Loading record
Disputes over the policies, conduct, and oversight of law enforcement agencies.
Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.
4 statements on this page. Dates: April 2, 2024 to October 23, 2026
4 matching statements. Dates: April 2, 2024 to October 23, 2026
4 published statements. Dates: April 2, 2024 to October 23, 2026
2 published statements. Dates: September 24, 2026 to October 23, 2026
2 statements on this page. Dates: September 24, 2026 to October 23, 2026
Role at the time: Governor of California
Statement summary
Newsom says California fought back against the federalization and created legal precedent protecting Californians and other Americans.
“California fought back against this potential power grab”
California's attorney general and governor criticize Trump's federalization and welcome the appellate ruling.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)The case concerns Trump's initial federalization of California National Guard troops for Los Angeles. Newsom condemns Trump's federalization and welcomes the appellate result.
Role at the time: Governor of California
Response to this claim
Elections Code section 15551(d) requires that voted ballots never be taken from the elections official's custody, so Sheriff Bianco violated it when he removed the Riverside County ballots from the Registrar of Voters, even under a search warrant.
“Governor Gavin Newsom today released the following statement in response to the California Supreme Court ruling Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco illegally seized hundreds of thousands of ballots from last year’s special election … Today’s ruling affirms that in California we will defend democracy — using every branch of government. And the new laws I signed just last week add new protections so attacks like this cannot happen again. People deserve to know their ballot is counted and secure, and in California we will do everything we can to protect that constitutional right — this year, and beyond.”
Official press release with Governor Newsom's statement on the California Supreme Court's ruling in Cervantes v. Bianco.
The reference point is the sheriff's seizure and handling of the ballots. The Governor describes the seizure as illegal and as an attack that new laws are meant to prevent, which expressly rejects the conduct.
2 published statements. Dates: April 2, 2024 to September 29, 2026
2 statements on this page. Dates: April 2, 2024 to September 29, 2026
Role at the time: Governor of California, in a news release from his office announcing the signed bills
Response to this claim
Gov. Gavin Newsom's office said on September 29, 2026 that California cannot dictate federal immigration policy but that, where federal immigration enforcement operates in California, the state can establish and enforce requirements governing law-enforcement practices, and it listed AB 2760's ban on shock gloves among the standards it set.
“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.”
The Governor's September 29, 2026 release announcing 21 signed bills. It lists a ban on shock gloves under 'Establish stronger standards for law-enforcement practices' and names AB 2760 by Assemblymember Dr. LaShae Sharp-Collins. It quotes Newsom's statement and says the state can set requirements for law-enforcement practices and equipment used within California, including where they intersect with immigration enforcement.
Relative to California's ban on shock gloves as applied to federal officers, the Governor's office says the state may set law-enforcement requirements where federal immigration enforcement operates in California and lists the ban among the standards it set. That defends the state's authority to set law-enforcement equipment standards where federal enforcement operates, and the release lists the ban among them, so we used Defended or excused. The release does not say in terms that the ban reaches federal officers. The release answers the question of state power and says nothing on whether the gloves are safe. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because the same passage says the state cannot dictate federal immigration policy, but that limit concerns immigration policy and does not condition the office's support for the equipment ban.
Role at the time: California governor
Statement summary
Newsom endorsed a 480-camera Flock network in Oakland and the East Bay as a tool for criminal investigations.
“we're equipping law enforcement with the tools they need to effectively combat criminal activity and hold perpetrators accountable”
Newsom announced a California Highway Patrol contract for fixed and highway cameras.
Archived copyRelative to the continued existence of networked ALPR surveillance, Newsom expressly supports the deployment for law enforcement.
