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.
Published coverage on this page: 1 case · 9 statements. Statements are ordered newest first.
California's AB 2760 bars all law enforcement, including federal agents, from using electric shock gloves. Newsom and the author defend the ban. DHS and a federal prosecutor reject California's authority over federal agents. As of October 1, 2026, no court has ruled.
Published
Read the caseLabels describe a response to the linked claim or the action explained in the statement summary. Choose one or more.
9 matching statements
Role at the time: First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, 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.
Quotation excerpt
“Governor, we’ve been through this already. If you want to regulate federal agents, you have to win a federal election. Until then, you have no jurisdiction. Accordingly, I have advised DHS to disregard your bill attempting to ban safe and…”
“Governor, we’ve been through this already. If you want to regulate federal agents, you have to win a federal election. Until then, you have no jurisdiction. Accordingly, I have advised DHS to disregard your bill attempting to ban safe and effective less-lethal tools that agents need to escalate dangerous situations.”
Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, Essayli rejects it as beyond California's power, says he told DHS to disregard it, and calls the tools it bans safe and effective. The post answers mainly the question of state power, with a brief characterization of the gloves' safety. We used Condemned because he rejects the ban as unenforceable against federal agents. The closest competing label is Challenges the characterization, because he disputes that California may regulate federal agents at all, but he goes on to reject the bill itself and tell DHS to disregard it.
Role at the time: Professor emeritus at the UC Davis School of Law, quoted in an Associated Press report
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.
“The state has very limited, if any, powers in dictating to the federal government how its officers are armed”
Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, Johnson predicts that courts will hold the state lacks the power to bind federal officers, which rejects the ban's federal application as beyond California's authority. He addresses only the power question. We used Condemned because he rejects the application as unenforceable, even while calling the laws well-intentioned. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, because he calls the laws well-intentioned and frames his conclusion as a prediction (likely), but he credits only the laws' purpose and rejects their application to federal officers.
Role at the time: Founder and chief executive of Compliant Technologies, the maker of the G.L.O.V.E., in a company question-and-answer video
Response to this claim
ICE said in its August 2026 sole-source justification that the G.L.O.V.E. is a non-lethal, de-escalation device meant to reduce reliance on higher levels of force, and that ICE has no empty-hand use-of-force device to give its officers.
Quotation excerpt
“We were never contacted by any legislator or agency within California. And at the end of the day, the people that are going to be hurt are the citizens of California and the law enforcement agencies because they're going to lose a tool that…”
“We were never contacted by any legislator or agency within California. And at the end of the day, the people that are going to be hurt are the citizens of California and the law enforcement agencies because they're going to lose a tool that can help them. It's amazing to me that no other tools, the safest, most humane, deescalatory product probably ever to come along in our opinion is now taken off the table and no other technologies were whatsoever because of lack of knowledge and political bias in our opinion.”
Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, the maker rejects the ban as the product of political bias and ignorance of the product and says Californians and agencies will lose a useful tool. The answer addresses the safety question and says nothing about California's power over federal officers. We used Condemned because he rejects the ban as unwise and uninformed. The closest competing label is Challenges the characterization, because he disputes how the gloves are viewed, but he goes on to reject the ban itself.
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
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.
Quotation excerpt
“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…”
“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.”
What this label refers to
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.
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.
Quotation excerpt
“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…”
“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.”
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.
Role at the time: California State Sheriffs' Association, in a written opposition letter quoted in the Assembly floor analysis and read aloud on the Senate floor
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.
Quotation excerpt
“Also, all indications are that this bill is focused on federal immigration authorities and their enforcement practices. This is one of a number of measures that attempt to regulate federal practices and at the same time implicate state and…”
“Also, all indications are that this bill is focused on federal immigration authorities and their enforcement practices. This is one of a number of measures that attempt to regulate federal practices and at the same time implicate state and local law enforcement. As we have already seen with bills enacted during this session, it is not uncommon for courts to eliminate such bills' application to federal entities, thereby leaving the measures to only apply to state and/or local agencies.”
Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, the association rejects the bill as unwise for law enforcement and predicts that courts will remove its federal application, leaving state and local agencies bound. The letter answers both questions: it argues the ban makes de-escalation harder and that the federal reach is unlikely to survive. We used Condemned because the association opposes the bill and rejects its federal application as unenforceable. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, but the written opposition attaches no condition to its position.
Role at the time: Professor at the UC Davis School of Law, quoted by CalMatters
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”
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.
