The “No Kings Act,” also known as Senate Bill (SB) 747, passed in a 30-10 vote in California’s state Senate to make a first-of-its-kind legislation, aimed at holding federal officers accountable.
Specifically intended to mitigate the abuses of power by agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol, the bill ends legal loopholes that allowed federal law enforcement to use tactics that would otherwise be disallowed in local or state enforcement.
The “No Kings Act” works to end many legal loopholes that federal agents, mainly ICE and Border Patrol, have used to commit acts that many have called unjust or unconstitutional. Since they are federal agents, they have different standards than those expected by state or local laws.
As a result, a loophole is created that allows them to legally exercise what the bill defines as “excessive power” over citizens. Wiener’s bill is aimed at closing those loopholes to reduce the injustices committed by federal agents.
Many of those who have been critical of ICE’s latest actions have stated their appreciation for the good intentions of this law.
“I think by closing those loopholes, such as not needing judicial warrants, being able to arrest and deport without due process, and other things like that, which generally subvert key parts of the Constitution, will help to mitigate the damage that they’re doing. It will at least help mitigate the damage caused by exploiting these loopholes and subverting many constitutional guidelines,” said Miranda Wacker, a Carlmont junior who attended the school walkout and anti-ICE protest.
SB 747, passed by state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, comes in response to recent Supreme Court decisions like Egbert v. Boule and Hernandez v. Mesa that have strongly limited the ability for citizens to sue federal officials who have acted unlawfully or engaged in constitutional violations. The law was passed just days after the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minnesota.
Despite minimal ICE and Border Patrol activity in California, many are still uneasy at ICE’s presence in other places in the United States.
“Even though we live in California, and I know I’m mostly safe from this, it’s still really sad and terrifying to know that if I moved to a different state, I could realistically be held in a detention facility illegally,” said Emilio Camacho-Fuentes, a Latino sophomore at Carlmont who attended the school walkout and anti-ICE protest. “I think it is really good that there is legislation that prevents this. Even though it may not be a big problem here, it is definitely really important to have.”
While several other bills similar to this have been proposed throughout the United States, California is the first to pass it. The law applies only to California; in other states, many worry that federal agents can still exploit legal loopholes to commit abuses of power.
“As this issue is largely related to federal agents and other law enforcement personnel, I feel like it should be addressed at the federal level to help with consistency and ensure fair enforcement,” said Asteris Ling, who serves as a commissioner on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission. “However, if that has faced a significant roadblock, I do not necessarily see any particular reason why states should not be able to provide policy and regulation if that is something that their electorate, with proper information, believes is right and the best path forward for their community.”
With SB 747, individuals would be able to sue the agent who violated their constitutional rights. Namely, the First Amendment, which protects speech and peaceful protests, the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unlawful excessive force and search and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, which protect against discriminatory enforcement based on things like race, as outlined in the Equal Protection clause.
The efficacy of this bill has been a point of concern, as there are no criminal offenses for these agents. Instead, victims of injustice can only be plaintiffs and obtain monetary reparations.
“I do feel that monetary penalties are not always the best way to enforce and dissuade from certain behaviors, as they do not necessarily fully connect with the harms that may have been caused,” Ling said.
Wiener framed the bill as a direct response to what he described as an unprecedented federal lawlessness during President Donald Trump’s second presidential term. Federal courts have issued hundreds of orders blocking administration actions, and critics of the Trump administration argue that federal power has been used to increasingly target disadvantaged people, including immigrants.
“My biggest concern is that they’re targeting Latino and Mexican families. For example, everything with everything happening in Minneapolis, it’s very targeted towards immigrants, Latinos especially, and it causes fear,” Camacho-Fuentes said.
Despite the bill’s positive implications for those who are anti-ICE, many have still questioned its efficacy and whether it will fix the issue on a deeper level.
“While I do think it’s extremely important to stop what they’re doing right now, it’s even more important to stop the source. Of course, legislation like this is a step in the right direction,” Camacho-Fuentes said.
Since 1971, people have relied on the Supreme Court case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics to seek compensation when federal officers violated their rights. However, recent rulings by the Supreme Court have weakened Bivens and given many federal agents protection against accountability for unconstitutional conduct.
“Californians need a way to stand up to this Administration’s unprecedented disregard for their Constitutional rights,” Wiener said in his announcement of SB 747.
The bill also expands California’s existing Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, which was enacted in 1987. The Bane Act was criticized as difficult to litigate due to the limited right of action for constitutional violations involving threats, intimidation, and coercion. The “No Kings Act” broadens the law to cover all constitutional violations and makes it easier to sue when one’s constitutional rights have been violated.
“Any organization, no matter what it is doing, no matter what side it is on — right or left — has to abide by the constitution. The framework is there for a reason,” Wacker said.
