San Clemente City Council
February 4, 2025

1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney (SBN 258446)
Office of the City Attorney
2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536-5555
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a California Charter City, and Municipal Corporation, HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL,
HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, and the

HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE CHIEF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, a California Charter
City, HUNTINGTON BEACH

CITY COUNCIL, HUNTINGTON

BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT,
and the HUNTINGTON BEACH
POLICE CHIEF, in his official
capacity as Chief of Police,
Plaintiffs,
v.

The STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official
capacity as Governor of the State
of California; ROBERT BONTA in
his official capacity as Attorney
General of the State of California;
and
DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.

CASE NO.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1. VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMECY
CLAUSE – ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2
OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

2. VIOLATION OF THE
NATURALIZATION CLAUSE –
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4
OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

3. VIOLATION OF U.S. FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION LAWS – 8 U.S.C. §,
1324

4. VIOLATION OF U.S. FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION LAWS – 8 U.S.C. §
1373

5. VIOLATION OF U.S. FEDERAL
IMMIGRATION LAWS – 18 U.S.C. §§
4, 371, 372

6. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
PENAL CODE §§ 31, 32

7. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION – ARTICLE XX,
SECTION 3

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 55 Page ID #:1 Attachment 2 2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 COMPLAINT
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a California Charter City, and Municipal Corporation, the HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL, the HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, and the
HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE CHIEF, in his official capacity as Chief of Police are all collectively hereinafter referred to together as the “City” or together as “Plaintiffs.”
The City brings this lawsuit seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Complaint”) against the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California; ROBERT BONTA in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; and DOES 1-50, inclusive (together as “Defendants”), for various violations of law and actual and threatened State enforcement actions against the City in violation of ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, U.S.

Federal Immigration Laws under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, & 1373, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, and 372, and causing the City further thereby to violate California Penal Code §§ 31, 32, for Aiding and Abetting and Accessory After the Fact in the Commission of Federal crimes, and violations of City Officials’ Oath of Office pursuant to ARTICLE XX, SECTION 3 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.

By this Complaint, the City seeks Judicial Declaration
invalidating, and an Injunction Order enjoining, California’s “Sanctuary State Law,” which includes, among other operative provisions, California Government Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, and 7284.6, against the City, its Police Department, and all City Officials.

The City avers the following upon personal knowledge, information, Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 55 Page ID #:2 3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 and belief, and based upon the investigation of counsel as to all other facts alleged in this Complaint.

INTRODUCTION
As a matter of law, the State’s “Sanctuary State Law” is unconstitutional and violates other Federal laws; as a matter of enforcement policy, it is a clear and present danger to the health, safety and welfare of the City of Huntington Beach. According to the California Department of Justice, violent crime has risen in California by nearly 20% since 2018 (3.3% in 2023, and 15.1% from 2018 to 2023)1, and aggravated assaults, motor vehicle theft, robbery, and arson throughout the State have increased since 2018.

The Nation has seen violent crime committed by illegal immigrants including MS-132 and Tren de Aragua gang members including widely reported rapes, murders, assaults, and other crimes.3 In addition, the reported violent crimes by illegal immigrants includes hostile take-overs by force of apartment buildings and other American establishments seen in Aurora, Colorado4 and El Paso, Texas.5 According to the U.S. 1 https://data-openjustice.doj.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024- 07/Crime%20In%20CA%202023f.pdf
2 https://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/house-judiciary-report-faults-bidenadmin-release-alleged-ms-13-member-now 3 https://kfoxtv.com/news/instagram/report-tren-de-aragua-member-arrested-for-sextrafficking-migrant-at-gateway-hotel-la-barbie-el-paso-texas-gang-estefaniaprimera-border-patrol-dps-border-migrants; and https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-video-shows-tren-de-aragua-gang-beatingapartment-complex-worker-extortion-bid-company-says 4 https://kdvr.com/news/local/ice-16-detained-in-aurora-are-suspected-tren-dearagua-associates 5 https://kvia.com/news/border/2024/09/10/inside-a-downtown-el-paso-hotel-that-isreportedly-housing-tren-de-aragua-gang-members/ Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 55 Page ID #:3 4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Department of Homeland Security, California leads the nation with the highest illegal immigrant population of any other state – with 2,600,000 in 2022. See Bryan Baker and Robert Warren, Office of Homeland Security Statistics, Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2018–January 2022 (April 2024).6 Data shows that the flow of mass illegal immigration creates human trafficking, including increasing a market in the United States for human trafficking – with “[t]he number of persons prosecuted for human trafficking more than doubled from 2012 to 2022.7 In a recent report, the U.S. Congress noted that nearly 60,000 victims of human trafficking are trafficked into the U.S. annually.8
Human trafficking, which also results in sex trafficking, hurts women and children the most9 and over 320,000 immigrant children have gone missing in the United States. According to the Federal Government, those lost children are now completely unaccounted for and / / /
/ / /
6 https://ohss.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024_0418_ohss_estimates-of-theunauthorized-immigrant-population-residing-in-the-united-states-january2018%25E2%2580%2593january-2022.pdf 7 https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/human-trafficking-data-collection-activities2024#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20persons%20prosecuted,to%201%2C118% 20persons%20in%202022; and https://kfoxtv.com/news/instagram/report-tren-dearagua-member-arrested-for-sex-trafficking-migrant-at-gateway-hotel-la-barbie-elpaso-texas-gang-estefania-primera-border-patrol-dps-border-migrants 8 https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116344/documents/HHRG-118- JU08-20230913-SD003.pdf
9 https://nypost.com/2021/04/17/how-bidens-border-policy-will-increase-child-sextrafficking-to-us Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 55 Page ID #:4 5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 unable to be protected.10 Lest it be forgotten, entering the United States illegally in the first place is a Federal crime. 8 U.S.C.§ 1325.

Protecting the City’s 200,000 residents from crime and lawlessness is of the greatest import to, and of the highest order for, Huntington Beach’s City leaders and its Police Department. Huntington Beach is the 23rd largest of 482 cities in the State of California.

The State’s relatively new “Sanctuary State Law” directly conflicts with U.S. Federal immigration laws, including but not limited to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324 and 1373, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, and 372.

California’s Sanctuary State Law not only limits the ability of City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to engage in fullest of effective law enforcement practices, but it directs City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate U.S. Federal immigration laws, including and among others, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324 and 1373, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, and 372. In fact, the conflict of laws created by the State presents an untenable “Hobson’s Choice” for the City of Huntington Beach, e.g., comply with the State’s new Sanctuary State Law and violate U.S. Federal immigration laws, or comply with the Federal immigration laws, and violate the Sanctuary State Law. This conflict must be reconciled by this Court.

At the passage of California’s Sanctuary State Law in 2017, NPR reported that the law “bans state and local agencies… from enforcing ‘holds’ on people in custody. It blocks the deputization of police as immigration agents and bars state and local law enforcement agencies from inquiring into an individual’s immigration status… It also prohibits new or expanded contracts with Federal agencies to use 10https://nypost.com/2024/08/21/us-news/biden-harris-admin-loses-track-of-320000- migrant-children
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 5 of 55 Page ID #:5 6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 California law enforcement facilities as detention centers, although it does not force the termination of existing contracts. . . .”11 POLITICO reported that this new law limits “local law enforcement officials’ ability to cooperate with Federal immigration authorities. . . .”12 Huntington Beach is a City in the County of Orange. As will be presented in greater detail, infra, Sheriff Don Barnes reported that the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (hereinafter “OCSD”) is prohibited by State law to notify Immigration Control and Enforcement of the release of inmates with ICE detainers. In 2018, 1,106 inmates in Orange County who had ICE detainers but did not meet eligibility for notifying ICE were released into the community. 173 out of the 1,106 inmates were rearrested “in Orange County for committing 58 different types of crimes, including attempted murder, assault and battery, child molestation, and robbery.” In 2023, there were 547 inmates who had ICE detainers released from Orange County Jail. About 81 of those inmates eligible for notification and transfer to ICE’s custody were not transferred but were released into the community. A total of 40 individuals were rearrested for committing new crimes in Orange County. Being prevented from coordinating with Federal agencies by the Sanctuary State Law prevents effective law enforcement, puts the community at risk, and as the data shows, leads to more crimes.

In addition to commanding the City to violate U.S. Federal immigration laws, the State’s Sanctuary State Law forces City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate California Penal 11https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/05/555920658/californiagovernor-signs-sanctuary-state-bill 12 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/05/california-sanctuary-city-jerry-brownsigns-243503 Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 6 of 55 Page ID #:6 7 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Code §§ 31 and 32 for “aiding and abetting” and “accessory after the fact” in harboring, concealing, or protecting the perpetrator who committed a Federal crime. Moreover, the Sanctuary State Law forces City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to harbor, conceal, or “shield from detection” known unauthorized aliens in their custody. The Sanctuary State Law commands City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to turn a blind eye to alien smuggling, which in many cases, the individuals who were smuggled into the country would become victims of human trafficking.

The State cannot force the City to violate U.S. Federal immigration laws that both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and the United States Supreme Court have held preempted under the Supremacy Clause.

To put a fine point, as a Charter City, Huntington Beach’s Police Department does not belong to the State. Rather, the Huntington Beach Police Department belongs to the City – and as such, the Police Department should be free from State interference and control. The City and its Police Department should be, therefore, entirely at liberty to employ every lawful means to combat crime and promote public safety for the City’s 200,000 residents.

While the Federal Government cannot commandeer State and/or local resources to effectuate its operations or achieve its goals, local agencies, like Huntington Beach, should be at liberty to voluntarily cooperate with the Federal Government in its operations in order to combat local crime and promote local public safety.13 As it is now, 13 See Cal. ex. Rel. Becerra v. Sessions, 284 F. Supp.3d 1015, 1035 (Cal. N.D. 2018) (“No cited authority holds that the scope of state sovereignty includes the power to forbid state or local employees from voluntarily complying with a federal program.”).

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 7 of 55 Page ID #:7 8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 California’s Sanctuary State Law prevents such voluntary cooperation thereby preventing the City from employing every lawful means available to combat crime in Huntington Beach and forces City officials to violate U.S. Federal immigration laws. That the State can stand as a barrier in between the City and the Federal Government not only shocks the conscience, but it is also unconstitutional.

The “Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution demands that the California Sanctuary State Law yield to the Federal Government and not act as a barrier for the enforcement of U.S. Federal immigration laws.

By enacting its Sanctuary State Law, the State of California exceeded its authority and is unconstitutionally interfering with U.S. Federal immigration laws and the City’s Charter Home Rule authority.

With no other remedy available at law, the City seeks Judicial Declaration invalidating, and an Injunction Order enjoining, the State’s enforcement of operative portions of California’s “Sanctuary State Law,” which includes, among others, California Government Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, and 7284.6, against the City Plaintiffs.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH is and at all
relevant times was a Municipal Corporation and Charter City14 organized by the people of the City and existing under a freeholder’s charter and exercising “Home Rule” powers over its Municipal Affairs, including without limitation local law enforcement as authorized by Article XI, Section 5 of the California Constitution.

2. Plaintiff HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL (“City
Council” or “Council Members”) is and at all relevant times the elected 14 Online: Charter, City of Huntington Beach: https://library.qcode.us/lib/ huntington_ beach_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/charter-preamble Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 8 of 55 Page ID #:8 9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 body of seven members, elected by the People of the City pursuant to the Charter of the City of Huntington Beach. See Section 300, City Charter15.

3. Plaintiff HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
(“HBPD”) is and at all relevant times the official local municipal law enforcement department of the City of Huntington Beach, organized as a Charter City pursuant to, and authorized as provided in Article XI, including §§ 3 and 5, of the California Constitution.

4. Plaintiff HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE CHIEF (“HBPD
Chief”) is the City Council duly appointed Chief of the Huntington Beach Police Department.

5. Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA is the State of
California.

6. Defendant GAVIN NEWSOM (“Governor”) is and at all
relevant times was the Governor of the State of California. He is being sued in his official capacity.

7. Defendant ROBERT BONTA (“Attorney General”) is and at all relevant times was the Attorney General of the State of California.

He is being sued in his official capacity.

POTENTIAL PARTIES

8. The City is ignorant of the true names and capacities of those Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue those Defendants by such fictitious names. City will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of these fictitiously named Defendants when the same have been ascertained.
15 https://ecode360.com/43806864#43806864
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 9 of 55 Page ID #:9 10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 9. There are several individuals and/or entities whose true names and capacities are currently not known to the City. Evidence may come forth that others are legally responsible and liable to the City to the extent of the liability of the named Defendants. The City will seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to reflect the names and capacities should they become known. The City reserves the right to amend this claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 with leave of the Court to add potential additional defendants and additional allegations and claims.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. This case presents Federal questions arising under the Constitution of the United States and seeks relief for the deprivation of Federal rights under color of state law. This Court accordingly has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343.

