Law professor Vikram Amar says "States simply can't regulate how federal officers do their jobs"
Vikram David AmarProfessor at the UC Davis School of Law, quoted by CalMatters
Vikram Amar, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law, told CalMatters in August 2026, while the bill was moving through the Legislature, that "States simply can't regulate how federal officers do their jobs, even if we don't like how they do their jobs. That's up to the federal government." CalMatters also reported that he said that without a clear argument that the gloves violate people's constitutional rights, the legislation would likely hold little weight in court, and that bills like this are more performative than real.
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.
“States simply can’t regulate how federal officers do their jobs, even if we don’t like how they do their jobs. That’s up to the federal government”
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applies to state, local and federal agencies, requires a state Department of Justice study by January 1, 2029, and is repealed on January 1, 2030.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
CalMatters report published while the bill was moving through the Senate. It describes the August 21 rewrite of AB 2760, the DHS notice of up to $20 million, and quotes law professor Vikram Amar on the legal obstacles to applying the ban to federal officers.
Before the quotation
CalMatters reported that Democrats had advanced AB 2760 that week, rewritten from an unrelated bill, after the Department of Homeland Security published a notice that ICE sought to spend up to $20 million on the gloves, and that if Newsom signs the new bills they are expected to face legal challenges similar to the one against the earlier identification law.
After the quotation
The Legislature amended the bill on August 28 and passed it on August 31, and Newsom signed it on September 29. 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, Amar says a state cannot regulate how federal officers do their jobs, which rejects the federal application as beyond the state's power, and he adds that bills like this are more performative than real. He addresses only the power question. We used Condemned because he rejects the ban's federal application as unenforceable. The closest competing label is Challenges the characterization, because a scholar's account of a law's legal reach is analysis rather than advocacy, but his statement plainly rejects the ban's 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
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
- Law professor Vikram Amar says "States simply can't regulate how federal officers do their jobs"
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/4167-vikram-amar-a-professor-at-the-uc-davis
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Law professor Vikram Amar says "States simply can't regulate how federal officers do their jobs"". First published: 2026-10-01. Last updated: 2026-10-01. https://disputeindex.com/events/4167-vikram-amar-a-professor-at-the-uc-davis