Legislation introduced by Bay Area lawmakers that would hold federal officers liable for unconstitutional behavior moved forward in the state Legislature.
If it becomes law, Senate Bill 747, also called the No Kings Act, would allow Californians to sue U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and other federal agency officials for unlawful behavior.
Under existing federal law, individuals can sue local and state officers, but not federal officers. The No Kings Act is a first-of-its-kind legislation, though other states like New York are considering similar bills, that seeks to hold federal officers to the same standard as local and state officers by making them liable for legal action, according to the office of state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco.
The state Senate on Tuesday voted 30-10 in favor of the bill, which will head to the state Assembly next.
Wiener jointly authored the bill with State Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Hayward, and the two lawmakers held a press conference Tuesday before the vote.
Wiener referred to immigration agents killing Renee Good and Alex Pretti in separate shootings in Minneapolis this month as part of the administration’s “fascist crackdown on American communities.”
“This bill is based on a very basic concept that no one is above the law,” he said. “If you violate the U.S. Constitution and harm someone, you should be accountable.”
Wahab reiterated Wiener’s call to hold federal officers to the same standard as other law enforcement officers by pointing to a case from last week where ICE officers detained a 5-year-old child as a means to arrest his parent.
Meanwhile, Wahab said, state and local police officers are not even allowed to speak to a minor without a parent present.
“We have also seen billions of dollars go to the increased funding of this agency [ICE] with very little training, very little regard for process, for the rights of others,” said Wahab. “Without the lawsuits [that could be filed as a result of the legislation] … this organization will go and continue to violate the rights of many people.”
Apart from Wiener and Wahab, other Bay Area lawmakers have also authored legislation to curb ICE activity and inform Californians about immigration enforcement.
On Monday, state Assemblymember Anamarie Avila Farias, D-Martinez, introduced Assembly Bill 1627, which would disqualify ICE employees from becoming peace officers or teachers in California.
State Sen. Jesse Arreguin, D-Berkeley, previously authored Senate Bill 81, which prohibited hospitals and health care providers from granting ICE access to patients’ data without a warrant. The bill passed both houses and was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September.
Assemblymember Damon Connolly, D-San Rafael, authored Assembly Bill 419, which requires local educational agencies to post information related to immigration enforcement in multiple languages at administrative buildings and on websites managed by the agencies. Newsom signed the bill into law in October.
Originally, I was 100% against Trump using the insurrection act. But the way the Democrats are acting. I’m not sure it would be any worse than what we have now. Probably better.
These words, wow, – “fascist crackdown on American communities.”. Assembly Bill 1627, which would disqualify ICE employees from becoming peace officers or teachers in California ***But don’t we need police officers and teachers? Why should this disqualify someone? What if the agent is from a vulnerable community, wouldn’t this prevent social justice? Preventing ICE access to patients’ data without a warrant *** Really, can ICE walk into a hospital and ask for patient records today? Seems like a bunch of wanna be Kings writing legislation that’s all over the place. Biden 2028!!! LOL
There’s no reason to be against something like this. The constitutional rights of all Americans – especially your “enemies” – needs to be protected. Anyone that violates the civil rights of an American citizen needs to be prosecuted no matter who they are.
“You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free.” – Clarence Darrow.
So you propose to sue Federal Agents in California State Court for violating someone’s US Constitutional rights?
The article clearly states “Under existing federal law, individuals can sue local and state officers, but not federal officers” – 42 United States Code § 1983. California cannot unilaterally change Federal law with state legislation so this action has to be in State Court.
Surely you can see the problem with this legislation? Namely the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 and Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. If this idea has a snowballs chance in hell of ever being the law of the land, it has to originate in the US Congress not in a State’s Legislature.
Much like Wiener’s “highly touted” mask law, it won’t be worth the paper it is printed on. This is just another attempt to placate the emotions of their base.
This is how you get the ball rolling and start a national conversation. When the Supreme Court invalidates SB 747 and refers to the Westfall act or whatever that starts another conversation about why it even exists in the first place. If enough people are upset and call their reps wanting it repealed then congress has pressure to do something about it. This is how the Patriot Act was reformed after Snowden drew attention to NSA spying. I’m not saying this is likely but SB 747 drawing attention to these issues is a good thing.