11. This Court has authority to award Plaintiffs declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2202, and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

12. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.

ALLEGATIONS
A. Charter City Authority

13. The City of Huntington Beach is a Municipal Corporation formed by the people of the City of Huntington Beach as a “Charter City” pursuant to California Constitution Article XI §§ 3 and 5.

14. To compare, “general law” cities are “political subdivisions” of the State and law generally holds that such cities must follow the dictates of the State to execute functions of the State. Accordingly, Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 10 of 55 Page ID #:10 11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 “political subdivision” is defined to mean “a geographic area of representation . . . including, but not limited to, a city, a school district, a community college district, or other district organized pursuant to state law.” Cal. Elect. Code § 14051(a).

15. Charter Cities on the other hand, being formed by the people of their city under the California Constitution (and not State law), are not political subdivisions of the State. To that end, both the California Constitution and case law hold that Charter Cities possess independent authority over Municipal Affairs – so “independent” as to be free from State Legislative interference and control. See Cal. Const. art.

XI, § 5(a) (which expressly states, “City charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.” (emphasis added)).

16. As the Court of Appeal recently stated, Charter Cities, like Huntington Beach, “are distinct individual entities and are not connected political subdivisions of the state.” Haytasingh v. City of San Diego, 66 Cal.App.5th 429, 459 (2021). The Court of Appeal explained that “‘It is the free consent of the persons composing them that brings into existence municipal corporations, and they are used for the promotion of their own local and private advantage and convenience… Cities, therefore, are distinct individual entities, and are not connected political subdivisions of the state. As a matter of fact, municipalities, and particularly charter cities, are in a sense independent political organizations and do not pretend to exercise any functions of the state. They exist in the main for the purposes of local government.’” Id., (emphasis added) (quoting Otis v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal.App.2d 605, 611-12 (1942)).

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 11 of 55 Page ID #:11 12 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 17. In 2020, the State Court of Appeal recognized that Charter Cities, far from being creatures of the State, enjoy constitutionally recognized autonomy (Cal. Const. art. XI) and municipal authority over certain areas of governance that is “supreme and beyond the reach of legislative enactment.” City of Redondo Beach v. Padilla, 46 Cal.App.5th. 902, 910 (2020) (relying on Cal. Const. art. XI).

18. After the California Constitution of 1879 was adopted, the Supreme Court of California declared it was “manifestly the intent” of the drafters “to emancipate municipal governments from the authority and control formerly exercised over them by the Legislature.” Johnson v.

Bradley, 4 Cal.4th 389, 395 (1992) (quoting People v. Hoge, 55 Cal. 612, 618 (1880)).

19. Article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution provides in full:
(a) It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and
enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to
municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and
limitations provided in their several charters and in
respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. City charters adopted pursuant to this
Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and
with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all
laws inconsistent therewith.
(b) It shall be competent in all city charters to provide, in addition to those provisions allowable by this
Constitution, and by the laws of the State for: (1) the constitution, regulation, and government of the
city police force (2) subgovernment in all or part of a city (3) conduct of city elections and (4) plenary
authority is hereby granted, subject only to the
restrictions of this article, to provide therein or by
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 12 of 55 Page ID #:12 13 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 amendment thereto, the manner in which, the method
by which, the times at which, and the terms for which
the several municipal officers and employees whose
compensation is paid by the city shall be elected or
appointed, and for their removal, and for their
compensation, and for the number of deputies, clerks
and other employees that each shall have, and for the
compensation, method of appointment, qualifications,
tenure of office and removal of such deputies, clerks and other employees.

Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5 (emphasis added).

20. The California Supreme Court has explained that § 5(a) of Article XI of the California Constitution provides that a Charter City shall not be governed by State law in respect to “Municipal Affairs.” Rather, “so far as ‘Municipal Affairs’ are concerned,” Charter Cities’ laws are “supreme and beyond the reach of [State] legislative enactment.” California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles 35 Cal.3d 1, 12 (1991).

21. One of the “core” categories of Municipal Affairs that is specifically described in Article XI, § 5(b) is “the constitution, regulation and government of the city police department.” Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b)(1).

22. The “Home Rule” provision of the California Constitution authorizes a Charter City to exercise plenary authority over Municipal Affairs, free from any constraint imposed by the general law and subject only to constitutional limitations. See Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(a); Ex Parte Braun, 141 Cal. 204, 209 (1903); Bishop v. City of San Jose, 1 Cal. 3d 56, 61 (1969); Comm. of Seven Thousand v. Super. Ct. (City of Irvine), 45 Cal.3d 491 (1988).

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 13 of 55 Page ID #:13 14 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 23. As a Charter City, the City of Huntington Beach has supreme authority over its city police force. Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).

24. As a Charter City particularly, the City’s Police Department does not belong to the State, rather, it belongs to the City – and as such, is free from State interference and control. The City’s Police Department engages in local arrests and investigations as Municipal Affairs.

25. The independence and Home Rule authority the Constitution provides to Huntington Beach means that the City and its Police Department are, among many other things, at liberty to conduct effective law enforcement practices, including fighting violent crime by all means available, and “free” to comply with Federal laws in addition to its local laws; “free” from State interference.

26. The City of Huntington Beach has a duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents. Part of that duty is to ensure that the police officers have the ability to investigate crimes before it occurs, and arrest and detain individuals who committed those crimes, including incidents involving unauthorized aliens. Part of that duty necessarily involves coordinating with other agencies, whether County, State, or Federal for full enforcement of the laws.

27. Article XX, § 3 of the California Constitution provides the Oath of Office that certain City officials, including elected officials and police officers, are required to take in order to be fully vested with authority for the office they are to assume. Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3.

28. The Constitutionally required Oath of Office states “I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 14 of 55 Page ID #:14 15 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”

29. The Sanctuary State Law forces the City’s officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate U.S. Federal immigration laws, in violation of the California Constitution’s Oath of Office.

B. The Sanctuary State Law

30. In 2017, the State of California enacted the “Sanctuary State Law,” presented then as the “California Values Act of 2017.” The Legislative Bill at the time was commonly known as “Senate Bill 54” or “California’s Sanctuary State Law” (hereinafter “Sanctuary State Law”).

31. The Sanctuary State Law is unconstitutional. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, 1373; 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, 372; see also, Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5; Cal. Const. art.

XX, § 3.

32. The Sanctuary State Law violates the City’s right to fully control its own Police Department and fully and effectively engage in law enforcement. Moreover, neither the State, nor its laws, may prevent the City of Huntington Beach from honoring, following, and/or complying with State and all Federal laws, including Federal laws on immigration, which is the supreme law of the land on immigration.

33. The Sanctuary State Law violates the City’s right to fully control its own Police Department and fully and effectively engage in law enforcement. Specifically, California Government Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, and 7285.2 prohibit local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation.

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 15 of 55 Page ID #:15 16 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 34. The Sanctuary State Law bars local jurisdiction from complying with 8 U.S.C. § 1324 or participate in a joint task force that may involve immigration enforcement. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7282.4 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.

35. California Government Code §§ 7282.4 and 7282.5 restrict cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government.

36. The Sanctuary State Law allows for smugglers to transport individuals into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 for financial gain.

37. The Sanctuary State Law places aliens at risk of harm or being trafficked because California Law Enforcement Agencies cannot engage in the enforcement of 8 U.S.C. § 1324.

38. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement agencies from asking employers about a person’s immigration status under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3). See Cal. Gov. Code § 7284.6(a)(1)(A).

39. In recent years, Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom has taken a series of substantial steps to incentivize the inflow of illegal immigration into California, and to protect and harbor illegal immigrants, with the implementing of policies and laws to hire illegal immigrants in jobs in State government.16

40. Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom also has a new program to give illegal immigrants taxpayer funded downpayments of $150,000 to buy homes.17 Defendant Newsom is doing more than simply turning a 16https://reformcalifornia.org/news/reform-california-slams-bill-to-hire-illegalimmigrants-in-ca-state-government 17https://www.hoover.org/research/californias-one-party-state-and-housingsubsidies-undocumented-migrants Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 16 of 55 Page ID #:16 17 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 blind eye, he is aggressively pursuing policies with taxpayer funds to incentivize illegal immigrants to relocate to his Sanctuary State.

41. In 2024, Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom launched a program for California to spend $2.3 million of taxpayer money to support the relocating and settling of illegal immigrants in rural areas of the State.18 Defendant Newsom is aggressively pursuing policies to commit taxpayer funds to protecting illegal immigrants.

42. In August of 2024, Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom
launched another program to offer illegal immigrants home mortgage aid to buy homes.19 Defendant Newsom is doing more than simply sitting on the sidelines, he is aggressively pursuing policies with taxpayer funds to incentivize illegal immigrants to relocate to his Sanctuary State.

43. Most recently, Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom
established a $25 million taxpayer funded legal defense fund for illegal immigrants to fight the Federal government’s announced crackdown on illegal immigration, which seeks to combat the violent crimes committed against U.S. citizens.20

44. In response to the November 5th election of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States, and with his nomination of Tom Homan as “Border Czar,” Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom convened 18https://business.ca.gov/supporting-californias-rural-communities-2-3-million-ingrants-to-further-expand-immigrant-integration-in-rural-regions 19https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-08-29/california-lawmakersapprove-home-mortgage-aid-to-undocumented-immigrants 20https://www.nationalreview.com/news/california-governor-newsom-requests-25- million-from-legislature-for-anti-trump-litigation-fund Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 17 of 55 Page ID #:17 18 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 the State Legislature in a Special Session to develop an “Immigrant Support Plan” designed to counter “Trump deportations.”21

45. It was widely reported that “Gavin Newsom’s administration is drafting a potential plan to help undocumented immigrants who may be threatened by incoming President Donald Trump’s mass deportation threats.” Id.

46. According to POLITICO, a draft of Defendant Gavin
Newsom’s plan entitled “Immigrant Support Network Concept” proposes the “creation of an Immigrant Support Network comprised of regional ‘hubs’ to connect at-risk individuals, their families, and communities with community systems — such as legal services, schools, labor unions, local governments, etc.” Id. (emphasis added). Clearly, Defendant Gavin Newsom plans to further commandeer local governments to act in violation of U.S. Federal immigration laws in the near future.

47. In addition, on December 17, 2024, Defendant Attorney General Robert Bonta issued a Press Release advising illegal immigrants the ways in which his office, and the State, were going to assist in shielding illegal immigrants – “threats of mass detention, arrests, and deportation”22 – from detection and detention by the Federal Government. In that Press Release, Robert Bonta directly advised that “You have the right to apply for and secure housing without sharing your immigration status,” and “You have the right to an attorney.”

48. In that same Press Release, Defendant Robert Bonta stated, “State and local law enforcement cannot ask for your immigration 21https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/24/newsom-california-immigrants-trump00195984 22https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-reminds-californiaimmigrants-their-rights-and Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 18 of 55 Page ID #:18 19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 status” and “State and local law enforcement cannot share your personal information” and “State and local law enforcement cannot assist ICE with immigration enforcement.” Not only is what appears in the statement a violation of U.S. Federal immigration law, but his statement also indicates a systematic program by the State to shield illegal immigrants in response to “the President-elect making clear his intent to move forward an inhumane and destructive immigration agenda once he takes office.” Defendant Robert Bonta’s statements make clear that his systematic program to protect illegal immigrants conflicts with the U.S.

Federal immigration laws and Federal Government operations.

C. Federal Authorities

1. U.S. Immigration Laws

49. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides Congress with the “power… To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization… throughout the United States.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4.

50. In addition to conferring Congress with power to determine when foreign nationals may obtain U.S. citizenship, the Naturalization Clause is sometimes viewed as contributing to Congress’s power over immigration, including its power to set rules for when aliens may enter or remain in the United States.

51. In Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), the Supreme Court declared that the Federal Government’s “broad, undoubted power” over immigration was partially based “on the national government’s constitutional power to ‘establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,’ and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.” Id. at 394–95 (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4).

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 19 of 55 Page ID #:19 20 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 52. In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952), the Supreme Court observed that “[t]he power of Congress to exclude, admit, or deport aliens flows from sovereignty itself and from the power ‘To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.’” Id. at 599 (quoting U.S.

Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4); see also INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 940 (1983) (“The plenary authority of Congress over aliens under Art. I, § 8, cl. 4 is not open to question”); Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1, 10 (1982) (“Federal authority to regulate the status of aliens derives from various sources, including the Federal Government’s power ‘[to] establish [a] uniform Rule of Naturalization’…”) (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 79–80 (1976) (“In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”).

