California Senate Advances Bill Expanding Path to Sue Federal Officers

Senate Bill 747, a California measure that would create a new state-law pathway for people to seek damages for alleged constitutional violations by federal officers, passed the state Senate on a 30–10 vote and now moves to the Assembly.

Supporters say the bill is meant to address a legal gap that often makes it harder to sue federal officers than state or local law enforcement in civil rights cases. Opponents, including Republican lawmakers and law enforcement groups, argue the bill could expand litigation risk and faces a likely federal court challenge.

“Section 1983 only applies against state or local officials,” Robert Weisberg, a Stanford law professor, said during a Q&A for Stanford’s legal blog. He said suits against federal officers are harder because plaintiffs must rely on Bivens, a judge-made cause of action that has been narrowed significantly in recent years.

Authored by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward) and dubbed the “No Kings Act”, SB 747 would create a civil remedy under California law for alleged violations of federal constitutional rights, including First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims, according to the bill text and legislative records.

Other states have advanced similar proposals, like Colorado’s SB26-005, whose residents have sparked action as a response.

“This bill is based on a very basic concept that no one is above the law,” Sen. Wiener said.

Sen. Wahab said during a Senate Floor meeting that the bill is intended to close what she described as a gap between the limits placed on local and state police and the authority federal agents exercise during immigration operations, including cases involving due process, abuse in custody, and children separated from families.

“ICE agents are certainly subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions,” Weisberg said.

Republican lawmakers and law enforcement organizations opposed the bill, arguing it could increase litigation and duplicate existing remedies. Opponents have pointed to California’s Bane Act, a civil rights law that allows lawsuits when someone interferes with a person’s rights through “threats, intimidation, or coercion.”

Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) argued that sanctuary policies erode cooperation between local and federal authorities. Sen. Grove was among the 10 Republican senators who voted against the bill.

Senate Judiciary Committee staff wrote that the measure is “very likely” to face a federal challenge if signed into law, analysis by KQED and LAist reported.

For colleges and other public institutions, the bill arrives amid heightened attention to immigration-enforcement policy on campus. 

“If the law is enacted and upheld in the courts, it could empower CCSF students by creating a pathway to sue federal agents for violations of constitutional rights,” said Megan Sweeney, a political science professor at City College.

The college already maintains a public immigration-enforcement response protocol that directs employees to contact District Police and states that only the chancellor is authorized to accept warrants or legal documents from immigration officers.

City College guidance also says the community should be notified through RAVE alerts when immigration enforcement presence is confirmed on district property, in compliance with SB 98.

Campus police also sent a campus-wide information bulletin on how to respond if ICE or other federal agents enter the college’s open campus, Police Chief Mario Vasquez said during a Feb. 23 facilities meeting. ICE-response posters were circulated by district police shortly after.

SB 747 is one of several California proposals tied to immigration-enforcement accountability. KQED reported that lawmakers previously set aside $25 million for legal nonprofits defending residents facing detention or deportation, and that a separate California law restricting mask use by law enforcement on duty is already facing a federal legal challenge.