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.
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.