53. Apart from the Naturalization Clause, the Supreme Court has cited Congress’s foreign commerce power as a basis for its immigration power. See Toll, 458 U.S. at 10 (observing that Congress’s immigration power also derives from “its power ‘[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,’ and its broad authority over foreign affairs”) (citing U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3); United States ex rel. Turner v.

Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 290 (1904) (recognizing that an immigration statute was based in part “on the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which includes the entrance of ships, the importation of goods, and the bringing of persons into the ports of the United States”); Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 600 (1884) (“It is enough to say that, Congress having the power to pass a law regulating immigration as a part of the commerce of this country with foreign nations, we see nothing in the statute by which it has here exercised that power forbidden by any other part of the Constitution.”).

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 20 of 55 Page ID #:20 21 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 54. In 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration and
Naturalization Act (hereinafter “INA”). 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1537. Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324, was enacted to combat human smugglers who commit the crime by “bringing people into the United States, or unlawfully transporting and harboring people already in the United States, in deliberate evasion of immigration law.”23

55. In part, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes it a Federal crime for any person to “knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i).

56. Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324 also makes it a Federal crime for any person to “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii).

57. And, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes it a Federal crime for any person to “knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B).” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3).

58. Title 8, U.S.C. § 1373(a) provides, “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal State, or local government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the 23 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12539 Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 21 of 55 Page ID #:21 22 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a).

59. Title 18, U.S.C. § 4 provides, “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 4.

60. Title 18, U.S.C. § 371 provides, “If two or more persons conspire to either commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose…each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 371.

61. Title 18, U.S.C. § 372 provides, “If two or more
persons…conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States…or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 372.

62. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution holds that the Federal Government may not commandeer State or local resources to administer or enforce a Federal regulatory program against the will of the State or local resources.

63. The 10th Amendment, however, does not allow a State or its officials or its resources to violate Federal laws, including U.S. Federal immigration laws.

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 22 of 55 Page ID #:22 23 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 64. The 10th Amendment also does not allow a State to direct a city or its local officials or its resources to violate Federal laws, including U.S. Federal immigration laws.

65. And while the 10th Amendment holds that the Federal Government may not commandeer State and local resources against their will to act at the Federal Government’s behest, there is nothing, including the 10th Amendment itself, that prevents State or local officials or local resources from voluntarily cooperating with the Federal Government in the administration or enforcement of a Federal regulatory program, including U.S. Federal immigration laws. See Cal. ex. Rel. Becerra v. Sessions, 284 F. Supp.3d at 1035 (“No cited authority holds that the scope of state sovereignty includes the power to forbid state or local employees from voluntarily complying with a Federal program.”).

66. “Anti-commandeering” under the 10th Amendment is not a barrier to a local jurisdiction’s voluntary cooperation with the Federal Government in the administration or enforcement of a Federal regulatory program, including U.S. Federal immigration laws. See City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29, 35 (2d Cir. 1999) (rejecting the city’s argument to turn the 10th Amendment “into a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates Federal programs.”).

2. Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution

67. Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution is known as the “Supremacy Clause.” The Supremacy Clause holds that Federal law prevails over any conflicting state laws, including immigration laws.

68. The Supremacy Clause mandates that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 23 of 55 Page ID #:23 24 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S.

Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

69. The Supremacy Clause “prohibit[s] States from interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.” Geo Group, Inc. v. Newsom, 50 F.4th 745, 750 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Washington, 142 S. Ct. 1976, 1984 (2022)).

70. The Constitution affords Congress the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3. The Constitution also affords the President of the United States the authority to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const. art. II, §

3. 71. The Federal Government has the preeminent role to regulate aliens entering the United States and within its borders. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; U.S. Const. art. I § 8, cl. 3.

72. In U.S. v. King County, et al., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30299 (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 2024), the Ninth Circuit wrote “In recognition of the Federal government’s independence from state control, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine prohibits states from ‘interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.’” Id. at *27.24

73. Recent California legislation that sought to interfere with the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement efforts was struck down as unconstitutional “Whether analyzed under intergovernmental 24 https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/11/29/23-35362.pdf Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 24 of 55 Page ID #:24 25 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 immunity or preemption, California cannot exert this level of control over the Federal government’s detention operations… AB 32 therefore violates the Supremacy Clause.” Geo Group, Inc., 50 F.4th at 751.

74. “Any state regulation that purports to override the Federal government’s decisions about who will carry out Federal functions runs afoul of the Supremacy Clause.” Geo Group, Inc., 50 F.4th at 750. By purporting to prevent the City of Huntington Beach from voluntarily cooperating with the Federal Government, and by purporting to prevent the City of Huntington Beach from complying with Federal immigration laws under 8 U.S.C § 1324, California’s Sanctuary State Law runs afoul of the Supremacy Clause.

75. A state enactment is unconstitutional if it is an “‘obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’” Toll, 458 U.S. at 36 (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941)).

76. The United States Government has broad authority to establish immigration laws, which cannot be hindered or obstructed by state law. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. at 394-95. “Effective immigration law enforcement requires a cooperative effort between all levels of government.” City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d at 32-

33. 77. “The ‘[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a Federal power.’” De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976) (superseded by statute as stated in Me. Forest Prods. Council v. Cormier, 586 F. Supp. 3d 22, 39 (Dist. Maine 2022)).

78. “[T]he Executive has very broad discretion to determine immigration enforcement priorities.” Arizona Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 855 F.3d 957, 967 (9th Cir. 2017). “Congress expressly charged the Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 25 of 55 Page ID #:25 26 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Department of Homeland Security with the responsibility of ‘[e]stablishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.’” Id. at 967 (quoting 6 U.S.C § 202(5)). Under President Joe Biden’s Administration, the Department of Homeland Security prioritized the arrest and removal of aliens who poses threat to national security, threat to public safety, and threat to border security “or who have unlawfully entered the country only recently.” United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. 670, 673 (2023).25

79. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress intended to preempt the field of immigration. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. at 399. Field pre-emption is the intent to displace state law that is so pervasive that Congress left no room for the state to supplement it or that a Federal interest is so dominant that it will be assumed that state enforcement is precluded. Id.

80. In Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that 8 U.S.C. § 1324 preempted state law and that the Federal scheme “reserves prosecutorial power, and thus discretion, over harboring violations to Federal prosecutors.” Id. at 1027.

81. In an opinion by the California Attorney General in 1992 examining a California city’s local sanctuary ordinance, the Attorney General stated that sanctuary law is preempted by 8 U.S.C. § 1324. CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 270 (Nov. 19, 1992).26 The California Attorney General concluded, “Due to the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, a city may not 25 https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/guidelines-civilimmigrationlaw.pdf 26 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/92-607.pdf Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 26 of 55 Page ID #:26 27 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 prohibit its officers and employees from cooperating in their official capacities with Immigration and Naturalization Service investigation, detention, or arrest procedures relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of the Federal immigration laws.” Id. at *1.

82. The Attorney General further stated that “[w]hen a peace officer lawfully comes across information in the course of investigating a crime which reasonably leads to the belief that the person arrested is illegally present in this country, neither the state nor Federal Constitution prevents the officer from advising the INS of such information. Id. (citing Gates v. Superior Court, 193 Cal.App.3d 205, 219 (1987)).

83. The California Attorney General concluded that the
sanctuary city ordinance conflicts with Federal law because it would “undermine the deterrent effect of the criminal or civil penalties contained in the [Immigration and Naturalization] Act.” CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *2; see Gates v. Superior Court, 193 Cal.App.3d at 219 (“Where otherwise warranted investigation by local officers leads to evidence of a Federal civil or criminal violation, the local authority has the right to exchange information with Federal authorities; to deny such an exchange is not reasonable and rewards those Federal violators fortunate enough to be arrested by local, rather than Federal, officials.”).

84. The California Attorney General also stated, “The
Immigration and Naturalization Act is the law of this land and it is the ‘act of responsible citizenship’ and the ‘duty’ and the right of every citizen to assist in prosecuting and securing punishment for its breach by giving whatever information he or she may have in that regard to aid those who Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 27 of 55 Page ID #:27 28 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 enforce it.” CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *2 (quoting 67 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 331, *12-13 (July 24, 1984).27

85. Additionally, the California Attorney General, concluded in a 1984 opinion that, while local authorities are under no legally enforceable duty to report to the INS information about persons who entered the country in violation of 8 U.S.C § 1324, they may do so “as a matter of comity and good citizenship.” See 67 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *3.28

86. The California Attorney General further stated that “Congress surely did not intend that state and local governments would undermine the deterrent effect of the criminal or civil penalties contained in the [Immigration Control Act]. By giving the impression that illegal aliens may obtain refuge from such penalties in a particular locale, the ordinance creates localized immigration policy and dissipates enforcement of Federal laws.” CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops.

Cal. Atty. Gen. at *5.

87. The California Attorney General determined that a sanctuary city ordinance “concerns a subject matter, immigration, wherein Federal power to regulate is exclusive.” CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops.

Cal. Atty. Gen. at *3 (citing De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354-55 (1975)). Federal preemption occurs when the local enactment “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. at 67.

88. The California Attorney General further determined “[T]hat Congress has placed great importance on the immigration detection 27 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/92-607.pdf 28 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/83-902_0.pdf Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 28 of 55 Page ID #:28 29 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 effort is evidenced by the criminal penalties which have been established for those who assist illegal aliens in escaping detection.” CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *5 (citing 8 U.S.C § 1324); see United States v. Rubio-Gonzales (5th Cir. 1982) 674 F.2d 1067, 1073; United States v. Cantu (5th Cir. 1977) 557 F.2d 1173, 1180; United States v. Lopez (2d Cir. 1975) 521 F.2d 437, 444; 67 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *10, n. 16.

89. The California Attorney General found the local sanctuary ordinance to be “‘an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’” CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *6 (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. at 67). “A direct conflict with a Federal or state statute or regulation presents a separate and distinct basis for the preemption of a local ordinance.” (CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *6, n. 9 (citations omitted).29

90. The Sanctuary State Law is no different than the city ordinance discussed in the Attorney General’s opinion. As the Attorney General has correctly opined that Federal law preempted local sanctuary ordinance, that conclusion also applies to the state sanctuary law.

Congress intends to preempt state law over criminal immigration enforcement because it “surely did not intend that state and local governments would undermine the deterrent effect of the criminal or civil penalties contained in the [Immigration Control Act]. By giving the impression that illegal aliens may obtain refuge from such penalties in a particular locale, [Sanctuary State Law] creates localized immigration 29 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/92-607.pdf Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 29 of 55 Page ID #:29 30 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 policy and dissipates enforcement of Federal laws.” CA Attorney General Opinions, 75 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. at *5.30
D. Obstruction Caused by the Sanctuary State Law

91. Among many things, the Sanctuary State Law’s interference with the City’s coordination with the Federal Government in order to “protect” illegal immigrants from the Federal Government’s enforcement of the U.S. Federal immigration laws as Defendants Governor Newsom and Attorney General Robert Bonta explain, amounts to “harboring” of illegal aliens by the State of California.

92. The Ninth Circuit joined the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuit in concluding that the Federal scheme on harboring under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 is comprehensive and field preemptive. Valle Del Sol Inc., 732 F.3d at 1025-26; see Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 724 F.3d 297, 315-16 (3rd Cir. 2013) (joining the Eleventh Circuit in finding that state law proscribing harboring or sheltering aliens infringes upon a “comprehensive statutory scheme”) (citing United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1285-87 (11th Cir. 2012)); United States v. South Carolina, 906 F. Supp. 2d 463, 468 (D.S.C. 2012), aff’d, 720 F.3d 518 (11th Cir.

July 23, 2013).

93. “INA provides a comprehensive framework to penalize the transportation, concealment, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens.” Under this statutory scheme (8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii)-(iv)), the “Federal government has clearly expressed more than a ‘peripheral concern’ with the entry, movement, and residence of aliens within the United States and the breadth of these laws illustrates an overwhelmingly dominant Federal interest in the field. Georgia Latina 30 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/92-607.pdf Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 30 of 55 Page ID #:30 31 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of GA, 691 F.3d 1250, 1263-64 (11th Cir. 2012) (GLAHR).

94. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits the cooperation between City officials, including the Huntington Beach Police personnel, and the Federal Government on Federal immigration laws enforcement.

95. Under the Supremacy Clause, any state law “which interferes with or is contrary to Federal law, must yield.” Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association, 505 U.S. 88, 108 (1992).

96. Similar to Arizona’s statute in Valle Del Sol, the Sanctuary State Law is preempted because it prohibits Huntington Beach police officers to notify Federal authorities of any unauthorized aliens in its custody and violates 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(iii) when they “knowingly or in reckless disregard” “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection” in its City Jail or “any means of transportation.”

