Law professor Kevin Johnson says California has "very limited, if any, powers" over how federal officers are armed
Kevin R. JohnsonProfessor emeritus at the UC Davis School of Law, quoted in an Associated Press report
Kevin R. Johnson, professor emeritus at the UC Davis School of Law, told the Associated Press that courts are likely to hold that the state cannot bar federal officers from wearing shock gloves or face coverings, and that the laws, though well-intentioned, likely conflict with the Supremacy Clause. In the AP's quotation he said "the state has very limited, if any, powers in dictating to the federal government how its officers are armed."
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.
“The state has very limited, if any, powers in dictating to the federal government how its officers are armed”
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applies to state, local and federal agencies, requires a state Department of Justice study by January 1, 2029, and is repealed on January 1, 2030.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
Associated Press report on the signing, as published by PBS News. It gives the law's dates, the Justice Department study requirement, comments by Sharp-Collins, Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper and UC Davis professor emeritus Kevin Johnson, and the earlier court ruling on California's mask law.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The AP report, published on the day Newsom signed the bill, notes that a federal judge earlier in 2026 blocked California's first face-covering law because it applied to local and federal officers but exempted state officers, and that lawmakers passed a new bill to apply the ban to all officers.
After the quotation
The same AP report quotes Assemblymember Sharp-Collins describing the bill as a pause while the state examines the risks, and Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper opposing it. 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, Johnson predicts that courts will hold the state lacks the power to bind federal officers, which rejects the ban's federal application as beyond California's authority. He addresses only the power question. We used Condemned because he rejects the application as unenforceable, even while calling the laws well-intentioned. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he calls the laws well-intentioned and frames his conclusion as a prediction (likely), but he credits only the laws' purpose and rejects their application to federal officers.
- 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
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
- Law professor Kevin Johnson says California has "very limited, if any, powers" over how federal officers are armed
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4166-kevin-r-johnson-professor-emeritus-at-the-uc
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Law professor Kevin Johnson says California has "very limited, if any, powers" over how federal officers are armed". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4166-kevin-r-johnson-professor-emeritus-at-the-uc