Role at the time: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in a statement from an unnamed spokesperson to several news outlets
Statement summary
In a statement attributed to a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, first reported in part by the Associated Press on August 27, 2026, printed through its second sentence by ABC 10News in San Diego on August 28, and quoted in full by the New York Post on September 1 and by Mother Jones on September 29, DHS said "Sanctuary politicians attempting to ban our federal law enforcement from any safety equipment is despicable and a deliberate attempt to undermine and endanger our officers." It said "we will not abide by unconstitutional bans" and that under the Supremacy Clause California's "sanctuary politicians do not control federal law enforcement." The statement did not name a spokesperson.
Quotation excerpt
“Sanctuary politicians attempting to ban our federal law enforcement from any safety equipment is despicable and a deliberate attempt to undermine and endanger our officers. To be crystal clear: we will not abide by unconstitutional bans.…”
“Sanctuary politicians attempting to ban our federal law enforcement from any safety equipment is despicable and a deliberate attempt to undermine and endanger our officers. To be crystal clear: we will not abide by unconstitutional bans. The Supremacy Clause makes it clear that California’s sanctuary politicians do not control federal law enforcement.”
What this label refers to
Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, DHS rejects it as unconstitutional, says it will not comply, and calls the equipment it covers safety equipment for federal officers. The statement answers the power question directly through the Supremacy Clause and addresses the safety question only by calling the gloves safety equipment. We used Condemned because DHS rejects the ban as unconstitutional. The closest competing label is Explicitly declines, because DHS says it will not comply, but the refusal rests on a stated rejection of the ban.
Role at the time: Republican state senator and vice chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee, speaking in the committee hearing on AB 2760
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.
“from a federal immigration standpoint, it makes zero difference in what they're doing whatsoever, because we do not have that jurisdiction. I don't want to handcuff our local police.”
Relative to the ban as applied to federal officers, Seyarto rejects it on both questions: he says the state lacks jurisdiction over federal immigration enforcement, so the ban changes nothing for federal agents, and he calls the bill premature and a handcuffing of local police. We used Condemned because he rejects the ban as beyond the state's reach and unwise. The closest competing label is Challenges the characterization, because he disputes what the bill can accomplish, but he also opposes the policy and voted no.
Bilal A. "Bill" Essayli is a lawyer and Republican former member of the California State Assembly who is First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. He represented the 63rd Assembly District from December 2022 to April 2025, and earlier worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles and Riverside and as a Riverside County deputy district attorney. He was interim and then acting U.S. Attorney for the district in 2025 before taking his current title on October 29, 2025.
1 case and 1 statement
Kevin R. Johnson is professor emeritus at the UC Davis School of Law, where he joined the faculty in 1989 and was dean from 2008 to 2024. His scholarship covers immigration law and civil rights.
1 case and 1 statement
Gavin Newsom is the Democratic governor of California. He previously held office as California lieutenant governor and mayor of San Francisco. Before entering public office, he worked in the hospitality business.
1 case and 1 statement
Jeff Niklaus is the founder and chief executive of Compliant Technologies, a veteran-owned company in the Lexington, Kentucky area that makes conductive distraction and de-escalation devices for law enforcement and corrections.
1 case and 1 statement
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.
1 case and 2 statements
Jim Cooper is the Sheriff of Sacramento County, California, a post he has held since December 2022. A Democrat, he served in the California State Assembly from 2014 to 2022. Earlier he worked at the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office and served on the Elk Grove City Council and as the city's mayor.
1 case and 1 statement
Jesse Arreguín is a Democratic member of the California State Senate who has represented the 7th District, which covers parts of Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco counties, since December 2024. He was mayor of Berkeley from 2016 to 2024 and served on the Berkeley City Council before that.
1 case and 1 statement
Democratic candidate for U.S. House in California's 11th district.
1 case and 1 statement
LaShae Sharp-Collins is a Democratic member of the California State Assembly for the 79th District, which covers parts of southeastern San Diego, El Cajon, La Mesa and Lemon Grove. She took office on December 2, 2024, and holds a leadership post as Assistant Majority Leader for Policy and Research. Before her election she worked for the San Diego County Office of Education and taught Africana studies at San Diego State University.
1 case and 2 statements
Kelly Seyarto is a Republican member of the California State Senate for the 32nd District, in office since December 2022. A retired Los Angeles County Fire Department battalion chief, he served on the Murrieta City Council and as mayor of Murrieta, and represented the 67th Assembly District from 2020 to 2022.
1 case and 1 statement