97. “Given the Federal primacy in the field of enforcing prohibitions on the transportation, harboring, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens, the prospect of 50 individual attempts to regulate immigration-related matters cautions against permitting states to intrude into this area of dominant Federal concern.” Valle Del Sol, 732 F. 3d at p. 1027 (quoting GLAHR, 691 F.3d at 1266).

98. The Sanctuary State Law frustrates the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement priorities to arrest or removal individuals who are a threat to national security, public safety, or recently entered the United States unlawfully. In fact, the California Attorney General Bonta supports DHS’s enforcement priorities to arrest or remove individuals who pose risk to public safety, terrorist, or recently arrived.

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 31 of 55 Page ID #:31 32 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 99. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, cannot obey the Sanctuary State Law without violating 8 U.S.C, § 1324(a)(1)(iii) when they have knowledge or in reckless disregard that an individual in their custody is in violation of law and are prohibited from sharing the information with the Federal authorities.
100. The Orange County Sheriff, Don Barnes, is required to report annually to the Orange County Board of Supervisor on the county’s compliance with California Government Code §§ 7283 and 7283.1 (“California’s Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (“TRUTH”) Act).
101. Sheriff Barnes stated that OCSD is prohibited by State law to notify Immigration Control and Enforcement of the release of inmates with ICE detainers. In 2018, 1,106 inmates who had ICE detainers but did not meet eligibility for notifying ICE were released into the community. 173 out of the 1,106 inmates were rearrested “in Orange County for committing 58 different types of crimes, including attempted murder, assault and battery, child molestation, and robbery.” (Exhibit “A.”)
102. In 2019, OCSD released 1,015 inmates had ICE detainers into the community without notifying ICE of their release because they did not meet state law requirement for notification. “Of the 1,015 inmates with ICE detainers who were released back into the community, 238 have been rearrested in Orange County for committing new crimes, including assault and battery, rape, and robbery.” (Exhibit “B.”) 103. In 2020, OCSD released 168 inmates who had ICE detainers but did not meet the state law’s requirement for notifying ICE were released into the community. Out of the 168 inmates, 36 were rearrested for new crimes in Orange County. (Exhibit “C.”)
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 32 of 55 Page ID #:32 33 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 104. In 2021, OCSD released 199 inmates who had ICE detainers.

In compliance with state law, 143 of these 199 inmates met the state’s requirement for transfer to ICE’s custody. Only 73 out of the 143 individuals were transferred to ICE’s custody. The 70 individuals who were eligible for transfer to ICE, but were not, were released into the community. A total of 24 out of the 70 individuals were re-arrested for committing new crimes in Orange County. (Exhibit “D.”)
105. In 2021, there were 56 inmates who had ICE detainers but did not meet state law requirements for notifying ICE of their release.

Of the 56 released into the community, three were rearrested for committing new crimes in Orange County. (Exhibit “D.”)
106. In 2022, 272 inmates were released form Orange County jail had ICE detainers. OCSD notified ICE of the inmates who were eligible for transfer to ICE’s custody. Of the 155 individuals who met the eligibility, only 17 were transferred to ICE’s custody. The other 138 individuals were released into the community. A total of 20 individuals were rearrested for committing new crimes in Orange County. (Exhibit “E.”)
107. In 2022, there were 117 inmates who had ICE detainers, but state law prohibited OCSD from notifying ICE. They were released into the community. A total of 13 were rearrested for new crimes in Orange County. (Exhibit “E.”)
108. In 2023, there were 547 inmates who had ICE detainers released from Orange County Jail. OCSD notified ICE of the inmates who were eligible for transfer to ICE’s custody under state law. About 81 of those inmates eligible for notification and transfer to ICE’s custody were not transferred and released into the community. A total of 40 Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 33 of 55 Page ID #:33 34 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 individuals were rearrested for committing new crimes in Orange County. (Exhibit “F.”)
109. In 2023, there were 245 inmates with ICE detainers who were not eligible for notifying ICE and were released into the community. 27 were rearrested for new crimes in Orange County. These crimes were robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, parole or probation violation, sales or transport of narcotics, domestic violence, assault with a deadly weapon, felony driving under the influence. (Exhibit “F.”31)
110. Huntington Beach police officers cannot comply with both State and Federal laws while carrying out their duty. For example, an unauthorized alien who was arrested for allegedly committing petty theft and placed in city jail, the Sanctuary State Law prohibits Huntington Beach Police officers from sharing with ICE or if ICE requests information about the individual, Huntington Beach cannot provide information about the individual, and thus, concealing, harboring or shielding from detection an unauthorized alien in its “building” under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(iii). And if ICE arrives at the jail facility, Huntington Beach authority must refuse assumption of custody, as mandated by the Sanctuary State Law. Huntington Beach is in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(iii).
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
31 During his presentation to the Orange County Board of Supervisors, Sheriff Barnes reported that 27 inmates who were released into the community committed new crimes. Sheriff Barnes specified the types of crimes that these 27 individuals committed. However, these crimes were not specified in the staff report (Exhibit “F”). See https://ocgov.granicus.com/player/clip/5109?view_id=8&redirect=true Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 34 of 55 Page ID #:34 35 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 111. Compliance with 8 U.S. Code, Section 1324(a)(1)(ii) is vital to stopping human smuggling. The Sanctuary State Law mandates that law enforcement does not cooperate with Federal authorities over immigration matters, including joining a task force.
112. Huntington Beach, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police Department personnel are prohibited from cooperating, detaining, or investigating whether there is a potential for human trafficking. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police Department personnel, are prohibited from informing the Federal Government that an alien engaged in smuggling individuals into the United States who are not otherwise engaged in human trafficking for forced labor or sex services. 113. Under the Sanctuary State Law, Huntington Beach Police Officers are prohibited from asking the immigration status of aliens working for an employer. Cal. Gov. Code § 7284.6 (a)(1)(A).

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMECY CLAUSE
ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324
(Against All Defendants)
114. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations made in each preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 115. The Sanctuary State Law is unconstitutional. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, 1373; 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, 372; see also Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5; Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3.
116. The Supremacy Clause mandates that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 35 of 55 Page ID #:35 36 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S.

Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
117. The Supremacy Clause “prohibit[s] States from interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.” Geo Group, Inc., 50 F.4th at 750 (quoting United States v. Washington, 142 S.

Ct. at 1984).
118. The Sanctuary State Law violates the Supremacy Clause precisely because it interferes with, in fact it obstructs, the Federal Government’s efforts to coordinate to enforce U.S. Federal immigration laws, including but not limited to 8 U.S.C. § 1324. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1,7285.2.
119. Under the Sanctuary State Law, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are mandated to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien in their custody in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(iii). See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
120. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to fulfill their duty to investigate or detain individuals having committed crimes without violating the Sanctuary State Law. See Cal.

Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.)
121. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
122. The Sanctuary State Law bars local jurisdiction from complying with 8 U.S.C. § 1324 or participate in a joint task force. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 36 of 55 Page ID #:36 37 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 123. The Sanctuary State Law restricts cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government. See Cal. Gov.

Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.)
124. The Sanctuary State Law’s interference with the City’s coordination with the Federal Government in order to “protect” illegal immigrants from the Federal Government’s enforcement of the U.S.

Federal immigration laws as Defendants Governor Newsom and Attorney General Robert Bonta stated, amounts to “harboring” of illegal aliens by the State of California.
125. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to stop crime before it occurs. Instead, they must sit idly by and wait for a human smuggling incident to become a human trafficking situation in order to intervene and comply with California Government Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6.
126. The Sanctuary State Law is an obstacle to the City’s ability to comply with U.S. Federal immigration laws. It prevents City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, from full, effective law enforcement and obstructs the City’s ability to coordinate and cooperate with Federal law enforcement agencies. As U.S. Federal immigration law, according to the Supremacy Clause, is supreme, the Sanctuary State Law is an unconstitutional barrier to the City’s effective law enforcement efforts.
127. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Absent relief, Defendants’ actions continue to harm and threaten to harm Plaintiffs by impairing enjoyment of this right.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 37 of 55 Page ID #:37 38 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE NATURALIZATION CLAUSE
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324
(Against All Defendants)
128. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations made in each preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 129. The Sanctuary State Law is unconstitutional. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, 1373; 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, 372; see also Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5; Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3.
130. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides Congress with the “power… To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization… throughout the United States.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4.
131. In addition to conferring Congress with power to determine when foreign nationals may obtain U.S. citizenship, the Naturalization Clause is viewed as contributing to Congress’s power over immigration, including its power to set rules for when aliens may enter or remain in the United States.
132. In Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. at 387, the Supreme Court declared that the Federal Government’s “broad, undoubted power” over immigration was partially based “on the national government’s constitutional power to ‘establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,’ and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.” Id. at 394–95 (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4). 133. The Sanctuary State Law violates the City’s right to fully control its own Police Department and fully and effectively engage in law Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 38 of 55 Page ID #:38 39 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 enforcement. Moreover, neither the State, nor its laws, may prevent the City of Huntington Beach from honoring, following, and/or complying with State and all Federal laws, including Federal laws on immigration, which is the supreme law of the land on immigration.
134. The Sanctuary State Law violates the City’s right to fully control its own Police Department and fully and effectively engage in law enforcement. Specifically, California Government Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, and 7285.2 prohibit local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation.
135. Under the Sanctuary State Law, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are mandated to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien in their custody in violation of 8 U.S.C.§ 1324(a)(1)(iii). See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
136. The Sanctuary State Law bars local jurisdiction from complying with 8 U.S.C. § 1324 or participate in a joint task force. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2. 137. California Government Code §§ 7284.4 and 7282.5 restrict cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government.
138. The Sanctuary State Law allows for smugglers to transport individuals into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 for financial gain.
139. The Sanctuary State Law places aliens at risk of harm or being trafficked because California Law Enforcement Agencies cannot engage in the enforcement of 8 U.S.C. § 1324.

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 39 of 55 Page ID #:39 40 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 140. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement agencies from asking employers about a person’s immigration status under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3). Cal. Gov. Code § 7284.6(a)(1)(A). 141. In recent years, Defendant Governor Gavin Newsom has taken a series of substantial steps to incentivize the inflow of illegal immigration into California, and to protect and harbor illegal immigrants, with the implementing of policies and laws to: hire illegal immigrants in jobs in State government, give illegal immigrants taxpayer funded downpayments of $150,000 to buy homes, spend $2.3 million of taxpayer money to support the relocating and settling of illegal immigrants in rural areas of the State, give illegal immigrants home mortgage aid to buy homes, newly allocating $25 million in taxpayer funded legal defense fund for illegal immigrants to fight the Federal government’s announced crackdown on illegal immigration, which seeks to combat the violent crimes committed against U.S. citizens, and the list goes on.
142. In addition, on December 17, 2024, Defendant Attorney General Robert Bonta issued a Press Release advising illegal immigrants the ways in which his office, and the State, were going to assist in shielding illegal immigrants – “threats of mass detention, arrests, and deportation” – from detection and detention by the Federal Government.

In that Press Release, Robert Bonta directly advised that “You have the right to apply for and secure housing without sharing your immigration status,” and “You have the right to an attorney.”
143. Defendant Robert Bonta has stated, “State and local law enforcement cannot ask for your immigration status” and “State and local law enforcement cannot share your personal information” and “State and local law enforcement cannot assist ICE with immigration Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 40 of 55 Page ID #:40 41 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 enforcement.” Not only does his statement reflect a violation of Federal immigration law, his statement also indicates a systematic program by the State to shield illegal immigrants in response to “the President-elect making clear his intent to move forward an inhumane and destructive immigration agenda once he takes office.” Defendant Robert Bonta’s statements make clear that his systematic program to protect illegal immigrants conflicts with U.S. Federal immigration laws and Federal Government operations.
144. “Effective immigration law enforcement requires a
cooperative effort between all levels of government.” City of New York v.

United States, 179 F.3d at 32-33.
145. The Sanctuary State Law violates Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution by actively obstructing the authority of the Federal Government and obstructing the City’s ability to employ all laws available, including U.S. Federal immigration laws, to combat crime and ensure public safety by coordinating with the Federal Government to deal with certain individuals committing crime and who are subject to U.S. Federal immigration laws.
146. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Absent relief, Defendants’ actions continue to harm and threaten to harm Plaintiffs by impairing enjoyment of this right.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF U.S. FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS
TITLE 8, U.S.C. § 1324
(Against All Defendants)
147. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations made in each preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 41 of 55 Page ID #:41 42 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 148. The Sanctuary State Law is unconstitutional. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, 1373; 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, 372; see also Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5; Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3.
149. In 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration and
Naturalization Act. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1537. Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324 was enacted to combat human smugglers who commit the crime by “bringing people into the United States, or unlawfully transporting and harboring people already in the United States, in deliberate evasion of immigration law.”
150. In part, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes it a Federal crime for any person to “knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i). 151. Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324 also makes it a Federal crime for any person to “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). 152. And, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes it a Federal crime for any person to “knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B).” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A).

