The proposals come amid escalating tensions between protestors and immigration officials across the country, most notably in Minnesota.
Democratic lawmakers say they want to hold ICE agents accountable if and when misconduct occurs in the state, though experts say some of the proposals to rein in the actions of ICE agents could face legal challenges.
Senators approved Senate Bill 747 this week that would create a pathway for individuals to sue ICE agents for civil rights violations, including injuries and wrongful detentions.
“They’re gonna allow their agents to break down your door and enter your home without a judicial warrant. If they do that you should be able to sue their ass, and that is the bottom line here,” said the bill’s author Democratic Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco.
SB 747 now heads to the Assembly for consideration as several bills confronting ICE materialize in both legislative chambers.
Los Angeles Democratic Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel announced a proposal to ban ICE agents from using state property as staging grounds for immigration operations. He also put forward a bill that would require independent state investigations into use of force incidents involving ICE.
“We don’t want to be part of this agenda,” said Gabriel. “This is an agenda that is reckless, it is sowing violence, it is sowing chaos in our communities and frankly it’s endangering both immigrant communities and American citizens.”
Lawmakers made several other proposals. Those include taxing companies that profit from private detention centers funded by ICE, banning ICE from conducting courthouse arrests, prohibiting local law enforcement officers from moonlighting as ICE agents, and blocking rental car companies from renting vehicles to federal immigration officers.
“We've seen reports from the community, especially in places like Minneapolis where rental car companies are renting their vehicles for immigration enforcement,” said Democratic Assemblymember Jessica Caloza, who authored the bill. “And in California, we just don't think that should be allowed.”
A bill by Democratic Assemblymember Anamarie Avila-Farias from Contra Costa County seeks to ban former ICE agents from seeking employment with local law enforcement if they served as an immigration agent from September 2025 to January 2029.
Experts say some of the bills, including the proposed ban on companies renting cars to ICE agents, would likely face legal challenges.
“So the state can direct state entities, state government entities not to cooperate but not private entities,” said Leslie Gielow Jacobs, a law professor at McGeorge School of Law.
In addition, Republican lawmakers have opposed the ICE-related restrictions.
“No one likes to see what chaos is going on across this country, particularly in Minnesota,” said Republican Senator Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach during a floor speech opposing a measure allowing individuals to sue ICE agents for civil rights violations.
Strickland went on to say that sanctuary city and state laws were to blame for chaotic immigration tactics playing out in Minneapolis and other blue areas by preventing coordination between ICE agents and local law enforcement.
Other Republicans argue state laws seeking to regulate ICE agents’ conduct overstep federal authority. Numerous state and local law enforcement agencies have also opposed legislation on the grounds their officers could also be impacted, including SB 747 to allow individuals to sue agents for civil rights violations.
“This bill is unnecessary, duplicative and it jeopardizes qualified immunity for California employees. There's no reason this bill can't be amended to exclude California employees,” said David Mastagni on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Association of California. He testified against the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The flood of bills in California are part of a nationwide surge of ICE-related legislation following two killings of American citizens by ICE agents in Minneapolis this month.
“People are seeing this not as an attack against unauthorized immigrants, but as an attack against Americans and American values and principles. And that's what's creating the strong reaction and lawmakers are just tapping into it,” said Muzaffar Chishti, an attorney and Senior Fellow at the Migration Policy Institute.
But legal experts say lawmakers are in uncharted territory when it comes to the legality of some of these measures. According to Chishti, bills that attempt to regulate how state resources are used by ICE likely have stronger legal footing than bills dictating how ICE agents do their jobs.
States are also in the position to leverage their own authority to push back on elements of President Donald Trump’s national immigration crackdown, one example being a proposed tax on companies that profit from ICE-funded detention centers.
“You may not be able to ban them completely, but you can tax them,” Chishti said.
“So, California is using its tax authority to achieve, if not an equal but a similar result and California may be on a much better footing there.”
Leslie Gielow Jacobs, a law professor at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, says some of the bills would likely face legal challenges. She cited the proposed ban on companies renting cars to ICE agents.
“So the state can direct state entities, state government entities not to cooperate but not private entities,” Jacobs said.
California lawmakers passed a new law last year banning federal immigration agents from wearing masks to conceal their identities. The law is currently being held up in court.
CapRadio’s Gerardo Zavala contributed reporting to this story.