Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Speakers call for sanctuary policy; county counsel explains why California’s SB 54 remains in force
Summary
Public speakers asked Kern County to adopt sanctuary protections and to review local interactions with federal immigration authorities. County counsel briefed the board on the legal history of California’s Senate Bill 54 and the 9th Circuit ruling that left the law intact after the U.S. Supreme Court declined review.
Several members of the public on Jan. 14 urged the Kern County Board of Supervisors to examine local policies on cooperation with federal immigration authorities and to consider sanctuary protections after recent local incidents involving U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Anna Medel asked the board to "make this county a sanctuary county," saying she had seen what she described as racial or ethnic targeting by federal agents and advocating reallocating funds from the Kern County Sheriff's Office to other community services. Other public speakers discussed recent local immigration enforcement actions and expressed fear in their neighborhoods.
The board asked county counsel to explain how federal immigration law and state law interact. County counsel summarized the legal history: California enacted Senate Bill 54 in 2017 to limit local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and the United States challenged the law in court. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California's law on anti‑commandeering grounds, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined review in 2020, leaving the 9th Circuit decision in place.
"Senate Bill 54 prohibits the Kern County Sheriff's Office from asking an individual about their immigration status, enforcing immigration law, or deporting individuals, or participating in immigration sweeps," county counsel said in a summary for the board. Counsel described the dispute as centered on preemption and the anti‑commandeering doctrine rather than a general supremacy‑clause override of state legislation.
Supervisors said they expected the topic to return to the board as community concerns continue and asked the sheriff’s office and county counsel to be available to clarify operational limits on local officers. No board action was taken to adopt sanctuary policies at the hearing.