So when a politician knowingly writes a bill and a Governor signs it into law knowing it violates the Supremacy Clause of Constitution and Sovereign Immunity that is hunky dory with you; however, when an Federal Agent makes a split second decision with incomplete information in an ever evolving situation they deserve to be sued for violating the Constitution.
Have I got that right?
So JimH what are you views on California Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098) another Weiner Et al special?
You know the one that allowed California to revoked a Doctor’s medical license if they dared to talked to their patients about alternative COVID-19 treatments? in other words, treatments not endorsed by the government of California?!?
How was that not on its face an OBVIOUS and BLATANT violation of medical professional’s 1st Amendment right to be free from the Government “prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..”?!? Yet it was gleefully and proudly signed into law with no adverse consequences for the authors or the Governor even after it was overturned by the Federal Courts and later repealed by the California Legislature as a violation of the Bill of Rights.
Was that an attempt to “get the ball rolling and start a national conversation” or was it just a willful and calculated violation of the Bill of Rights by the Government knowing the only punitive consequences politicians might suffer would be at the polls and not through the pocket book or prison?
You want amend 42 USC § 1983 then do it lawfully through Congress and stop advocating the knowingly and willful violation(s) of the US Constitution.
PS: Add politicians to the list of those who can be sued for violating the rights of the People.
Come back to your soapbox after we’ve prosecuted all the tyrants who intentionally violated our constitutional rights during the Covid Scamdemic.
JimH,
.
You should be hounding Congressman Mark DeSaulnier, Senator Alex Padilla, and Senator Adam Schiff to get them to introduce a bill to change Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter 1, Section 1983 so that it also applies to federal government employees who deprive citizens and residents of their rights, just as Congress has made it apply to state, local, and special district employees.
What a huge waste of time and tax dollars, these lawsuits will be kicked up to the supreme court and adjudicated appropriately. These insane state democratic appointed judges think they usurp our federal law…
The Democrats really need to get into comedy or at least attend Law School.
The Democrats are now saying outloud that they will not follow Federal Law when it comes to immigration. They are telling people to physically resist. Umm … is that the definition of an insurrection?
The Democrats want inclusion and equity, but now are saying if you are ICE, you are out of certain jobs. Ummm … is that the definition of discrimination?
The Democrats say follow the law, but they are telling people it is okay to physically interfere with law enforcement. Yes, ICE, DHS etc are law enforcement, whether you like it or not. They have powers of detainment and arrest. Yes, being detained and arressted are two very DIFFERENT things.
It is not to say Democrats are the only ones to blame, the Republicans are pushing very hard agendas of control and conservatism.
I am a conservative but I will give you your right to walk, talk, dress how you like until you try to force that behavior onto my children – then we tangle. I am open to having discussions, just do not yell and I really prefer when you provide sources.
Passing laws like this, besides being useless and unenforceable, do not help ease tensions. These political stunts only escalate the issue. So how do I feel about this law, it is stupid, dumb and really not value added.
Now before you just down vote me, why not take a moment to write a response so we can discuss. Communicating is the only nice way through this potential impasse … the other is civil war. Now which do you want?
Not surprised the deviant Weiner is a sponsor – I am sure the Bill contains language that protects him from the sick person that he is.
Forget about Weiner …. but ALL officers need to be held responsible to constitutional laws (federal, state, county, city, etc.)
I support it. We need to give the people more power to hold the federal officers accountable. Just follow the laws and they (the federal officers) don’t have to worry.
I wish California would worry about a few other things–like the homeless population that keeps increasing, the debt, and all the $$$$$ they waste. Also , only citizens should be eligible for Social security, Medicare and medical. Clean up the streets and send the illegals home. That would but a big dent in the deficit.
Max,
.
By restricting social security, Medicare, and Medicade/Medi-Cal benefits from the 13 million resident alien (now redefined as “permanent resident”) green card holders (green again) would likely result in the 9 million eligible resident aliens seeking citizenship, which would result in changing voting patterns and election outcomes in many areas of the country.