Sheriff Cooper says California "cannot dictate the tools and tactics used by Federal law enforcement" and the ban will cost local deputies a "valuable compliance and de-escalation tool"
Jim CooperSacramento County Sheriff, a Democrat and former state Assemblymember, in a post on his official X account
In a September 1, 2026 post on X, Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper, a Democrat, said it is "unfortunate that this only became an issue once ICE purchased the G.L.O.V.E." He wrote that "the fallout won't be felt by the Federal government" but by local deputies and police officers "who are losing a valuable compliance and de-escalation tool, as California agencies have been using it for years." He added that "California cannot dictate the tools and tactics used by Federal law enforcement" and that, like the state's mask restrictions, "this legislation will have no effect on Federal agencies."
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.
“It’s unfortunate that this only became an issue once ICE purchased the G.L.O.V.E. In today’s political climate, anything associated with the Federal government immediately becomes radioactive. Unfortunately, the fallout won’t be felt by the Federal government; it will be felt by local deputies and police officers who are losing a valuable compliance and de-escalation tool, as California agencies have been using it for years. What somehow continues to be overlooked is that California cannot dictate the tools and tactics used by Federal law enforcement. Just like the state’s mask restrictions, this legislation will have no effect on Federal agencies.”
Original post
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applies to state, local and federal agencies, requires a state Department of Justice study by January 1, 2029, and is repealed on January 1, 2030.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
Original post
About this source
A post from Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper's account the day after the Legislature passed AB 2760. It links to an ABC10 article about the bill.
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
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)Before the quotation
Cooper's department had bought 10 of the gloves for about $35,000 and was training officers to use them, according to the New York Post. He opposed the bill in a letter dated August 24 that Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares read on the Senate floor, and he said on August 27 that the gloves are lifesaving. The Legislature sent the bill to the Governor on August 31.
After the quotation
Newsom signed the bill on September 29. The enacted text covers county sheriff's offices as well as federal agencies. 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, Cooper rejects it on both questions: he says California cannot dictate the tools federal officers use, so the law will not reach them, and he says it will take a useful de-escalation tool from local deputies. We used Condemned because he rejects the ban as ineffective against federal agents and harmful to local law enforcement. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he says the law will have no effect on federal agencies while also objecting to its cost to local deputies, but the two points support one rejection.
- 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
- Sheriff Cooper says California "cannot dictate the tools and tactics used by Federal law enforcement" and the ban will cost local deputies a "valuable compliance and de-escalation tool"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4162-in-a-september-1-2026-post-on-x
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Sheriff Cooper says California "cannot dictate the tools and tactics used by Federal law enforcement" and the ban will cost local deputies a "valuable compliance and de-escalation tool"". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4162-in-a-september-1-2026-post-on-x