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 42 of 55 Page ID #:42 43 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 153. Under the Sanctuary State Law, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are mandated to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien in their custody in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(iii). See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7284.4, 7282.5, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
154. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to fulfill their duty to investigate or detain individuals having committed crimes without violating the Sanctuary State Law. See Cal.

Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
155. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
156. The Sanctuary State Law bars local jurisdiction from complying with 8 U.S. Code, Section 1324 or participate in a joint task force. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2. 157. The Sanctuary State Law restricts cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government. See Cal. Gov.

Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
158. The Sanctuary State Law’s interference with the City’s coordination with the Federal Government in order to “protect” illegal immigrants from the Federal Government’s enforcement of the U.S.

Federal immigration laws as Defendants Governor Newsom and Attorney General Robert Bonta have declared is “harboring” of illegal aliens by the State of California.
159. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to stop crime before it occurs. Instead, they must sit idly by and wait for a human smuggling incident to become a human trafficking Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 43 of 55 Page ID #:43 44 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 situation in order to intervene and comply with California Government Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6.
160. The Sanctuary State Law is an obstacle to the City’s ability to comply with U.S. Federal immigration laws. It prevents City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, from full, effective law enforcement and obstructs the City’s ability to coordinate and cooperate with Federal law enforcement agencies. Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Federal immigration law is supreme, and the Sanctuary State Law is an unconstitutional barrier to the City’s effective law enforcement efforts.
161. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Absent relief, Defendants’ actions continue to harm and threaten to harm Plaintiffs by impairing enjoyment of this right.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF U.S. FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS
TITLE 8, U.S.C. § 1373
(Against All Defendants)
162. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations made in each preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 163. The Sanctuary State Law is unconstitutional. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, 1373; 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, 372; see also Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5; Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3.
164. Title 8, U.S.C. § 1373(a) provides, “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal State, or local government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 44 of 55 Page ID #:44 45 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” 165. Under the Sanctuary State Law, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are mandated to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien in their custody in violation of 8 U.S.C.§ 1324(a)(1)(iii). See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
166. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
167. The Sanctuary State Law’s interference with the City’s coordination with the Federal Government in order to “protect” illegal immigrants from the Federal Government’s enforcement of the Federal immigration laws as Defendants Governor Newsom and Attorney General Robert Bonta have declared is “harboring” of illegal aliens by the State of California.
168. The Sanctuary State Law is an obstacle to the City’s ability to comply with U.S. Federal immigration laws. It prevents City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, from full, effective law enforcement and obstructs the City’s ability to coordinate and cooperate with Federal law enforcement agencies. Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Federal immigration law is supreme, and the Sanctuary State Law is an unconstitutional barrier to the City’s effective law enforcement efforts.
169. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Absent relief, Defendants’ actions continue to harm and threaten to harm Plaintiffs by impairing enjoyment of this right.

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 45 of 55 Page ID #:45 46 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF U.S. FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS
TITLE 18, U.S.C. §§ 4, 371 AND 372
(Against All Defendants)
170. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations made in each preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 171. The Sanctuary State Law is unconstitutional. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, 1373; 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, 372; see also Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5; Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3.
172. Title 18, U.S.C. § 4 provides, “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 4.
173. Title 8, U.S.C. § 371 provides, “If two or more persons conspire to either commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose…each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” See United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 536 (9th Cir. 1989) (“conspiracy to defraud the United States is not limited to common-law fraud but reaches ‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government.’ [Citation.]”).
174. Title 8, U.S.C. § 372 provides, “If two or more
persons…conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 46 of 55 Page ID #:46 47 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States…or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.”
175. Under the Sanctuary State Law, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are mandated to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien in their custody in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(iii). See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.6, 7284.4, 7285.1, 7285.2.
176. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to fulfill their duty to investigate or detain individuals having committed crimes without violating the Sanctuary State Law. See Cal.

Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
177. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
178. The Sanctuary State Law bars local jurisdiction from complying with 8 U.S. Code, Section 1324 or participate in a joint task force. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2. 179. The Sanctuary State Law restricts cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government. See Cal. Gov.

Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
180. The Sanctuary State Law’s interference with the City’s coordination with the Federal Government in order to “protect” illegal immigrants from the Federal Government’s enforcement of the U.S.

Federal immigration laws as Defendants Governor Newsom and Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 47 of 55 Page ID #:47 48 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Attorney General Robert Bonta have declared is tantamount to “harboring” of illegal aliens by the State of California. 181. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to stop crime before it occurs. Instead, they must sit idly by and wait for a human smuggling incident to become a human trafficking situation in order to intervene and comply with California Government Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6.
182. The Sanctuary State Law is an obstacle to the City’s ability to comply with U.S. Federal immigration laws. It prevents City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, from full, effective law enforcement and obstructs the City’s ability to coordinate and cooperate with Federal law enforcement agencies. Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Federal immigration law is supreme, and the Sanctuary State Law is an unconstitutional barrier to the City’s effective law enforcement efforts.
183. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Absent relief, Defendants’ actions continue to harm and threaten to harm Plaintiffs by impairing enjoyment of this right.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

AIDING AND ABETTING, ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §§ 31, 32
(Against All Defendants)
184. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations made in each preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 185. California Penal Code § 31 provides, “All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 48 of 55 Page ID #:48 49 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission, and all persons counseling, advising, or encouraging children under the age of fourteen years, or persons who are mentally incapacitated, to commit any crime, or who, by fraud, contrivance, or force, occasion the drunkenness of another for the purpose of causing him to commit any crime, or who, by threats, menaces, command, or coercion, compel another to commit any crime, are principals in any crime so committed.”
186. California Penal Code § 32 provides: “Every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors, conceals or aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof, is an accessory to such felony.” 187. Under the Sanctuary State Law, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are mandated to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien in their custody in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(iii). See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
188. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to fulfill their duty to investigate or detain individuals having committed crimes without violating the Sanctuary State Law. See Cal.

Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
189. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 49 of 55 Page ID #:49 50 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 190. The Sanctuary State Law bars local jurisdiction from complying with 8 U.S.C. § 1324 or participate in a joint task force. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2. 191. The Sanctuary State Law restricts cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government. See Cal. Gov.

Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
192. The Sanctuary State Law’s interference with the City’s coordination with the Federal Government in order to “protect” illegal immigrants from the Federal Government’s enforcement of the U.S.

Federal immigration laws as Defendants Governor Newsom and Attorney General Robert Bonta have declared is “harboring” of illegal aliens by the State of California and amounts to a violation of California Penal Code §§ 31 and 32.
193. The Sanctuary State Law causes City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate California Penal Code §§ 31 and 32 by aiding and abetting the commission of a crime and accessory after the fact in the commission of a crime, i.e., the violation of U.S. Federal immigration laws, including but not limited to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324 and 1325.
194. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Absent relief, Defendants’ actions continue to harm and threaten to harm Plaintiffs by impairing enjoyment of this right.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 50 of 55 Page ID #:50 51 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
ARTICLE XX, § 3 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
(Against All Defendants)
195. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations made in each preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 196. The Sanctuary State Law is unconstitutional. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1325, 1373; 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 371, 372; see also Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5; Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3.
197. Article XX, § 3 of the California Constitution provides the Oath of Office that certain City officials, including elected officials and police officers, are required to take in order to be fully vested with authority for the office they are to assume. Cal. Const. art. XX, § 3. 198. The Constitutionally required Oath of Office states “I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.” 199. The Sanctuary State Law forces the City’s officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate their legal obligations and their Oaths of Office to the U.S Constitution, the California Constitution, and U.S. Federal immigration laws in violation of the California Constitution’s Oath of Office.

Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 51 of 55 Page ID #:51 52 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 200. Under the Sanctuary State Law, City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are mandated to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” any alien in their custody in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(iii). See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
201. City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, are unable to fulfill their duty to investigate or detain individuals having committed crimes without violating the Sanctuary State Law. See Cal.

Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
202. The Sanctuary State Law prohibits local law enforcement officers to cooperate with the Federal Government in criminal immigration investigation. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
203. The Sanctuary State Law bars local jurisdiction from complying with 8 U.S.C. § 1324 or participate in a joint task force. See Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2. 204. The Sanctuary State Law restricts cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the Federal Government. See Cal. Gov.

Code §§ 7282.5, 7284.4, 7284.6, 7285.1, 7285.2.
205. The Sanctuary State Law’s interference with the City’s coordination with the Federal Government in order to “protect” illegal immigrants from the Federal Government’s enforcement of the U.S.

Federal immigration laws causes City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate the terms of their Oath of Office required by the California Constitution, i.e., that they swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [they] will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 52 of 55 Page ID #:52 53 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that [they] take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that [they] will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which [they] a[re] about to enter,” causing violations of U.S.

Federal immigration laws, including but not limited to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324 and 1325.
206. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Absent relief, Defendants’ actions continue to harm and threaten to harm Plaintiffs by impairing enjoyment of this right.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

1. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing Defendants from enforcing the Sanctuary State Law (SB 54), or, alternatively, from enforcing the California statutes and constitutional provisions upon which the Sanctuary State Law is based to the extent those statutes and provisions violate the Supremacy Clause, the afore U.S. Federal immigration laws, the afore California Penal Code(s), and other provisions of the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution;

2. An order and judgment declaring that the Sanctuary State Law (SB 54), or, alternatively, the California statutes and constitutional provisions upon which the Sanctuary State Law is based, violate the Supremacy Clause, the afore U.S. Federal immigration laws, the afore California Penal Code(s), and other provisions of the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution;

3. An order and judgment declaring that the Sanctuary State Law (SB 54) provides no obstacle to Huntington Beach’s cooperation with Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 53 of 55 Page ID #:53 54 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 the Federal Government and acts to comply with all U.S. Federal immigration laws, or, alternatively, the California statutes and constitutional provisions upon which AB 1955 is based, violate the Supremacy Clause, the afore U.S. Federal immigration laws, the afore California Penal Code(s), and other provisions of the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution;

4. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and other applicable laws; and

5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: January 7, 2025 MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney
By: /s/ Michael E. Gates .

Michael E. Gates, City Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiffs

CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,

HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY

COUNCIL, HUNTINGTON BEACH
POLICE DEPARTMENT, and the

HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE
CHIEF
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 54 of 55 Page ID #:54 55 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, HUNTINGTON

BEACH CITY COUNCIL, HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE
DEPARTMENT, and the HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE CHIEF
hereby demand trial by jury in the above-entitled action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38(b) and Local Rule 38-1.

DATED: January 7, 2025 MICHAEL E. GATES, City Attorney
By: /s/ Michael E. Gates .

Michael E. Gates, City Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiffs

CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,

HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY

COUNCIL, HUNTINGTON BEACH
POLICE DEPARTMENT, and the

HUNTINGTON BEACH POLICE
CHIEF
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 55 of 55 Page ID #:55

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

MINUTE ORDER
April 23, 2019
SubmittingAgency/Deparrmenr: County Counsel
Pursuant to Government Code Section 7283.1, conduct public hearing regarding Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act and receive and file information from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2018 - All Districts The following is action taken by the Board of Supervisors:

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED rii1 OTHER □
Unanimous rii1 (1) DO: Y (2) STEEL: Y (3) WAGNER: Y (4) CHAFFEE: Y (5) BARTLETT: Y Vote Key: Y=Yes; N=No; A=Abstain; X=Excused; B.O.=Board Order Documents accompanying this matter:

D Resolution(s)
D Ordinances(s)
D Contract(s)
Item No. S49C
Special Notes:

Copies sent to:

CoCo - Nicole Sims
4125/19
l certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Minute Order adopted by the Board of Supervisors, Orange County, State of California.

Robin Stieler, Clerk of the Board

EXHIBIT A
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:56 County Executive Office
Memorandum
April 16, 2019
To:

From:

Subject:

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Frank Kim, County Executive Officer
Exception to Rule 21
Cf)
-·o
:t1!
r:~)
f,)
Cl\
,,;,
The County Executive Office is requesting a Supplemental Agenda Staff Report (ASR) for the April 23, 2019, Board Hearing Meeting.

Agency:

Subject:

Districts:

County Counsel
Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act Community Forum All Districts
Reason for supplemental: Conducting the public hearing and receiving and filing information regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during 2018 will meet the requirements of California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1.

