New California proposal would make it easier to sue ICE agents

Kate Wolffe, The Sacramento Bee on Jan 13, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

California lawmakers Tuesday moved forward a bill that would allow residents to sue federal officials in state courts for constitutional violations.

Although it was first proposed in November, the bill came up for a hearing amid nationwide protests following the shooting death of an unarmed motorist in Minneapolis by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer.

“The ICE agent who shot Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis last week in the middle of the street can potentially walk away with no consequences personally,” said the bill’s author, state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, during a news conference Tuesday. “That is the state of the law.”

Wiener and other proponents of the bill, SB 747, argue it is currently extremely difficult to sue federal agents, and the process is rife with “immunity” exemptions. They say people should be allowed to sue federal officials in state civil courts under a statute analogous to the one used against state and local officers.

“We’re not putting new state law requirements on the federal government,” Wiener said. “We’re simply saying you have to follow the U.S. Constitution, and there is precedent for this, and we think it’s quite legally defensible.”

The Department of Homeland Security and ICE did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

State and local law enforcement organizations, including the Peace Officers’ Research Association of California and Riverside Sheriffs’ Association, did testify in opposition to the bill during the hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, arguing the measure would put their officers at higher risk to be sued.

Former U.S. citizen detained by ICE speaks out

Wiener is no stranger to challenging the actions of ICE and border patrol in the state. His “No Secret Police Act,” which bans law enforcement, including ICE officers, from wearing masks, was supposed to become law Jan. 1, but remains in legal limbo after a challenge by the Trump administration. That challenge is expected to be heard Wednesday in federal court in Los Angeles.

Joining the senator in his testimony Tuesday was George Retes, a Southern California man who was detained by ICE in July 2025 while traveling to his job. Retes, a U.S. citizen and veteran, said when he was released by ICE after 72 hours in detention, he was given no explanation for why he was detained.

“I get no justice,” Retes said during a news conference before the event. “Everyone that’s going through this currently gets no justice. It’s just hitting a brick wall with nothing to do.”

Retes’ attorney, Anya Bidwell, said their options include filing under the Federal Tort Claims Act or the Bivens doctrine, but the former is extremely limited and the latter has been gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“You heard J.D. Vance, you heard Stephen Miller. They’re all walking around saying that federal officials have absolute immunity, that they have federal immunity, so go ahead and do your worst,” said Bidwell.

“The reason ICE behaves in the way they do is because they know that is extremely difficult to sue them.”

_____