New California law could let immigrants sue ICE agents for violating constitution

The State Assembly judiciary committee approved a bill Tuesday that would allow California residents to file lawsuits against federal immigration agents if they can argue the action violates the constitution, 

The vote was 9-3 along party lines.

The State Senate approved the bill earlier, and it will now move on to the next steps of the legislative process to the appropriations committee before a final vote deadline of Aug. 30. 

The bill, called the “No Kings Act” or SB 747, is retroactive.

If it passes, it would allow people such as Marvin Godoy Calderon, who was arrested by federal immigration officers at the end of May outside his home in the Sunnyside neighborhood of San Francisco, to sue for constitutional rights violations.

Potential plaintiffs could sue for claims like excessive force and wrongful arrest, which are functionally difficult under current law.

Jordan Weiner, the immigration attorney at La Raza Centro Legal in San Francisco who represents Godoy Calderon, said the bill could be an important legal tool for her clients whose constitutional rights are violated.

Lawsuits could be filed on behalf of immigrant clients who endure harsh conditions in detention centers where, she said, constitutional rights are often violated by federal officers.

“We welcome this and it’s very timely especially as ICE takes more bold actions,” said Weiner.

Does a law to sue federal officers for violating the constitution already exist?

There is no existing law allowing people to sue federal law enforcement for unconstitutional acts, although there are pathways to sue local and state agents. 

As such, federal officers have “de facto immunity” for constitutional violations, said California State Senator Scott Wiener, who sponsored the bill.

Wiener worked with nonprofit groups such as Protect Democracy, a self-described “anti- authoritarian” national nonprofit, to draft the legislation. 

Since President Donald Trump took office for his second term, there have been countless examples locally and across the country of federal agents arresting or confronting individuals under circumstances that seem to thwart the protections provided in the constitution.

One of the most public examples were the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

In the aftermath of the killings, JD Vance, the vice president, stated that the officers were protected by “qualified immunity.” 

But Wiener’s bill argues that these officers are not immune from the constitution and should be held accountable for their actions if they violate it.

“The reality is that we have a fascist regime that is out of control, that is ignoring the U.S. Constitution, that is upending the rule of law … this bill is about upholding the rule of law and having accountability when someone violates your constitutional rights,” Wiener said in an interview. 

But again, the Department of Homeland Security has stated publicly that its officers have “federal immunity in the conduct of [their] duties.”

“The Department of Justice has made clear that if officials cross that line into obstruction, into criminal conspiracy against the United States or against ICE officers, then they will face justice,” read a social media post from January posted by the Department of Homeland Security.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

If this bill passes, a legal challenge is likely, as has been the pattern under this administration. 

Javier Ramirez, an American citizen who was arrested outside his Los Angeles home last summer by masked and heavily armed agents, spoke during the hearing in Sacramento. 

“The streets of my city, once a place of safety and comfort, have become tainted by the actions of those who should protect us,” said Ramirez, speaking to the legislators. 

During the hearing in the state assembly on Tuesday, the California Police Chiefs Association spoke in opposition to the current draft of the bill, expressing concern that there was not a clear definition of qualified immunity outlined in the current version of the legislation. But nonetheless, it passed.

Other states, such as Colorado, New York and Connecticut, have also introduced similar legislation. Wiener said the states are communicating with one another to exchange ideas.