I never planned to sue my own state, but recent decisions by Sacramento forced our hand. This piece explains why El Cajon took California Attorney General Rob Bonta to court, the law at the center of the fight, and what we believe is at stake for public safety and the rule of law. It walks through the practical trigger for the lawsuit, the constitutional question we raised, and the path we expect this case to take through the courts.
It started with a serious call from the federal Department of Homeland Security. They provided our city with names and addresses of children who might be living unsupervised with adults in the country illegally, and we were deeply concerned about possible human trafficking or neglect. We simply asked the state whether our police could perform welfare checks to make sure those kids were safe. The answer from the Attorney General’s office was effectively no, because of California’s sanctuary law known as SB 54.
Hearing that response felt like a betrayal of common sense and duty. We were told our officers could risk breaking state law if they cooperated with federal authorities to check on children who might be in danger. That is not public safety; it is a policy choice that puts politics ahead of people. For a city ten miles from the border, with families and first responders who expect protection, this was unacceptable.
I’M A MAYOR TRYING TO FOLLOW LAW BUT CALIFORNIA IS MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR COPS
California’s sanctuary regime goes beyond limiting police cooperation. The state issues driver’s licenses to people here illegally, offers in-state college tuition, and provides access to certain benefits that create incentives to remain inside the country unlawfully. Federal law makes it a felony to encourage or induce someone to live in the United States unlawfully, and those state policies directly collide with that statute. We asked whether state policy can lawfully produce results that run headlong into federal criminal law.
Our lawsuit, filed with support from the America First Policy Institute, seeks a clear answer on a simple constitutional question. Which law controls when state actions undermine federal immigration statutes: state law or federal law? The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is explicit on this point, and we want a court to apply that principle to California’s sanctuary framework. This is about restoring clarity and protecting communities from conflicting legal orders.
Some cities have tried different legal strategies and failed, but our challenge takes a distinct tack. We are not arguing over state budgets or local funding formulas. Instead, we contend the state’s entire system of benefits and inducements was structured in a way that violates federal criminal law by encouraging unlawful residence. That argument has not been squarely tested in court, and it deserves a rigorous judicial review.
We expect a long legal fight ahead and we are prepared for it at every level. If state courts decline to resolve this constitutional clash, we will pursue the matter up to the United States Supreme Court. The question is fundamental: can a state lawfully undermine federal immigration enforcement by creating incentives and legal shields that conflict with national statutes? The answer matters for the safety of children, the authority of local police, and the integrity of federal law.
Attorney General Bonta has publicly dismissed our case as baseless and insisted SB 54 makes Californians safer. That is his position, and he can make his defenses in court. We disagree on the facts and the law, and we do not accept political spin when children’s welfare is on the line. The people of El Cajon expect leaders to choose the law over politics, especially when lives could be at risk.
NEWSOM OFFICE DISMISSES CRIME FEARS, DEFENDS SANCTUARY POLICIES AMID SURGE IN VIOLENCE: ‘FAKE NEWS’
This is not a partisan stunt; it is a constitutional stand that happens to align with conservative principles of law and order. Our city council voted to follow federal immigration law because our residents deserve consistent enforcement and protection. We are a small working-class city without the resources of Sacramento, but we have a community that wants its officers to protect kids and uphold the law. That commitment propelled us into court.
The broader point is simple: laws that pull local officers in opposite directions harm public safety. When state policy forces choices between obeying state directives and following federal law, it creates chaos for everyday policing. The American Dream depends on one rule of law applied fairly across the board, not competing systems that shield certain people from the consequences of unlawful entry. We brought this suit to defend that principle and to ensure our children and neighborhoods stay safer because of it.
