Sheriffs' Association says it is not uncommon for courts to eliminate such bills' application to federal entities, leaving them to apply only to state and local agencies
California State Sheriffs' AssociationCalifornia State Sheriffs' Association, in a written opposition letter quoted in the Assembly floor analysis and read aloud on the Senate floor
In its written opposition as printed in the Assembly's analysis of the Senate amendments, the California State Sheriffs' Association said it remained opposed to AB 2760 and argued that removing force options from the range of permissible responses makes de-escalation harder. It said all indications are that the bill is focused on federal immigration authorities and their enforcement practices, that it is one of several measures that attempt to regulate federal practices while also affecting state and local law enforcement, and that "it is not uncommon for courts to eliminate such bills' application to federal entities, thereby leaving the measures to only apply to state and/or local 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.
“Also, all indications are that this bill is focused on federal immigration authorities and their enforcement practices. This is one of a number of measures that attempt to regulate federal practices and at the same time implicate state and local law enforcement. As we have already seen with bills enacted during this session, it is not uncommon for courts to eliminate such bills' application to federal entities, thereby leaving the measures to only apply to state and/or local agencies.”
Original text
Original video
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applies to state, local and federal agencies, requires a state Department of Justice study by January 1, 2029, and is repealed on January 1, 2030.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 text
About this source
The Assembly's analysis of the Senate amendments to AB 2760, as amended August 28, 2026. It summarizes the enacted provisions and records the author's statement, a statement of support from La Defensa and a statement of opposition from the California State Sheriffs' Association, which says the bill is aimed at federal immigration authorities and that courts have removed the federal application of other bills enacted this session. The linked archive copy is the Legislature's analysis index page, which does not contain the analysis text.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original video
About this source
The Senate floor debate on AB 2760 on August 31, 2026. The segment is Senator Suzette Martinez Valladares's remarks in opposition, in which she reads aloud passages from a letter by Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper dated August 24 and a letter from the California State Sheriffs' Association dated August 31.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The association opposed the bill in committee on August 26 through lobbyist Cory Salzillo, who said it was bad policy from a California law enforcement perspective and only a message to the feds. The Senate amended the bill on August 28 to add a study and a 2030 repeal, and the California Police Chiefs Association and the Peace Officers Research Association of California were reported to have moved to neutral. The sheriffs' association stayed opposed.
After the quotation
The Senate passed the bill 29 to 9 and the Assembly agreed 55 to 16 on August 31. Newsom signed it on September 29. As of October 1, 2026, no court had ruled on whether the ban applies to federal officers.
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, the association rejects the bill as unwise for law enforcement and predicts that courts will remove its federal application, leaving state and local agencies bound. The letter answers both questions: it argues the ban makes de-escalation harder and that the federal reach is unlikely to survive. We used Condemned because the association opposes the bill and rejects its federal application as unenforceable. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, but the written opposition attaches no condition to its position.
- 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
- Sheriffs' Association says it is not uncommon for courts to eliminate such bills' application to federal entities, leaving them to apply only to state and local agencies
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4163-in-its-written-opposition-as-printed-in-the
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Sheriffs' Association says it is not uncommon for courts to eliminate such bills' application to federal entities, leaving them to apply only to state and local agencies". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4163-in-its-written-opposition-as-printed-in-the