Vikram David Amar

Vikram David Amar is the Daniel J. Dykstra Distinguished Professor of Law at the UC Davis School of Law and a constitutional law scholar. He was dean of the University of Illinois College of Law from 2015 to 2023 before returning to UC Davis. He clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun and writes a regular column for Justia's Verdict.

Also known as Vikram AmarWebsite (opens in a new tab)

Statements by Vikram David Amar

Vikram David Amar

Role at the time: Professor of law at the UC Davis School of Law, co-author with Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone of a column on Justia's Verdict site

Condemned

Statement summary

In a column published on Justia's Verdict site on September 3, 2026, UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar and University of Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone wrote of two bills the Legislature had just passed, the shock-glove ban for all local, state and federal officers and the Get the Feds Out Act on public employment of federal immigration officers, that they "are purely performative and will never be implemented." They wrote that, because no one argues ICE's use of shock gloves necessarily violates the federal Constitution, state laws that seek to regulate that practice are, "unless and until the federal government assents to state regulation, dead on arrival." In the same column they argued that a separate California law allowing damages claims against federal officers who violate the Constitution is constitutionally permissible, while acknowledging that courts will have to resolve the question.

“These bills are purely performative and will never be implemented. ... Because no one is arguing that ICE’s use of shock gloves necessarily violates the federal Constitution (just as no one argues the wearing of masks by ICE officers violates the Constitution), state laws that seek to regulate these ICE practices or discriminate against current or former ICE officers with respect to state employment are, unless and until the federal government assents to state regulation, dead on arrival.”
Open source (opens in a new tab)One Step Forward and Two Steps Back: The California Legislature's Passage of the "No Kings" Act, the "Get the Feds Out" Act, and the "Shock Gloves" Measure (Verdict, September 3, 2026)Paragraphs beginning "As disappointing as the title of the 'No Kings' Act is", "These bills are purely performative" and "Because no one is arguing that ICE's use of shock gloves"
Why we used this label

Relative to California's ban on shock gloves as applied to federal officers, Amar and Mazzone call the ban purely performative and say it will never be implemented, and that state laws regulating ICE's use of the gloves are dead on arrival unless the federal government assents. That rejects the ban's application to federal officers on the power question, so we used Condemned. They address California's legal power and do not say whether the gloves are safe. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because the conclusion is stated as dependent on federal assent, but they treat that assent as unlikely and use it as a premise of their legal reasoning rather than a condition on their view.

Vikram David Amar

Role at the time: Professor at the UC Davis School of Law, quoted by CalMatters

Condemned

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.

“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”
Open source (opens in a new tab)California Democrats race to ban electric shock gloves before ICE buys them · CalMattersParagraphs quoting UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar; paragraphs on the gut-and-amend and the ICE notice
Why we used 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.

Topics in this coverage