.twitter.com/mtcJNCWiuC
— 415FirePhoto (@415FirePhoto) June 12, 2026
And the question is: what does the State of California have to hide, anyway?
Plenty.
While the fire was burning, Newsom took limited fire assets to stage a presser, in which he alleged that the fire was the product of global warming and climate change. What it really had to do with, however, was incompetence and climate hysteria in a statewide policy that prioritized plants over people.
Dry fire hydrants. Low winds — not high winds initially. Incompetence.
A day after the Palisades fire started Gavin Newsom was already blaming climate change for the fire and local officials for the lack of water.
— MAZE (@mazemoore) May 5, 2026
"Unprecedented!"
They spend billions on fighting climate change but didn't have water or working fire trucks.pic.twitter.com/cSfbTshXZB https://t.co/CPBCOBDW9n
The state refused to cut back brush and chaparral to mitigate fire danger. Indeed, in 2019, when the other target of the lawsuit, the city's Department of Water and Power, tried to clear brush near its new steel power poles, the state sued them and forced them to replace the allegedly removed endangered plants. Plants over people. And the plaintfiffs have that in writing. Robertson says it is the "written policy [in the state's parks manual] that they decided long ago that they were going to protect plants over people."
Tanker planes were delayed, and when they were allowed on site, they were denied the ability to use the ocean water within spitting distance, and were sent miles away to get water. They didn't want to hurt native plants with salt water, and chose instead to let the people, houses, and plants burn up. That was a decision that is explicitly stated in the State Parks manual.
The Democrats' radical environmental policies caused this caltastrophe [sic].
Limited discovery so far revealed texts between local firefighters and state officials, acknowledging the state's rules that didn't allow them to bring in equipment to fully extinguish the still-hot Lachman Fire, which later rekindled into the Palisades conflagration.
And now the state and the city of Los Angeles "are facing billions of dollars in potential liability." Well, if they've got billions enough to make sure illegal aliens get registered to vote, free health care, schools, and food stamps without benefit of citizenship, then we guess victims destroyed by the government's stupidity should be recompensed, too.
Indeed, California's bond rating has been downgraded under the fiscal gluttony and utter incompetence of the Newsom administration.
Under previous decisions, the plaintiffs got limited discovery to show that they had a case. And after this state Supreme Court decision, we'll see a gusher of intel enough to fill that still-empty Palisades reservoir. Let the waters of truth flow.
Worse, Robertson told me in a recent edition of the Adult in the Room Podcast that "the state has been the worst player in this case. They have repeatedly violated court orders."
If you haven't seen my interview with Robertson, please watch it below. Make sure you take your blood pressure meds before you do.
Editor’s Note: We voted for mass deportations, not mass amnesty. Help us continue to fight back against those trying to go against the will of the American people.
Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member