Concur:

Chai~~oc Fllfu Disaict
cc: Board of Supervisors
County Executive Office
County Counsel

EXHIBIT A
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:57

SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEM

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/23/19
LEGAL ENTITY TAKING ACTION: Board of_ Supervisors
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT(S): All Districts
SUBMITTING AGENCY /DEPARTMENT:

DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:

DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON(S): Leon J. Page (714) 834-3300 Nicole A. Sims (714) 834-3319
Agenda Item
Clerk's Use Only
N .,. • 14ii1
<:'I'>
SUBJECT: Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH)Act Community Forum

CEO CONCUR COUNTY COUNSEL REVIEW CLERK OF THE BOARD
170 l;J~ oZJ,,te~f,~ Public Hearing
Y2't1c~t/35:;L__ 3 Votes Board Majority
CEO Signature County Counsel Signature
Budgeted: N/ A Current Year Cost: N/ A
Staffing Impact: N/ A # of Positions:

Current Fiscal Year Revenue: N/ A
Funding Source: NIA
Prior Board Action: 12/04/2018 #S40A

RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)
Annual Cost:• N/ A
Sole Source: N/ A
County Audit in last 3 years N/ A

1. Pursuant to Government Code section 7283 .1, conduct public hearing regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during 2018.

2. Receive and file information from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2018.

SUMMARY:

California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act (Government Code sections 7283 and 7283 .1) requires that a Community Forum be held each year, to provide the public with information about what access to individuals had been providedto Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.

EXHIBIT A
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:58 BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Government Code section 7283, subdivision (d), defines "ICE access" as follows:
"ICE access" means, for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement, including when an individual is stopped with or without their consent, arrested, detained, or otherwise under the control of the local law enforcement agency, all of the following:
(1) Responding to an ICE hold, notification, or transfer request. (2) Providing notification to ICE in advance of the public that an individual is being or will be released at a certain date and time through data sharing or otherwise. (3) Providing ICE non-publicly available information regarding release dates, home addresses, or work addresses, whether through computer databases, jail logs, or otherwise.
( 4) Allowing ICE to interview an individual.
(5) Providing ICE information regarding dates and times of probation or parole checkms.

Sheriff's Department
Following the.enactment of state laws limiting law enforcement agencies' cooperation with ICE except as provided, the Sheriffs Department (OCSD) implemented a jail policy and created forms to meet the laws' requirements. OCSD'sjail policy 1206 (Attachment D) prohibits any transfer of an inmate to ICE's custody unless in accordance with state law. Following the enactment cif the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, OCSD created forms by which OCSD requests an inmate's written consent to be interviewed by ICE ("TRUTH Act Interview Consent Form") and also notifies an inmate if the inmate qualifies to be transferred to ICE's custody following the inmate's release from OCSD's custody ("TRUTH Act Notification Form") (Attachment E).

OCSD provided the following information:
• In 2018, a total of 1,823 inmates in the Orange County Jail had ICE detainers, meaning ICE requested that OCSD notify them when the inmates were being released and transfer the inmates to ICE's custody. The OCSD transferred 717 inmates to ICE upon completion of their time in local custody from January 1 to December 31, 2018. Those transferred were all individuals whose criminal convictions met the state law's requirement for transfer to ICE's custody. • State law prohibited OCSD from notifying ICE of the release of 1,106 inmates who had ICE detainers. Of the 1,106 inmates with ICE detainers who were released back into the community, 173 have been rearrested in Orange County for committing 5 8 different types of crimes, including attempted murder, assault and battery, child molestation, and robbery.

Probation Department
The Probation Department does not permit ICE to have access to any juvenile in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision. This is in accord with Welfare and Institutions Code section 831, which prohibits disclosure of juvenile information to federal officials absent a court order from the Juvenile Court.

Page2

EXHIBIT A
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:59 The Probation Department has briefed its Probation Officers about the legal requirements for ICE access to adults. The Probation Department has not had a situation where it has allowed ICE access to an adult in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision in 2018.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

NIA
STAFFING IMPACT:

NIA
REVIEWING AGENCIES:

Sheriffs Department
Probation Department
ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment A - Government Code section 7283
Attachment B - Government Code section 7283 .1
Attachment C - Welfare and Institutions Code section 831 Attachment D - OCSD's Jail Policy Section 1206 (Immigration) Attachment E- OCSD's Inmate Interview Consent Form and Notification Form

EXHIBIT A
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-1 Filed 01/07/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:60

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

MINUTE ORDER
December 08, 2020
Submilling Agency/Department: County Counsel
Pursuant to Government Codes Section 7283.1 conduct public hearing regarding Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act and receive and file infom1ation from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs En forcement's access to individuals in 2019 -All Districts The following is action taken by the Board of Supervisors:

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED r&'I OTHER 0
Unanimous r&'I (I) DO: Y (2) STEEL: Y (3) WAGNER: Y (4) CHAr:FEE: Y (5) BARTLETT: Y Vote Key: Y=Yes; N=Nu; A=Abstain,· X=Excused; B.0. =Board Order Documents accompanying this matter:
0 Resolution(s)
0 Ordinances(s)
0 Contract(s)
Item No. S34A
Special Notes:

Copies sent to:

CoCo - Leon Page
12/ /1120
I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the .Vlinute Order adopted by the Board of Supervisors . Orange County, State of Cal ifornia.

Robin Stief er. Clerk of the Board

EXHIBIT B
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-2 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:61 Memorandum
November 30, 2020
To: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
From:

Subject: Exception to Rule 21
' )
, ' 1
(.Jl
The County Executive Office is requesting a Supplemental Agenda Staff Report (ASR) for the December 8, 2020, Board Hearing Meeting.

Agency:

Subject:

Districts:

County Cow1sel
TRUTH Act Commlmity Forum
All Districts
Reason for supplemental: Conducting the public hearing and rece1vmg and filing information regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by Coru1ty law enforcement departments during 2019 will meet the requirements of California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1.

Concur:
cc: Board of Supervisors
County Executive Office
County Counsel

EXHIBIT B
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-2 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:62

SUPPLEMENT AL AGENDA ITEM

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12108120
LEGAL ENTITY TAKING ACTION: Board of Supervisors
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT(S): All Districts
SUBMITTING AGENCY/DEPARTMENT:

DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Coz::n~~
Department Head Signature
DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON(S): Leon J. Page (714) 834-3300 Nicole A. Sims (714) 834-3319
Agenda Item C:::::--=:? / t i1
Clerk's Use 011/y _ 0.:..xr ..=:.___: -.n ,
1 , l
U1
SUBJECT: Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act Community Fornm

CEO CONCUR
2 CEO Signature
Budgeted: NI A

COUNTY COUNSEL REVIEW
Nol~~tffb )~t..C:/i~
Act if,;
~-wod.~
County Counsel Signature
Current Year Cost: NI A

CLERK OF THE BOARD
Public Hearing
3 Votes Board Majority
Staffing Impact: NI A # of Positions:

Annual Cost: NIA
Sole Source: NI A
County Audit in last 3 years NI A
Current Fiscal Year Revenue: NI A
Funding Source: NI A
Prior Board Action: NI A

RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)

1. Pursuant to Government Code section 7283.1 , conduct public hearing regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during 2019.

2. Receive and file information from County Jaw enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2019.

SUMMARY:

California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act (Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1) requires that a Community Forum be held each year, to provide the public with

EXHIBIT B
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-2 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:63 information about what access to individuals had been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Govermnent Code section 7283, subdivision ( d), defines "ICE access" as follows:
"ICE access" means, for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement, including when an individual is stopped with or without their consent, arrested, detained, or otherwise under the control of the local law enforcement agency, all of the following:
(1) Responding to an ICE hold, notification, or transfer request. (2) Providing notification to ICE in advance of the public that an individual is being or will be released at a certain date and time through data sharing or otherwise. (3) Providing ICE non-publicly available information regarding release dates, home addresses, or work addresses, whether through computer databases, jail logs, or otherwise.
( 4) Allowing ICE to interview an individual.
(5) Providing ICE information regarding dates and times of probation or parole checkins.

Sheriff-Coroner Department
Following the enactment of state laws limiting law enforcement agencies' cooperation with ICE except as provided, the Sheriff-Coroner Department (OCSD) implemented a jail policy and created forms to meet the laws'. requirements. OCSD's jail policy 1206 (Attachment B) prohibits any transfer of an inmate to ICE's custody unless in accordance with state law. Following the enactment of the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, OCSD created forms by which OCSD requests an inmate's written consent to be interviewed by ICE (TRUTH Act Interview Consent Form) and also notifies an inmate if the inmate qualifies to be transferred to ICE's custody following the inmate's release from OCSD's custody (TRUTH Act Notification Form) (Attachment C). •
OCSD provided the following information for 2019:
• In 2019, a total of 1,507 inmates in the Orange County Jail had ICE detainers, meaning ICE requested that OCSD notify them when the inmates were being released and transfer the inmates to ICE's custody. OCSD transferred 492 inmates to ICE upon completion of their time in local custody from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019. Those transferred were all individuals whose criminal convictions met the state law's requirement for transfer to ICE's custody. • State law prohibited OCSD from notifying ICE of the release of 1,015 inmates who had ICE detainers. Of the 1,015 inmates with ICE detainers who were released back into the community, 238 have been rearrested in Orange County for committing new crimes, including assault and battery, rape and robbery.

EXHIBIT B
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-2 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:64 Probation Department
The Probation Department (Probation) does not permit ICE to have access to any juvenile in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision. This is in accord with Welfare and Institutions Code section 831, which prohibits disclosure of juvenile information to federal officials absent a court order from the Juvenile Court.

Probation has briefed its Probation Officers about the legal requirements for ICE access to adults. Probation has not had a situation where it has allowed ICE access to an adult in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision in 2019.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

NIA
STAFFING IMPACT:

NIA
REVIEWING AGENCIES:

Sheriff-Coroner Department
Probation Department
ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment A - Government Code sections 7283, 7283 .1 & Welfare and Institutions Code section 831 Attachment B - OCSD's Jail Policy Section 1206 (Immigration) Attachment C- OCSD's Inmate Interview Consent Form and Notification Form

EXHIBIT B
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-2 Filed 01/07/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:65

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

MINUTE ORDER
February 23, 2021
Submilling Agency/Department: County Counsel
Pursuant to Government Code Section 7283.1, conduct public hearing regarding Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act and receive and file infonnation from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2020 - All Districts The following is action taken by the Board of Supervisors:

APPROVED AS RECOM MENDED □ OTHER t?s1

RECEIVED AND FILED
Unanimous O (1) DO: (2) VACANT: (3) WAGNER: (4) CHAFFEE: (5) BARTLETT:

Vote Key: Y=Yes; N=No; A=Abstain; X=Excused; B.0. =Board Order Documents accompa nying this matter:

D Resolution(s)
D Ordinances(s)
D Contract(s)
Item No. S 15C
Special Notes:

Copies sent to:

CoCo - Nicole Sims
2i26!2 I
I c.:rtify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Minute Order adopted by the Board of Supervisors , Orange County, Stale of California.

Robin Stieler, Clerk of the l:loard

EXHIBIT C
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-3 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:66 Memorandum • ... • . I
~ ' ; I < ' .... i .,
·,,
February 17, 2021
To: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
From: Frank Kim, Cow,ty Executive Officer
Subject: Exception to Rule 21
The County Executive Office is requesting a Supplemental Agenda Staff Report (ASR) for the February 23, 2021, Board Hearing Meeting.

Agency:

Subject:

Districts:

County Counsel
Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act Commwuty Forum
All Districts
Reason for supplemental: Conducting the public hearing and rece1vmg and filing information regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by Coimty law enforcement departments during 2020 will meet the requirements of California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1.

Concur ~J;_ /).p?,
~ chairman Andrew Do, Supervisor, First District
cc: Board of Supervisors
County Executive Office
Coimty Counsel

EXHIBIT C
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-3 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:67 Agenda Item Cl f-5G
Clerk's Use Only _V __ _ SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEM

AGENDASTAFFREPORT
MEETING DATE: 02123121
LEGAL ENTITY TAKING ACTION: Board of Supervisors
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT(S): All Districts
SUBMITTING AGENCY/DEPARTMENT:

Co~ e:,,-0--V- DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:

Department Head Signature
DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON(S): Leon J. Page (714) 834-3300 Nicole A. Sims (714) 834-3319
l'
( )
),-
l-
~ ':
(, I
: I
r ..
~.:.:.
f ' '
(, .

SUBJECT: Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act Community Forum f_ )
• I r, I
\,., . .J
l
~ '
- -:7
~ •
: •. . .
.. \.,_
___ _ !

