Sharp-Collins says "some things we probably cannot obviously regulate" when asked about legal challenges to the bill
LaShae Sharp-CollinsAssemblymember (D-San Diego) and author of AB 2760, answering a reporter's question at a Capitol news conference
Asked at the August 27, 2026 news conference whether she was concerned about legal challenges like those facing other immigration-related bills, Sharp-Collins said she had been in contact with Legislative Counsel and the Attorney General's office about the legal question, that there were potential concerns, and that "we know that some things we probably cannot obviously regulate." She added, "we have to start somewhere."
Responding to
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said on September 29, 2026 that California has no jurisdiction to regulate federal agents and that he had advised the Department of Homeland Security to disregard AB 2760.
“And we know that some things we probably cannot obviously regulate, but we have to start somewhere.”
Original video
Original text
Original post
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applies to state, local and federal agencies, requires a state Department of Justice study by January 1, 2029, and is repealed on January 1, 2030.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
Original video
About this source
The Assembly Democratic Caucus's video of the August 27, 2026 news conference. In the question-and-answer period a reporter asks whether Assemblymember Sharp-Collins is concerned about legal challenges like those facing other immigration-related bills, and she answers.
Original text
About this source
The committee staff analysis of the August 21 version of AB 2760. Comment 5 sets out the Supremacy Clause, intergovernmental immunity and conflict preemption arguments, quotes the February 9, 2026 district court ruling on California's mask and identification laws, and says the bill would need to apply equally to federal and state agencies to survive a constitutional challenge. The August 21 version excluded state agencies, and the enacted text includes them. The analysis also records the author's statement, a statement of support from La Defensa and a statement of opposition from the California Police Chiefs Association. It cites the district court's February 9 ruling and does not discuss the Ninth Circuit's April 22 opinion.
Original post
About this source
A post from the official account of First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli quoting a post about Assemblymember Sharp-Collins's August 27 news conference introducing the shock-glove ban.
Before the quotation
The question asked whether she was concerned about legal challenges, like a lot of the other immigration and ICE-related bills the Legislature had advanced that year. The Senate Public Safety analysis, published the day before, had said the bill's provisions regulating federal agencies would undoubtedly face a legal challenge.
After the quotation
That evening First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted that the bill is "DOA, just like their mask ban." The Legislature amended the bill on August 28 and passed it on August 31. 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 the ban as applied to federal officers, Sharp-Collins keeps backing the bill while conceding that the state probably cannot regulate some things, in answer to a question about legal challenges. She does not say which parts of the bill she has in mind. The answer addresses the question of state power, not safety. We used Mixed or conditional because she combines support for going ahead with an acknowledgment that some of what the state tries to regulate may be out of reach. The closest competing label is Defended or excused, because she does not withdraw the bill's application to federal officers and says the state has to start somewhere.
- 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
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
“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.”Read statement
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Sharp-Collins says "some things we probably cannot obviously regulate" when asked about legal challenges to the bill
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4156-asked-at-the-august-27-2026-news-conference
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Sharp-Collins says "some things we probably cannot obviously regulate" when asked about legal challenges to the bill". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4156-asked-at-the-august-27-2026-news-conference