Newsom's office says California "cannot dictate federal immigration policy" but can set requirements for law-enforcement practices where federal enforcement operates in the state
Gavin NewsomGovernor of California, in a news release from his office announcing the signed bills
In the Governor's September 29, 2026 release announcing 21 signed bills, Gov. Gavin Newsom's office said California "cannot dictate federal immigration policy" but that where federal immigration enforcement operates in California, the state can establish and enforce state-law requirements for state property, state resources, detention facilities, public records, law-enforcement practices and access to state programs. The release lists the ban on shock gloves, AB 2760, among the standards it says California has an interest in setting for law-enforcement practices and equipment used within the state. It does not address the federal government's objection that the Supremacy Clause bars state regulation of federal officers.
Responding to
Gov. Gavin Newsom's office said on September 29, 2026 that California cannot dictate federal immigration policy but that, where federal immigration enforcement operates in California, the state can establish and enforce requirements governing law-enforcement practices, and it listed AB 2760's ban on shock gloves among the standards it set.
“California cannot dictate federal immigration policy. But where federal immigration enforcement operates within California, the state can establish and enforce state-law requirements governing state property, state resources, detention facilities, public records, law-enforcement practices and access to state-administered programs.”
Official statement
Original text
Where this statement fits
Can California ban ICE and other federal agents from using electric shock gloves, as AB 2760 does?
On September 29, 2026, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 2760, which bars any law enforcement agency in California, including federal agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), from using a wearable electroshock device, meaning a weapon worn as a glove that delivers an electric shock. The law applies to state, local and federal agencies, requires a state Department of Justice study by January 1, 2029, and is repealed on January 1, 2030. It followed ICE's August 2026 sole-source contract of $16,700,640 for G.L.O.V.E. gloves from Compliant Technologies. Newsom and the bill's author, Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, defend the ban, and Sharp-Collins says the gloves have not been proven safe. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli says California has no jurisdiction over federal agents and that he advised the Department of Homeland Security to disregard the law, and the department says it will not abide by it. Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper, the California State Sheriffs' Association, Republican legislators and the gloves' maker oppose the ban as unwise, and two UC Davis law professors say California likely lacks the power to bind federal officers. The disputed question is whether California can ban federal agents from using electric shock gloves. As of October 1, 2026, no court had ruled on AB 2760, and we found no lawsuit against it.
Source and context
Official statement
About this source
The Governor's September 29, 2026 release announcing 21 signed bills. It lists a ban on shock gloves under 'Establish stronger standards for law-enforcement practices' and names AB 2760 by Assemblymember Dr. LaShae Sharp-Collins. It quotes Newsom's statement and says the state can set requirements for law-enforcement practices and equipment used within California, including where they intersect with immigration enforcement.
Original text
About this source
The chaptered text of AB 2760, approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on September 29, 2026. It adds Government Code section 7286.1, which bars a law enforcement agency from using a wearable electroshock device in California, bars state funds from being used to buy one, and requires agencies to update their use-of-force policies. It defines law enforcement agency to include state, local and federal agencies. It directs the Division of Law Enforcement in the Department of Justice to study the devices and report to the Legislature by January 1, 2029, and it repeals the section on January 1, 2030. The text names no penalty and no enforcement mechanism.
Before the quotation
The Legislature passed AB 2760 on August 31, 2026. Federal officials had said earlier that month that they would not abide by a state ban. The Governor signed the bill, as Chapter 749, on September 29, 2026, along with 20 other bills on immigration enforcement, including SB 1004, which extends the face-covering ban to state officers.
After the quotation
The same release quotes Newsom saying "Trump has put his political interests above the health, safety and livelihood of American families" and "This is about stepping up where the federal government has failed our communities." First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted the same day that California has "no jurisdiction" over federal agents. As of October 1, 2026, no court had ruled on AB 2760.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to California's ban on shock gloves as applied to federal officers, the Governor's office says the state may set law-enforcement requirements where federal immigration enforcement operates in California and lists the ban among the standards it set. That defends the state's authority to set law-enforcement equipment standards where federal enforcement operates, and the release lists the ban among them, so we used Defended or excused. The release does not say in terms that the ban reaches federal officers. The release answers the question of state power and says nothing on whether the gloves are safe. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because the same passage says the state cannot dictate federal immigration policy, but that limit concerns immigration policy and does not condition the office's support for the equipment ban.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseEssayli tells Newsom California has "no jurisdiction" over federal agents and says he advised DHS to disregard the shock-glove ban
“Governor, we’ve been through this already. If you want to regulate federal agents, you have to win a federal election. Until then, you have no jurisdiction. Accordingly, I have advised DHS to disregard your bill attempting to ban safe and effective less-lethal tools that agents need to escalate dangerous situations.”Read statement
Law professor Kevin Johnson says California has "very limited, if any, powers" over how federal officers are armed
“The state has very limited, if any, powers in dictating to the federal government how its officers are armed”Read statement
Compliant Technologies chief executive says the company was "never contacted by any legislator or agency within California" and blames the ban on "lack of knowledge and political bias"
“We were never contacted by any legislator or agency within California. And at the end of the day, the people that are going to be hurt are the citizens of California and the law enforcement agencies because they're going to lose a tool that can help them. It's amazing to me that no other tools, the safest, most humane, deescalatory product probably ever to come along in our opinion is now taken off the table and no other technologies were whatsoever because of lack of knowledge and political bias in our opinion.”Read statement
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Newsom's office says California "cannot dictate federal immigration policy" but can set requirements for law-enforcement practices where federal enforcement operates in the state
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4154-in-the-governor-s-september-29-2026-release
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Newsom's office says California "cannot dictate federal immigration policy" but can set requirements for law-enforcement practices where federal enforcement operates in the state". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4154-in-the-governor-s-september-29-2026-release