A Deeper Look: What Can California Actually Do Against Unwanted ICE Raids?

States have some cards to play, and California seems poised to play them

On June 5, federal agents in tactical gear descended on Buona Forchetta, a well-known Italian restaurant in San Diego. They detained multiple employees, deployed flash-bang grenades to scatter onlookers, and carried out a militarized operation that stunned the community. The next day, it was Los Angeles. In a series of pre-dawn raids across the Westlake District, the Fashion District, and other predominantly immigrant neighborhoods, agents from ICE, DHS, DEA, and the FBI arrested at least 44 individuals. Some were apprehended at a doughnut shop. Others at a Home Depot parking lot. One well-known labor organizer was injured and hospitalized. Tear gas was used. Drones buzzed overhead.

The message from the federal government was clear: immigration enforcement was no longer business as usual — it was a show of force.

California responded just as forcefully — with words.

Governor Gavin Newsom called the raids “reckless and cruel.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said they “sow terror in our communities.” All 15 members of the L.A. City Council issued a unanimous rebuke. Even school superintendents and hospital administrators joined in. This wasn’t just concern. It was open defiance.

Then came Trump White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller’s reply:

“You don’t get a say in this. Federal law is supreme.”

And there it is — the collision point.

Who Gets a Say?

Miller’s comment reflects a long-standing assumption in American politics: immigration is the exclusive domain of the federal government. And legally speaking, he’s not wrong — at least, not entirely. The Supreme Court made that clear in Arizona v. United States (2012), when it struck down provisions of Arizona’s infamous SB 1070, ruling that immigration enforcement is a federal prerogative.

But here’s what Miller doesn’t acknowledge: while states can't make immigration law, they also can't be forced to enforce it. That distinction is more than semantic. It’s constitutional.

The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

Under the very well established anti-commandeering doctrine, the federal government cannot compel state or local governments to use their resources to carry out federal directives. This principle was solidified in landmark cases such as:

• Printz v. United States (1997): Struck down a federal law requiring state officials to conduct background checks, establishing that states cannot be ordered to enforce federal laws.

• Murphy v. NCAA (2018): Reaffirmed that the federal government cannot prohibit states from enacting or refusing to enact certain laws, strengthening the doctrine even further.

Applied to immigration, this means California is under no obligation to assist in federal immigration enforcement. Local police don’t have to hold undocumented immigrants for ICE. State agencies don’t have to share DMV or school data. Courts don’t have to allow ICE into their buildings. California — like any state — has the right to opt out of immigration enforcement at the state and local level.

That’s why California can — and has — declared itself a sanctuary state.

What California Can Do

Here’s a breakdown of what California can do, and in some cases is already doing:

1. Restrict State-Federal Cooperation

The California Values Act (SB 54) prevents state and local law enforcement from inquiring about immigration status or sharing information with ICE except in cases involving serious criminal offenses. It also bars ICE from using local jails as staging grounds without a judicial warrant.

2. Control Access to State Facilities

Hospitals, schools, courthouses, and other state-run institutions can adopt policies denying ICE access without proper documentation. The state can reinforce these protections through legislation — and Governor Newsom has signaled a willingness to do so.

3. Fund Legal Support

California already supports the One California legal services program, which provides deportation defense and legal aid to undocumented residents. More funding and rapid-response networks can be deployed to provide immediate legal intervention when raids occur.

4. Pass Shield Laws

The state can pass laws barring private employers from cooperating with ICE without court-issued warrants, as it did in 2018 with AB 450. That law was challenged but largely upheld in federal court.

5. Sue the Federal Government

California has already sued the Trump administration multiple times — and won key victories. In United States v. California (2018), a federal judge upheld most of the state’s sanctuary laws, finding that they did not violate the Supremacy Clause.

6. Engage in Strategic Noncompliance

There is growing discussion about withholding federal tax remittances — an explosive idea floated this week by Newsom, who noted that California sends $80 billion more to the federal government than it receives in return. While the legality of such a move is murky at best, even proposing it signals that California is willing to test the limits of cooperative federalism.

The Stakes Go Beyond Immigration

This isn’t just a fight over immigration. It’s a fight over who governs whom.

The Trump administration — empowered by its return to power and driven by figures like Stephen Miller — is trying to reassert federal dominance over blue-state resistance. California, meanwhile, is asserting that while it cannot stop federal agents from operating, it has every right to refuse to help — and every obligation to protect the legal rights of those within its borders, whether citizens or not.

Where This Is Likely to Go

So, federal supremacy is real. But so is state sovereignty. The Constitution guarantees both — and when they clash, we get the kind of slow-burning constitutional confrontation we’re seeing now.

The question now is: What does California actually do next?

1. Expand Judicial Warrant Requirements Statewide
California could pass new laws requiring that any federal agency seeking to detain someone in sensitive spaces — like hospitals, schools, courthouses, or shelters — must present a judicial warrant to state officials. This would raise the legal and logistical bar for future raids.

2. Strengthen Employer Protections
While AB 450 requires ICE to present judicial warrants before accessing non-public areas of a business, enforcement is patchy. California could create a real-time legal hotline or on-call legal observers to assist employers during workplace encounters with ICE. It could also increase penalties for employers who cooperate with federal raids unlawfully — deterring passive compliance.

3. Empower Civil Litigation Against ICE Abuses
California could authorize a state-level private right of action allowing individuals or cities to sue federal agencies or contractors for civil damages if raids violate California laws — particularly in cases involving warrantless searches or racial profiling. This would force ICE to weigh civil liability into operational planning.

4. Establish Statewide “Raid Response” Protocols
Imagine this: the next time a raid occurs, an alert system notifies a network of legal observers, elected officials, and rights advocates within minutes. California could fund and coordinate such a system, creating friction and visibility at every enforcement site.

5. Condition State Contracts on Non-Cooperation
California agencies do billions in business with private contractors. The state could require vendors to certify non-cooperation with ICE as a condition of state contracts — effectively cutting off support from corporations that facilitate enforcement operations.

Are There Signs of Significant Movement?

Governor Newsom has already teased the possibility of withholding federal tax remittances, arguing that California sends more to Washington than it gets back and shouldn't be treated like a “rogue province.” While the constitutional and logistical hurdles to doing this are enormous, the political signal is unmistakable: California is not just mad — it’s strategizing.

Karen Bass, for her part, has called for an emergency session of the L.A. City Council, where legislation may be introduced to further restrict city departments from sharing any information with ICE — including parking enforcement, libraries, and sanitation services.

Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose), a key architect of the California Values Act, has suggested revisiting statewide data-sharing rules — especially in light of reports that ICE may be using DMV databases and public Wi-Fi analytics to track targets.

Even the courts may get involved. There is talk of mounting a Fourth Amendment challenge to the June 6 raids, especially if federal agents failed to present warrants or engaged in dragnet-style detentions without individualized suspicion.

After All, It’s California

California isn’t just the most populous state. It’s the fifth-largest economy in the world — larger than the UK or India. When it flexes, it does so with both legal authority and economic might. That makes it more than just another “blue state” in defiance. It’s a semi-sovereign entity in practical terms — a kind of domestic counterweight to federal power.

And in this unfolding confrontation, it’s not just defending immigrants. It’s testing how far a state can go in asserting moral independence without breaking the constitutional compact.

I don’t think we’ve ever seen this exact showdown before. I would look for California to push further — with new laws, new lawsuits, and new noncooperation tactics — and if that happens, I think we’ll find ourselves in some new territory.