DHS says it "will not abide by unconstitutional bans" and that California's "sanctuary politicians do not control federal law enforcement"
U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityU.S. Department of Homeland Security, in a statement from an unnamed spokesperson to several news outlets
In a statement attributed to a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, first reported in part by the Associated Press on August 27, 2026, printed through its second sentence by ABC 10News in San Diego on August 28, and quoted in full by the New York Post on September 1 and by Mother Jones on September 29, DHS said "Sanctuary politicians attempting to ban our federal law enforcement from any safety equipment is despicable and a deliberate attempt to undermine and endanger our officers." It said "we will not abide by unconstitutional bans" and that under the Supremacy Clause California's "sanctuary politicians do not control federal law enforcement." The statement did not name a spokesperson.
“Sanctuary politicians attempting to ban our federal law enforcement from any safety equipment is despicable and a deliberate attempt to undermine and endanger our officers. To be crystal clear: we will not abide by unconstitutional bans. The Supremacy Clause makes it clear that California’s sanctuary politicians do not control federal law enforcement.”
Reporting
Reporting
Reporting
Reporting
Reporting
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applies to state, local and federal agencies, requires a state Department of Justice study by January 1, 2029, and is repealed on January 1, 2030.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
Reporting
About this source
ABC 10News (San Diego) report of August 28, 2026, the earliest report we found of the DHS statement on the California bill. It also reports ICE's posting of the contract notice on Thursday, August 27, and Sharp-Collins's remark that the bill had been changed to a three-year ban with a Justice Department study.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Reporting
About this source
Mother Jones report on the signing. It quotes a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson saying the department will not abide by unconstitutional bans, summarizes lawsuits over the gloves, and cites a September 22 video by the manufacturer's chief executive.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Reporting
About this source
New York Post (California Post) report on the Legislature's passage of AB 2760. It gives the full text of a DHS statement attributed to the Department of Homeland Security and describes Sacramento County's purchase of 10 gloves for about $35,000.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Reporting
About this source
Associated Press report of August 27, 2026 on ICE's contract with Compliant Technologies, as published by Oregon Public Broadcasting. It quotes a Department of Homeland Security statement calling efforts to ban federal law enforcement from safety equipment 'despicable' and describes it as a reaction to critics of the purchase.
Reporting
About this source
CBS News Sacramento report on the signing. It quotes a statement from the Department of Homeland Security that enforcing federal immigration laws is a federal responsibility, and says DHS defended ICE's use of new technology and said ICE officers receive ongoing training in de-escalation and use of force.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
On August 27 the Associated Press reported the first sentence of the statement as DHS's reaction to critics of the contract award. The Legislature's August 26 and 27 committee votes had just advanced the bill. The unnamed spokesperson also told outlets in August that ICE officers are highly trained in de-escalation and that equipment is reviewed for consistency with law enforcement policies.
After the quotation
After the signing DHS told CBS News Sacramento that "Enforcing federal immigration laws is a clear federal responsibility." As of October 1, 2026, no court had ruled on AB 2760, and we found no named DHS spokesperson on the statement.
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, DHS rejects it as unconstitutional, says it will not comply, and calls the equipment it covers safety equipment for federal officers. The statement answers the power question directly through the Supremacy Clause and addresses the safety question only by calling the gloves safety equipment. We used Condemned because DHS rejects the ban as unconstitutional. The closest competing label is Explicitly declines, because DHS says it will not comply, but the refusal rests on a stated rejection of the 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
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
- DHS says it "will not abide by unconstitutional bans" and that California's "sanctuary politicians do not control federal law enforcement"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4161-in-a-statement-attributed-to-a-department-of
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "DHS says it "will not abide by unconstitutional bans" and that California's "sanctuary politicians do not control federal law enforcement"". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4161-in-a-statement-attributed-to-a-department-of