SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California lawmakers are again positioning the state in direct opposition to the Trump administration, this time with legislation that would allow residents to sue federal immigration officials for alleged constitutional violations.
The proposal, Senate Bill 747, authored by Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, seeks to close what supporters call a longstanding legal loophole that shields federal law enforcement officers from civil lawsuits in cases where state or local officers could be held liable.
Wiener has dubbed the measure the “No Kings Act,” arguing it is necessary amid increased immigration enforcement actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
“We’re here today because ICE and the Trump administration are trampling over the Constitution and need to be held accountable,” Wiener said. “We’ve had enough of this terror campaign in our communities by ICE.”
Under current federal law — specifically Section 1983 of the U.S. Code — individuals may sue state or local officials for violations of constitutional rights, but federal officers are excluded. SB 747 would create a state-level cause of action allowing lawsuits against federal agents for misconduct occurring in California.
Supporters say the bill does not break new legal ground but instead addresses an imbalance in accountability.
“We are not breaking radical new ground here,” said Democratic Sen. Josh Becker of Menlo Park. “We are closing a loophole.”
They also clarified the intention of the bill.
“This is not an attack on law enforcement. This bill is not anti-law enforcement. This bill is pro Constitution, pro accountability and pro public trust,” said Sen. Susan Rubio, a Democrat from Baldwin Park.
Civil liberties advocates argue the lack of accountability has left victims with little recourse. Anya Bidwell, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, said federal officers are often able to avoid lawsuits because courts routinely dismiss claims under doctrines such as discretionary immunity.
“If this were state or local officials, we would be in court right now,” Bidwell said.
The Institute for Justice represents George Retes, a U.S. citizen and military veteran who was detained for 72 hours by ICE last July while driving to work. Retes said officers broke his car window, deployed tear gas and pepper spray, and forcibly removed him despite his claims that he did not resist.
“I was free to go, and I just got to live with the experience that they put me through,” Retes said.
Bidwell said Retes has not filed a lawsuit because existing law makes such cases unlikely to succeed. That is why the two stand firmly behind SB 747.
“The reason ICE does what it does is because they know it is extremely difficult to sue,” she said.
Opponents argue the bill would infringe on federal authority and create legal chaos by allowing states to regulate federal agents.
“We cannot have 50 different states deciding how they think we should be operating,” said Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney. “The states do not have the authority to regulate federal agents, period.”
Essayli added that it’s Congress that regulates federal authorities.
Republican lawmakers also criticized the proposal. Assemblymember Tom Lackey of Palmdale — who served in law enforcement for decades himself — said the bill could further inflame anti-law-enforcement sentiment.
“I believe that this is going to feed a fire of anti-law enforcement that is unjustified,” Lackey said.
Supporters acknowledge that Congress could amend federal law to address the issue directly but argue states must act in the absence of federal reform.
If passed, SB 747 would apply only to incidents occurring in California and would be retroactive to March 1, 2025, a provision that could open the door to lawsuits over recent enforcement actions.
The proposal is part of a broader legislative push by Wiener aimed at law enforcement accountability. A separate bill by the senator that would restrict most officers from wearing masks while on duty is scheduled for a hearing this week and has already drawn opposition from the Trump administration.
The bill passed through the Senate Judicial Committee with a majority vote late Tuesday. The bill advances to the Senate Appropriations Committee next then would advance to the Senate floor.
WATCH MORE ON ABC10 | California lawmakers consider permanent statewide rent cap
ABC10: Watch, Download, Read