Seyarto says that "from a federal immigration standpoint" the ban "makes zero difference" because "we do not have that jurisdiction"
Kelly SeyartoRepublican state senator and vice chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee, speaking in the committee hearing on AB 2760
At the Senate Public Safety Committee's August 26, 2026 hearing, Sen. Kelly Seyarto, the committee's vice chair, said "from a federal immigration standpoint, it makes zero difference in what they're doing whatsoever, because we do not have that jurisdiction." He added "I don't want to handcuff our local police." In the same remarks he called the bill premature, said less-lethal tools may save lives, and said bills like this need more vetting and research before outright bans.
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.
“from a federal immigration standpoint, it makes zero difference in what they're doing whatsoever, because we do not have that jurisdiction. I don't want to handcuff our local police.”
Original video
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applies to state, local and federal agencies, requires a state Department of Justice study by January 1, 2029, and is repealed on January 1, 2030.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 video
About this source
The Senate Public Safety Committee's August 26, 2026 hearing on AB 2760 as archived by CalMatters Digital Democracy. The segment is the committee's vice chair, Senator Kelly Seyarto, speaking before the committee voted. He cast the only no vote when the committee passed the bill 5 to 1.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
About this source
Roll calls for AB 2760. On the rewritten bill, Senate Public Safety voted 5-1 on August 26, Senate Appropriations 4-2 on August 27, the Senate floor 29-9 on August 31 and the Assembly concurred 55-16 on August 31. The earlier votes on the bill, including the Assembly's 51-7 vote on May 26, were on a different version about county inspectors general.
Original video
About this source
The Senate floor debate on AB 2760 on August 31, 2026. The segment is Senator Kelly Seyarto's remarks in opposition.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The committee had heard the author, witnesses for the bill, and witnesses against it, including the California State Sheriffs' Association and the California Police Chiefs Association. Seyarto spoke first among the senators during questions and comments.
After the quotation
He voted no when the committee passed the bill 5 to 1. On the Senate floor on August 31 he spoke against it again, saying it removes one less-lethal tool for officers. 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, Seyarto rejects it on both questions: he says the state lacks jurisdiction over federal immigration enforcement, so the ban changes nothing for federal agents, and he calls the bill premature and a handcuffing of local police. We used Condemned because he rejects the ban as beyond the state's reach and unwise. The closest competing label is Challenges the characterization, because he disputes what the bill can accomplish, but he also opposes the policy and voted no.
- 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
- Seyarto says that "from a federal immigration standpoint" the ban "makes zero difference" because "we do not have that jurisdiction"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4164-at-the-senate-public-safety-committee-s-august
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Seyarto says that "from a federal immigration standpoint" the ban "makes zero difference" because "we do not have that jurisdiction"". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4164-at-the-senate-public-safety-committee-s-august