CEOCONCUR
Michelle OigiMlly Jlg:nrd by Michelle Aguiur
ON en-Mich rite Agui1,,, o -Covnl)'
hecufr,•r Offiie. ouaChit l Fin anti•!
Otrtee,.

COUNTY COUNSEL REVIEW
/It If)~ d J,11,«,~

CLERK OF THE BOARD
Public Hearing
Aguirre tl'Nll- mid,,e-He 1guirrep ocgovcom,
t• US
Oi1r:202L0217 15.sl:06·08'00'
(_ Actio~
& cJ& (2_ ~ 3 Votes Board Majority
CEO Signature County Counsel Signature
Budgeted: NIA Current Year Cost: NI A
Staffing Impact: NIA # of Positions:

Current Fiscal Year Revenue: NIA
Funding Source: NI A
Annual Cost: NI A
Sole Source: NI A
County Audit in last 3 years NI A
Prior Board Action: 12108/2020 #S34A, 04123/2019 #S49C, 12/04/2018 #S40A

RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)

1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7283.1 , conduct public hearing regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during 2020.

2. Receive and file information from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2020.

SUMMARY:

California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds Act (Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1) requires that a Community Forum be held each year, to provide the public with information about what access to individuals has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.

EXHIBIT C
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-3 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:68 BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Government Code section 7283, subdivision ( d), defines Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) access as follows:
"ICE access" means, for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement, including when an individual is stopped with or without their consent, arrested, detained, or otherwise under the control of the local law enforcement agency, all of the following:
(1) Responding to an ICE hold, notification, or transfer request. (2) Providing notification to ICE in advance of the public that an individual is being or will be released at a certain date and time through data sharing or otherwise. (3) Providing ICE non-publicly available information regarding release dates, home addresses, or work addresses, whether through computer databases, jail logs, or otherwise.
(4) Allowing ICE to interview an individual.
(5) Providing ICE information regarding dates and times of probation or parole checkms.

Sheriff-Coroner Department (OCSD)
Following the enactment of state laws limiting law enforcement agencies' cooperation with ICE except as provided, OCSD implemented a jail policy and created forms to meet the laws' requirements. OCSD's Jail Policy 1206 (Attachment B) prohibits any transfer of an inmate to ICE's custody unless in accordance with state law. Following the enactment of the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, OCSD created forms by which OCSD requests an inmate's written consent to be interviewed by ICE (TRUTH Act Interview Consent Form) and also notifies an inmate if the inmate qualifies to be transferred to ICE's custody following the inmate's release from OCSD's custody (TRUTH Act Notification Form) (Attachment C).

OCSD provided the following information for 2020 (see Attachment D):
• In calendar year 2020, a total of 393 inmates released from the Orange County Jail had ICE detainers, meaning ICE requested that OCSD notify them when the inmates were being released and transfer the inmates to ICE's custody. In 2020, OCSD released 225 of those 393 inmates to ICE upon completion of their time in local custody. Those transferred were all individuals whose criminal convictions met the state law's requirement for transfer to ICE's custody. • State law prohibited OCSD from notifying ICE of the release of 168 inmates who had ICE detainers. Of the 168 inmates with ICE detainers who were released back into the community, 36 were re-arrested for new crimes in Orange County.
• The 2020 statistics are significantly lower than previous years. The difference in numbers is largely due to factors associated with the pandemic. The total Orange County Jail population was 5,303 on March 7, 2020. Efforts to reduce the population to mitigate against the spread of COVID-19 occurred through much of 2020. By December 31, 2020, the jail population was 3,407. A temporary order suspending bail, court-ordered jail releases and the release of certain low-level offenders done through the Sheriffs discretion all resulted in a lower jail population. Additionally, litigation that limited capacity at ICE facilities has also been a factor in the reduced numbers.

EXHIBIT C
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-3 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:69 Probation Department (Probation)
Probation does not permit ICE to have access to any juvenile in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision. This is in accord with Welfare and Institutions Code section 831, which prohibits disclosure of juvenile information to federal officials absent a court order from the Juvenile Court.

Probation has briefed its Probation Officers about the legal requirements for ICE access to adults. Probation has not had a situation where it has allowed ICE access to an adult in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision in 2020.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

NIA
STAFFING IMPACT:

NIA
REVIEWING AGENCIES:

Sheriff-Coroner Department
Probation Department
ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment A- Government Code Sections 7283 and 7283.1; Welfare & Institutions Code Section 831 Attachment B - OCSD's Jail Policy Section 1206 (Immigration) Attachment C - OCSD's Inmate Interview Consent Form and Notification Form Attachment D - Orange County Jail - Immigration Detainer Data - 2020 Page3

EXHIBIT C
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-3 Filed 01/07/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:70

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

MINUTE ORDER
March 22, 2022
SubmillingAgency/Department: County Counsel
Pursuant to Government Code Section 7283.1, conduct public hearing regarding Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act and receive and file infonnation from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2021 - All Districts The following is action taken by the Board of Supervisors:

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED O OTHER C!lJ

RECEIVED AND FILED
Unanimous O (I) DO: (2) FOLEY: (3) WAGNER: (4) CHAFFEE: (5) BARTLETT:

Vote Key: Y=Yes; N=No; A=Abstain,· X=Exc11sed; B.O.=Board Order Documents accompanying this matter:
0 Resolution(s)
0 Ordinances(s)
D Contract(s)
Item No. S46A
Special Notes:

Copies sent to:

CoCo - Nicole Sims
3128122
I cenify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Minute Order adopted by the Board of Supervisors, Orange County, State of California.

Robin Stieler, Clerk of the Board
By:~6(\JUJ.ll
Deputy

EXHIBIT D
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-4 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:71 County Executive Office
Memorandum
March 15, 2022
To:

From:

Subject:

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Frank Kim, County Execu tive Officer
Exception to Rule 21
. r-·,
Oig11ally signed by Frank K,m < _
DN: cn=Frank Kim, o=County of ( . -< Orange, ou=CEO, - • • email=frank.kimet,oc:gov.com, ::n r_ c=US ,,
Dale: 2022.03.15 08:43:13 -OTOO'
C...-7
0 The County Executive Office is requesting a Supplemental Agenda Staff Report for the March 22, 2022, Board Hearing.

Agency: Cow1 ty Cow1sel
Subject: TRUTH Act Community Forum
Districts: All Districts
Reason Item is Supplemental: This item is a supplemental item to allow the Sheriff's Department time to ga ther data about the access to individuals provided to Immigrntion and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during 2021 and to accommodate the Sheriff's schedule.

Justification: Tl-us item must be heard on March 22, 2022, because the 30-day public notice required by Governmen t Code Section 7283.1 specified that date. If it is continued, the 30-day public notice must be given anew. Th.is Agenda Staff Report and attachments were finalized after the fi]jng deadline to the Clerk of the Board.

Concur:
cc: Board of Supervisors
County Executive Office
County Counsel
...
,,.
..

I
0 EXHIBIT D
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-4 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:72 .,.._
Agenda Item Q J J I_ I\
Clerk's Use Only ~ I.P if
MEETING DATE:

SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEM

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
03122/22
-··· ', LEGAL ENTITY TAKING ACTION: Board of Supervisors , ·:"'1 ' c.n BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT(S): All Districts
SUBMITTING AGENCY/DEPARTMENT:

DEPARTEMENT HEAD REVIEW:

DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON(S):

County Counsel
Leon J. Page ~..::,:;:;--..-:-
Department Head Signature
Leon J. Page (714) 834-3300
Nicole A. Sims (714) 834-3319
SUBJECT: Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUIB) Act Community Forum -' • - .
.. - .
;:._, c .....
,, l 0
N

CEO CONCUR COUNTY COUNSEL REVIEW
Nolc.z5 d t>h1·.e.cfin--v

CLERK OF THE BOARD
Public Hearing
Action 1 ./}
Yl('~ t2. ,.,,x_µ.,.~- 3 Votes Board Majority
CEO Signature co11nty Counsel Signature
Budgeted: NI A Current Year Cost: NI A
Staffing Impact: NIA # of Positions:

Current Fiscal Year Revenue: NIA
Funding Source: NI A
Annual Cost: NIA
Sole Source: NIA
County Audit in last 3 years NIA
Prior Board Action: 412312019, Item #S49C, 12108/2020, Item #S34A, 02/231202 I, Item #S l5C

RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)
l . Pursuant to Government Code section 7283.1, conduct public hearing regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during 2021.

2. Receive and file information from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2021.

SUMMARY:

California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act (Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1) requires that a Community Forum be held each year, to provide the public with information about what access to individuals had been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.

Page I
r ,

EXHIBIT D
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-4 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:73 BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

In accord with Government Code sections 7283, subdivision (a) and 7283.1, subdivision (d), the Board has held a public hearing at its meetings on April 23, 2019, December 8, 2020, and February 23, 2021, to provide the public with information about what access to individuals had been provided to ICE by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.

Government Code section 7283, subdivision (d), defines "ICE access" as follows:
"ICE access" means, for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement, including when an individual is stopped with or without their consent, arrested, detained, or otheJWise under the control of the local law enforcement agency, all of the following:
(I) Responding to an ICE hold, notification, or transfer request. (2) Providing notification to ICE in advance of the public that an individual is being or will be released at a certain date and time through data sharing or otherwise. (3) Providing ICE non-publicly available information regarding release dates, home addresses, or work addresses, whether through computer databases, jail logs, or otherwise.
(4) Allowing ICE to interview an individual.
(5) Providing ICE information regarding dates and times of probation or parole checkins.

Sheriff's Department (OCSD)
Following the enactment of state laws limiting law enforcement agencies' cooperation with ICB except as provided, OCSD implemented a jail policy and created forms to meet the laws' requirements. OCSD's jail policy 1206 (Attachment B) prohibits any transfer of an inmate to ICE's custody unless in accordance with state law. Following the enactment of the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, OCSD created forms by which OCSD requests an inmate's written consent to be interviewed by ICE ("TRUTH Act Interview Consent Form") and also notifies an inmate if the inmate qualifies to be transferred to ICE's custody following the inmate's release from OCSD's custody ("TRUTH Act Notification Fonn") (Attachment C).

OCSD provided the following information for 2021 (see Attachments D and E):
• In calendar year 2021, a total of 199 inmates released from the Orange County Jail had ICE dctainers, meaning ICE requested that OCSD notify them when the inmates were being released and transfer the inmates to ICE's custody. OCSD notified ICE about 143 of those 199 inmates upon the inmates' completion of their time in local custody. Those inmates were all individuals whose criminal convictions met the state law's requirement for transfer to ICE's custody. Of the 143 individuals, only 73 or 51 percent were transferred to ICE's custody. With respect to the other 70 individuals who, under state law, were eligible for transfer to ICE, ICE took no action and these individuals were released back into the community. A total of 24 of these individuals were re-arrested for new crimes in Orange County.
• State law prohibited OCSD from notifying ICE of the release of 56 inmates who had ICE detainers. Of the 56 inmates with ICE detainers who were released back into the community, 3 were re-arrested for new crimes in Orange County.

Page2

EXHIBIT D
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-4 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:74 ,, ...

Probation Department (Probation)
Probation does not permit ICE to have access to any juvenile in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision. This is in accord with Welfare and Institutions Code section 831, which prohibits disclosure of juveru le infonnation to federal officials absent a court order from the Juvenile Court.

Probation has briefed its officers about the legal requirements for ICE access to adults. Probation has not had a situation where it has allowed ICE access to an adult in Probation's custody or under.Probation's supervision in 2021.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

NIA
STAFFING IMPACT:

NIA
REVIEWING AGENCIES:

Sheriff's Department
Probation Department
ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment A - Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1; Welfare & Institutions Code section 831 Attachment B - OCSits Jail Policy Section 1206 (Immigration) Attachment C- OCSD's Inmate Interview Consent Form and Notification Fonn Attachment D - Orange County Jail - Immigration Detainer Data - 2021 Attachment E - Inmates with Immigration Detainers - 2021 Page3

EXHIBIT D
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-4 Filed 01/07/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:75

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

MINUTE ORDER
March 14, 2023
Submitting Agency/Department: County Counsel
Pursuant to Government Code Section 7283. I conduct public hearing regarding Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act and receive and file information from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to indiv iduals in 2022 - All Districts The following is action taken by the Board of Supervisors:

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED O OTHER 18:1

RECEIVED AND FILED
Unanimous O (I) DO: (2) SARMIENTO: (3) WAGNER: (4) CHAFFEE: (5) FOLEY:

Vote Key: Y= Yes,· N=No; A =Abstain; X=Excused; B.O. =Board Order Documents accompanying this matter:

D Resolution(s)
D Ordinances(s)
0 Contract(s)
Item No. S38G
Special Notes:

Copies sent to:

CoCo - Nicole Sims
3117/23
I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Minute Order adopted by the Board of Supervisors, Orange County, State of California.

