I.B.

DISCUSSION

Minor contends section 290.008 violates his state and federal equal protection rights because there are no substantive distinctions between him and minors who later commit the same crime but are sent to county facilities under the new law. He urges us to apply the strict scrutiny standard in reviewing his claim because he has a fundamental interest at stake. After a de novo review (In re M.B. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 435, 465), we disagree with these contentions. I Juvenile Justice Realignment Background A. The Closure of DJJ Until recently, DJJ was “the state’s most restrictive placement for its most severe juvenile offenders.” (In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 902.) In 2020, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 823 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2020, ch. 337) as part of its juvenile justice realignment efforts. (Miguel C., at p. 907.) Those efforts “included the transfer of DJJ’s responsibilities to California’s counties beginning [] July 1, 2021 (§ 736.5, subd. (a)) and the closure of DJJ on June 30, 2023 ([§ 736.5], subd. (e)).” (In re M.B., supra, 99 Cal.App.5th at p. 448.) Beginning July 1, 2021, a ward shall not be committed to DJJ except in…