Essayli tells Newsom California has "no jurisdiction" over federal agents and says he advised DHS to disregard the shock-glove ban
Bill EssayliFirst Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, in a post on his official X account
In a September 29, 2026 post on X, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli of the Central District of California wrote to the Governor, "If you want to regulate federal agents, you have to win a federal election. Until then, you have no jurisdiction." He said he had advised DHS "to disregard your bill attempting to ban safe and effective less-lethal tools that agents need to escalate dangerous situations." The post says escalate. In a reply posted at 02:42 UTC on September 30, Essayli corrected that word to de-escalate.
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.
“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.”
Original post
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applies to state, local and federal agencies, requires a state Department of Justice study by January 1, 2029, and is repealed on January 1, 2030.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 post
About this source
A post from the official account of First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, written as a response to the Governor's press office announcement that Newsom had signed 21 bills including the shock-glove ban. The text reads, in full, '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.' and, in a second paragraph, '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.'
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 post quotes the Governor's press office announcement that Newsom had signed 21 bills, including the shock-glove ban. On August 27 Essayli had posted that the bill is "DOA, just like their mask ban" and that California "does not have authority to dictate what tools federal law enforcement can and cannot use." Essayli is among the Justice Department lawyers named on the United States' 2025 complaint over California's mask and identification laws.
After the quotation
DHS had said in August that it would not abide by state bans. As of October 1, 2026, we did not find a lawsuit, motion or injunction against AB 2760, and no court had ruled on whether California may bar federal agents from using the gloves.
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, Essayli rejects it as beyond California's power, says he told DHS to disregard it, and calls the tools it bans safe and effective. The post answers mainly the question of state power, with a brief characterization of the gloves' safety. We used Condemned because he rejects the ban as unenforceable against federal agents. The closest competing label is Challenges the characterization, because he disputes that California may regulate federal agents at all, but he goes on to reject the bill itself and tell DHS to disregard it.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseLaw 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
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
- Essayli tells Newsom California has "no jurisdiction" over federal agents and says he advised DHS to disregard the shock-glove ban
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4160-in-a-september-29-2026-post-on-x
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Essayli tells Newsom California has "no jurisdiction" over federal agents and says he advised DHS to disregard the shock-glove ban". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4160-in-a-september-29-2026-post-on-x