San Diego supervisors fail to expand immigrant legal defense program after mixed public reaction

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors on April 22, 2025, failed to pass a motion to expand the county's Immigrant Legal Defense Program (ILDP) to non-detained residents, citing disagreements over eligibility and funding. The motion was made by Vice Chair Lawson Reimer and seconded by Supervisor Monica Montgomery Stepp; Supervisor Joel Anderson voted no and the measure did not carry.

The proposal would have extended legal representation to immigrants at risk of deportation even when they were not detained, prioritized cases with a pathway to legal relief, excluded individuals with serious criminal convictions, and added a sliding-scale fee so the program could reach more people while remaining within the program's existing $5,000,000 funding envelope. "Due process should not be optional," Vice Chair Lawson Reimer said on the record during the discussion.

The ILDP was launched by the board in 2022 and, according to remarks from Reimer, has provided representation to more than 2,500 people; two-thirds of clients with attorneys received a substantial, favorable legal outcome. Reimer also told the board that legal services under the ILDP cost about 40% less than comparable public defender-type programs and argued the expansion was both effective and cost-efficient.

Supporters of expansion urged the board to preserve and broaden access to counsel. Felicia Gomez, immigrant rights senior policy advocate at the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, told supervisors on the phone that the ACLU was neutral on the board letter but warned against narrowing eligibility in ways that would roll back the 2021 and 2022 program design. Rahmo Abdi, director of organizing and campaigns at PANA (Partnership for Advancement of New Americans), said the county should secure $5 million in the current budget cycle to sustain the ILDP. Representatives from the San Diego LGBT Community Center, North County Equity and Justice Coalition and community organizations including ACE also urged expansion and cited risks that people would be deported without counsel.

Opponents raised fiscal and public-safety concerns and questioned whether taxpayer dollars should fund legal defense for non-detained immigrants. Brie Till Lindstrom said the measure would increase the use of county funds for people who, she argued, do not need public support; other public commenters urged tighter eligibility criteria and clearer reporting on outcomes. Supervisor Joel Anderson voted against the motion; he did not elaborate at length on the record beyond casting the dissenting vote.

After public comment and supervisor debate, County Clerk staff announced the result: "That motion fails due to the lack of affirmative votes," with Supervisor Anderson voting no and Supervisors Montgomery Stepp and Vice Chair Lawson Reimer voting aye. The board recessed for lunch following the vote.

The board previously approved routine items earlier in the session: the March minutes and a 14-item consent agenda were each approved by unanimous vote earlier in the meeting. The ILDP expansion motion represented a distinct policy decision and will return to the board only if a supervisor places a new item on a future agenda or the chief administrative officer returns with alternative proposals for codifying program changes.

Public input on the item was extensive: staff recorded 33 in-person requests and 12 phone requests to speak on the measure, and the clerk's office noted 134 e-comments (95 in support, 34 opposed, three neutral). Advocates on both sides asked the board to consider program outcomes, budget trade-offs and which criminal convictions, if any, should bar eligibility for counsel.

The failure to expand the ILDP leaves the 2022 program structure in place while supervisors and staff assess next steps and budget implications.

Going forward, supervisors requested the chief administrative officer report back with options for codifying program rules and budget scenarios; a follow-up and any new motions would be scheduled through the usual board agenda process.