Huntington Beach sues California over sanctuary state law

The city of Huntington Beach sued California on Tuesday claiming that the state's "sanctuary state" law violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and federal immigration laws.

"Huntington Beach will not sit idly by and allow the obstructionist Sanctuary State Law to put our 200,000 residents at risk of harm from those who seek to commit violent crimes on U.S. soil," Mayor Pat Burns said in a statement.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate the state law. City of Huntington Beach et al. v. State of California et al., 25-CV-00026, (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 7, 2025).

A representative for Attorney General Rob Bonta said their office was reviewing the complaint and would respond in court.

Bonta has been a steadfast defender of SB 54, known as the California Values Act.

"The Attorney General is committed to protecting and ensuring the rights of California's immigrant communities and upholding vital laws like SB 54, which ensure that state and local resources go toward fighting crime in California communities, not toward federal immigration enforcement," Bonta's office said in a statement.

"Our office successfully fought back against a challenge to SB 54 by the first Trump administration, and we are prepared to vigorously defend SB 54 again," the statement added.

The legislation, which Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law in 2017, limits state and local law enforcement's involvement in federal immigration enforcement, aiming to protect people in the country without permission and foster trust between immigrant communities and public institutions.

The state Legislature, and several local governments, passed sanctuary laws in response to the first Trump administration's threat to carry out mass deportations of immigrants in the country illegally. Trump was elected in 2024 on a pledge to be even more aggressive about deportations.

SB 54 survived a challenge from the first Trump administration. That case also claimed the law violated the Supremacy Clause.

But in 2018, Senior U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez of Sacramento ruled that SB 54 did not violate the clause because it was not in direct conflict with laws requiring information sharing with immigration enforcement.

He wrote that "'information regarding immigration or citizenship status' does not include an immigrant's release date or home and work addresses." The Biden administration dropped the case in 2021. USA v. State of California, 18-CV-00490 (E.D. Cal., filed March 6, 2018).

According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, roughly 75% of all people detained for immigration violations in the interior of the United States are "handoffs" from local authorities who picked them up for other crimes.

Tom Homan, President-elect Donald Trump's "border czar," has said federal authorities will need the help of local authorities to carry out its deportations. He has gone as far as to threaten local officials with arrest and prosecution if they thwart ICE's mission.

"To the leaders threatening to get in the way of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, don't cross that line," Homan warned publicly while at a speaking engagement in November in Texas. "It is a felony to knowingly harbor or conceal an illegal immigrant from immigration authorities. Don't test us."

Huntington Beach argues in its complaint that SB 54 prevents local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities, leading to increased crime and violating officers' oaths of office. Supporting documents detail Orange County's compliance with the state law, including the release of many inmates with Immigration and ICE detainers and their subsequent rearrests for new crimes.

While California voters did not support Trump's election, opinions in the state are divided, especially about immigration policy. In December, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 to enhance its sanctuary policies, further limiting cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.

Homan called those efforts "super sanctuary."

But then Sheriff Kelly Martinez announced that her department would not comply with San Diego County's new policy. She said allowing ICE access to jail inmates was crucial to maintaining public safety.

Burns, the mayor of Huntington Beach, pointed to high-profile instances of crime committed by illegal immigrants as the need for the city's challenge to the state sanctuary law.

"When the stakes are currently so high, with reports of increases in human trafficking, increases in foreign gangs taking over apartment buildings in the U.S., killing, raping, and committing other violent crimes against our citizens, we need every possible resource available to fight crime, including federal resources," the mayor said.

The complaint cites a 2022 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked a California law, AB 32, to phase out privately operated federal immigration detention facilities.

"Whether analyzed under intergovernmental immunity or preemption, California cannot exert this level of control over the federal government's detention operations," 9th Circuit Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, an appointee of President Barack Obama, wrote for an 8-3 majority. The Geo Group Inc. et. al. v. Newsom et al., 2022 DJDAR 10195 (9th Circ., filed Nov. 6, 2020).

The complaint also cited a November decision by a 9th Circuit panel blocking a King County, Washington order that prohibited operators at Seattle's Boeing Field from servicing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) charter flights. U.S. v. King County et al., 2024 DJDAR 10961 (9th Circ., filed May 25, 2023).

"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,'" 9th Circuit Judge Daniel A. Bress, a Trump appointee, wrote for the panel.

Huntington Beach argues that the sanctuary provisions similarly transgress constitutional boundaries by impeding federal immigration enforcement functions.

Legal experts have said some cities and counties in California may choose to defy the California Values Act. In this case, Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates' lawsuit cites the supremacy clause as well as Huntington Beach's status as a charter city - an argument he also has made against state housing laws.

That argument may be weaker. A 9th Circuit panel dominated by Republican appointees affirmed U.S. District Judge Fred W. Slaughter's ruling that Huntington Beach and its elected officials do not have standing to challenge the housing laws. City of Huntington Beach et al. v. Newsom et al., 23-3694 (9th Circ., filed Nov. 22, 2023).

In November, Gates filed a petition for an en banc rehearing by the 9th Circuit in the housing case.

And on Tuesday, he called the lawsuit against the California Values Act "incredibly strong."

"The Sanctuary State Law violates the Supremacy and Naturalization Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, forces our City officials to violate federal immigration laws," Gates said in a statement. "It is unfortunate that we have to fight the State of California in order to achieve sound and effective law enforcement policies." 

Staff Writers Craig Anderson and Malcolm Maclachlan contributed to this report.