LaShae Sharp-Collins on Federalism

Public disputes over how power is divided between the federal government and the states, including whether a state may regulate federal officers, agencies or programs.

How we classify topics

Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.

Statement history

1 statement on this page. Dates: August 27, 2026

1 matching statement. Dates: August 27, 2026

2 published statements. Dates: August 27, 2026

Mixed or conditional

1 published statement. Dates: August 27, 2026

1 statement on this page. Dates: August 27, 2026

LaShae Sharp-Collins

Role at the time: Assemblymember (D-San Diego) and author of AB 2760, answering a reporter's question at a Capitol news conference

August 27, 2026Mixed or conditional

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.

“And we know that some things we probably cannot obviously regulate, but we have to start somewhere.”

Watch the original video

Assemblymember Dr. Sharp-Collins and State Leaders Call for Ban on Electric Shock Gloves (California Assembly Democrats video of the August 27, 2026 news conference), question and answerQuestion about legal challenges and Sharp-Collins's answer, from about 31:43 to 32:38

The Assembly Democratic Caucus's video of the August 27, 2026 news conference. In the question-and-answer period a reporter asks whether Assemblymember Sharp-Collins is concerned about legal challenges like those facing other immigration-related bills, and she answers.

Why we used this label

Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, Sharp-Collins keeps backing the bill while conceding that the state probably cannot regulate some things, in answer to a question about legal challenges. She does not say which parts of the bill she has in mind. The answer addresses the question of state power, not safety. We used Mixed or conditional because she combines support for going ahead with an acknowledgment that some of what the state tries to regulate may be out of reach. The closest competing label is Defended or excused, because she does not withdraw the bill's application to federal officers and says the state has to start somewhere.

Read statement Can California ban ICE and other federal agents from using electric shock gloves, as AB 2760 does?