Robin Stiel er, Clerk of the Board

EXHIBIT E
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-5 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:76 County Executive Office
Memorandum
March 8, 2023
To: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
From: Frank Kim, Coun ty Executi ve Officer
Subject: Exception to Rule 21
Digitally signed by Frank Kim
ON: cn=Frank Kim, o=County
of Orange, ou:CEO,
[email protected],
c:US
Date: 2023.03.08 16:42:06
·08'00'
.
'l
The County Executive Office is requesting a Supplemental Agenda Staff Report for the March 14, 2023, Board Hearing.

Agency:

Subject:

County Cou nse 1
Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act Communily Forum
Districts: All
Reason Item is Supplemental: This item is a supplemental item to allow the Sheriff's Department time to gather da ta about the access to individuals provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during 2022 and to accommodate the Sheriff's schedule.

Justification: This item must be heard on March 14, 2023, because the 30-day public notice required by Government Code Section 7283.J speci • that date. If it is continued, the 30-day public notice must be given c ew. This Agend taff Re rt and attachments were finalized after the filing dea in o 1 Cle1 of the Boa• d.

Concu r:
cc: Boa rd of Supervisors
County Executive Office
County Counsel
I
' l

EXHIBIT E
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-5 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:77 r
;.

SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEM

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DA TE: 03114123
LEGAL ENTITY TAKING ACTION: Board of Supervisors
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT(S): All Districts
SUBMITTING AGENCY/DEPARTMENT:

DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:

DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON(S):

County Counsel
L J P ............ -... eon. age~==~c::-~
Leon J. Page(714)834-3300
Nicole A. Sims (7 14) 834-33 I 9
Agenda Item
Cler k's Use 0 11/y
··,
' ".)
:j
--1
CJ
SUBJECT: Transparent Review of Unj ust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act Community Forum

CEO C ONCUR
Digltatt-, wgMd byfm1k Kim
ON cnaft~k Kim, 02County ol
Ora~.ou-.CEO,
tnu11l11franlt lum4'0CgOY com,
caUS
D.J1~ 20130308164<1-06-08'00'
CEO Sig11a111re
COUNTY COll 'SEL R EVIEW
No Legal Objection
Co11111y Co1111sel Sig11a111re

CLERK OFTIIE BOARD
Public Hearing
3 Votes Board Majority
Budgeted: NIA Current Year Cost: NIA Annual Cost: NIA
Staffing Impact: NIA # of Positions:

Current Fiscal Year Revenue: NIA
Funding Source: NIA
Sole Source: NIA
County Audit in last 3 years NIA
Prior Board Action: 12/8/2020. Item #S34A. 21231202 1, Item #S I SC, 3122/22. Item #S46A

RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)
I. Pursuant to Government Code section 7283.1 , conduct public hearing regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement depat1ments during 2022.

2. Receive and tile information from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enfo rcement" s access to individuals in 2022.

SUMMARY:

California's Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act (Government Code sections 7283 and 7283. I) requires that a Community Forum be held each year, to provide the public with information about what access to individuals had been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.

Page I

EXHIBIT E
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-5 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:78 BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

In accord with Government Code sections 7283, subdivision (a) and 7283.1, subdivision (d), the Board has held a public hearing at its meetings on December 8, 2020, February 23, 2021, and March 22, 2022, to provide the public with information about what access to individuals had been provided to ICE by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.

Government Code section 7283, subdivision (d), defines "ICE access" as follows:
"ICE access" means, for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement, including when an individual is stopped with or without their consent, arrested, detained, or otherwise under the control of the local law enforcement agency, all of the following:
(I) Responding to an ICE hold, notification, or transfer request. (2) Providing notification to ICE in advance of the public that an individual is being or will be released at a certain date and time through data sharing or otherwise. (3) Providing ICE non-publicly available information regarding release dates, home addresses, or work addresses, whether through computer databases, jail logs, or otherwise.
(4) Allowing ICE to interview an individual.
(5) Providing ICE information regarding dates and times of probation or parole checkms.

Sheriff's Department (OCSD)
Following the enactment of state laws limiting law enforcement agencies' cooperation with ICE except as provided, OCSD implemented a jail policy and created forms to meet the laws' requirements. OCSD's jail policy 1206 (Attachment B) prohibits any transfer of an inmate to ICE's custody unless in accordance with state law. Following the enactment of the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act, OCSD created forms by which OCSD requests an inmate's written consent to be interviewed by ICE ("TRUTH Act Interview Consent Form") and also notifies an inmate if the inmate qualifies to be transferred to ICE's custody following the inmate's release from OCSD's custody ("TRUTH Act Notification Form") (Attachment C).

OCSD provided the following information for 2022 (see Attachments D and E):
• In calendar year 2022, a total of 272 inmates released from the Orange County Jail had ICE detainers, meaning ICE requested that OCSD notify them when the inmates were being released from OCSD's custody. OCSD notified ICE about 155 of those 272 inmates upon the inmates' completion of their time in local custody. Those inmates were all individuals whose criminal convictions met the state law's requirement for transfer to ICE's custody. Of the 155 individuals, only l 7 or l O. 9 percent were transferred to I CE' s custody. With respect to the other I 3 8 individuals who, under state law, were eligible for transfer to ICE, ICE took no action and these individuals were released back into the community. A total of 20 of these individuals were rearrested for new crimes in Orange County. • State law prohibited OCSD from notifying ICE of the release of 117 inmates who had ICE detainers. Of the 117 inmates with ICE detainers who were released back into the community, 13 were re-arrested for new crimes in Orange County.

EXHIBIT E
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-5 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:79 Probation Department (Probation)
Probation does not permit ICE to have access to any juvenile in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision. This is in accord with Welfare and Institutions Code section 831, which prohibits disclosure of juvenile information to federal officials absent a court order from the Juvenile Court.

Probation has briefed its officers about the legal requirements for ICE access to adults. Probation has not had a situation where it has allowed ICE access to an adult in Probation's custody or under Probation's supervision in 2022.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

NIA
STAFFING IMPACT:

NIA
REVIEWING AGENCIES:

Sheriffs Department
Probation Department
ATT ACHMENT(S):

Attachment A - Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1; Welfare & Institutions Code section 831 Attachment B - OCSD's Jail Policy Section 1206 (Immigration) Attachment C- OCSD's Inmate Interview Consent Fom1 and Notification Form Attachment D - Orange County Jail - Immigration Detainer Data - 2022 Attachment E - Inmates with Immigration Detainers - 2022

EXHIBIT E
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-5 Filed 01/07/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:80

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

MINUTE ORDER
March 26, 2024
Submilling Agencv(Department: County Counsel
Pursuant to Government Code Section 7283.1 conduct public hearing regarding Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act; and receive and file information from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement's access to individuals in 2023 - A ll Districts The following is action taken by the Board of Supervisors:

APPROVED AS RECOMM EN DED O OTHER 181

RECEIVED AND FILED
Unanimous O (I) DO: (2) SARMIENTO: (3) WAGNER: (4) CHAFFEE: (5) FOLEY:

Vote Key: Y= Yes; N=No; A =Abstain; X=Excused; B.O. =Board Order Documents accompanying this matter:
0 Resolution(s)
0 Ordinances(s)
D Contract(s)
Item No. 38
Special Notes:

Copies sent to:

County Counsel
4/ 1/24
I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy o f the Minute Order adopted by the Board of Supervisors , Orange County , State o f California.

Robin Stieler, Clerk of the Board
OocuSlgncd by:

By: ____ alt. _ s_So..lA,_b_o.,_f;-'---t'"_·v.J, __ Dep 0341202eEoBE475 ...

EXHIBIT F
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-6 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:81

Agenda Item

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
ASR Control 24-000182
MEETING DATE: 03/26/24
LEGAL ENTITY TAKING ACTION: Board of Supervisors
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT(S): All Districts
SUBMITTING AGENCY/DEPARTMENT: County Counsel (Approved) DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON(S): Leon J. Page (714) 834-3300 Nicole A. Sims (714) 834-3300
SUBJECT: Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act Community Forum

CEO CONCUR COUNTY COUNSEL REVIEW CLERK OF THE BOARD
Concur No Legal Objection Public Hearing
3 Votes Board Majority
Budgeted: N/A Current Year Cost: N/A Annual Cost: N/A
Staffing Impact: No # of Positions: Sole Source: N/A
Current Fiscal Year Revenue: N/A
Funding Source: N/A County Audit in last 3 years: No
Levine Act Review Completed: N/A
Prior Board Action: 3/14/2023 #S38C, 3/22/2022 #S46A, 2/23/2021 #S15C RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

1. Pursuant to Government Code section 7283.1, conduct public hearing regarding access to individuals that has been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during 2023.

2. Receive and file information from County law enforcement departments regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s access to individuals in 2023.

SUMMARY:

California’s Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (TRUTH) Act (Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1) requires that a Community Forum be held each year, to provide the public with information about what access to individuals had been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.

EXHIBIT F
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-6 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:82

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

In accord with Government Code sections 7283, subdivision (a) and 7283.1, subdivision (d), the Board has held a public hearing at its meetings on February 23, 2021, March 22, 2022, and March 14, 2023, to provide the public with information about what access to individuals had been provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by County law enforcement departments during the preceding year.

Government Code section 7283, subdivision (d), defines “ICE access” as follows:
“ICE access” means, for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement, including when an individual is stopped with or without their consent, arrested, detained, or otherwise under the control of the local law enforcement agency, all of the following:
(1) Responding to an ICE hold, notification, or transfer request. (2) Providing notification to ICE in advance of the public that an individual is being or will be released at a certain date and time through data sharing or otherwise. (3) Providing ICE non-publicly available information regarding release dates, home addresses, or work addresses, whether through computer databases, jail logs, or otherwise. (4) Allowing ICE to interview an individual.
(5) Providing ICE information regarding dates and times of probation or parole check-ins.

Sheriff’s Department (OCSD)
Following the enactment of state laws limiting law enforcement agencies’ cooperation with ICE except as provided, OCSD implemented a jail policy and created forms to meet the laws’ requirements. OCSD’s jail policy 1206 (Attachment B) prohibits any transfer of an inmate to ICE’s custody unless in accordance with state law. As required by the TRUTH Act, OCSD uses forms by which OCSD requests an inmate’s written consent to be interviewed by ICE (“TRUTH Act Interview Consent Form”) and also notifies an inmate if the inmate qualifies to be transferred to ICE’s custody following the inmate’s release from OCSD’s custody (“TRUTH Act Notification Form”) (Attachment C).

OCSD provided the following information for 2023 (also see Attachment D):
• In calendar year 2023, a total of 547 inmates released from the Orange County Jail had ICE detainers, meaning ICE requested that OCSD notify them when the inmates were being released from local custody. The purpose of this notification is for ICE to meet their responsibility to take the released inmate into their custody. OCSD notified ICE about 302 of those 547 inmates upon the inmates’ completion of their time in local custody. Those inmates were all individuals whose criminal convictions met the state law’s requirement for transfer to ICE’s custody. Of the individuals eligible for notification, 221 were transferred to ICE’s custody. With respect to the other 81 individuals who, under state law, were eligible for transfer to ICE, ICE took no action and these individuals were released back into the community. A total of 40 of these individuals were re-arrested for new crimes in Orange County.

EXHIBIT F
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-6 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:83

• State law prohibited OCSD from notifying ICE of the release of 245 inmates who had ICE detainers. Of the 245 inmates with ICE detainers who were released back into the community, 27 were re-arrested for new crimes in Orange County.

Probation Department (Probation)
Probation does not permit ICE to have access to any juvenile in Probation’s custody or under Probation’s supervision. This is in accord with Welfare and Institutions Code section 831, which prohibits disclosure of juvenile information to federal officials absent a court order from the Juvenile Court.

Probation has briefed its officers about the legal requirements for ICE access to adults. Probation has not had a situation where it has allowed ICE access to an adult in Probation’s custody or under Probation’s supervision in 2023.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

N/A
STAFFING IMPACT:

N/A
REVIEWING AGENCIES:

Orange County Sheriff's Department
Orange County Probation Department
ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment A – Government Code sections 7283 and 7283.1; Welfare & Institutions Code section 831 Attachment B – OCSD’s Jail Policy Section 1206 (Immigration) Attachment C – OCSD’s Inmate Interview Consent Form and Notification Form Attachment D – Orange County Jail – Immigration Detainer Data – 2023

EXHIBIT F
Case 8:25-cv-00026 Document 1-6 Filed 01/07/25 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:84