Jim Cooper
Role at the time: Sacramento County Sheriff, a Democrat and former state Assemblymember, in a post on his official X account
Response to this claim
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.
“It’s unfortunate that this only became an issue once ICE purchased the G.L.O.V.E. In today’s political climate, anything associated with the Federal government immediately becomes radioactive. Unfortunately, the fallout won’t be felt by the Federal government; it will be felt by local deputies and police officers who are losing a valuable compliance and de-escalation tool, as California agencies have been using it for years. What somehow continues to be overlooked is that California cannot dictate the tools and tactics used by Federal law enforcement. Just like the state’s mask restrictions, this legislation will have no effect on Federal agencies.”
A post from Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper's account the day after the Legislature passed AB 2760. It links to an ABC10 article about the bill.
Why we used this label
Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, Cooper rejects it on both questions: he says California cannot dictate the tools federal officers use, so the law will not reach them, and he says it will take a useful de-escalation tool from local deputies. We used Condemned because he rejects the ban as ineffective against federal agents and harmful to local law enforcement. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he says the law will have no effect on federal agencies while also objecting to its cost to local deputies, but the two points support one rejection.