DAVIS, Calif. — The Davis City Council voted unanimously to adopt a strengthened sanctuary city ordinance Tuesday night, reaffirming the city’s longstanding commitment to limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement while navigating legal, operational, and fiscal constraints.
The ordinance, shaped through collaboration between city staff, the Human Relations Commission and local law enforcement, builds on decades of policy dating back to the city’s original 1986 sanctuary resolution and its reaffirmation in 2014. City Attorney Inder Khalsa emphasized that the effort sought to align local policy with California’s SB 54, the California Values Act, while avoiding legal conflicts with federal authority.
“Immigration law is solely a matter of federal law,” Khalsa told the council, explaining that local governments cannot enforce immigration requirements but are also not obligated to assist federal enforcement.
The newly adopted ordinance prohibits the use of city resources, staff or property to assist in federal immigration enforcement, including barring the use of city facilities for detention or processing purposes. It also includes a new requirement for an annual report to the City Council documenting any requests from immigration authorities, providing a measure of transparency that had not previously existed.
City officials repeatedly underscored that the ordinance largely mirrors existing state law but formalizes those protections at the local level. Khalsa noted that Davis Police Department policies already comply with SB 54 and that the ordinance is intended to ensure consistency and clarity in city practices.
At the same time, Khalsa cautioned that even carefully drafted non-cooperation policies could face legal scrutiny. He pointed to ongoing litigation involving a similar ordinance in Los Angeles, warning that “this is a quickly evolving area” with “a lot of uncertainties and a lot of unknowns right now.”
Despite broad agreement on the ordinance itself, the council engaged in extensive debate over several additional proposals advanced by the Human Relations Commission, particularly a controversial provision that would have required the city to notify the public in real time when federal immigration authorities were operating locally.
Deputy Police Chief Matthew Peterson explained that such a requirement would be impractical and potentially dangerous, noting that federal agencies typically provide only minimal information when notifying local law enforcement of their presence.
“They don’t tell us the type of investigation they’re doing and they don’t tell us anything about the people specifically that they’re investigating,” Peterson said, adding that disclosures could interfere with investigations or create safety risks.
Peterson also warned that premature or inaccurate notifications could expose the city to liability, including potential criminal consequences for obstructing federal investigations.
Councilmembers ultimately agreed with staff that a formal notification requirement should not be included in the ordinance. Instead, the council approved a separate directive instructing staff to place information on the city’s website directing residents to NorCal Resist, a community organization that verifies and reports suspected Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity.
Mayor Donna Neville described the organization’s rapid response system as more effective than what the city could realistically provide, noting that volunteers are trained to investigate reports and distinguish between verified activity and false alarms.
The compromise reflected a broader tension throughout the meeting: how to respond to community fear and demand for transparency without exposing city officials or employees to legal risk.
Vice Mayor Gloria Partida acknowledged that the request for notifications stemmed from real anxiety in the community.
“I want to make sure that the community understands that we see the fear and we see the concern that is in the community,” Partida said during deliberations.
The council also declined to include several other Human Relations Commission recommendations in the ordinance, including provisions related to city contracting practices, employee conduct outside of work and restrictions on law enforcement masking.
While some councilmembers expressed interest in exploring limits on city contracts with companies that share data with federal immigration authorities, staff advised that such policies would require further legal and operational analysis and could complicate existing service agreements.
Similarly, a proposal to restrict city employees from working with immigration enforcement outside their official duties raised unresolved legal questions about employee rights and labor agreements.
On the issue of masking, councilmembers cited a recent federal court ruling striking down a California law that attempted to prohibit federal immigration agents from wearing masks, concluding that local action would likely face similar legal challenges.
Beyond the ordinance itself, the council also began considering a broader set of recommendations aimed at strengthening support for immigrant communities, including the possibility of expanding access to immigration legal services.
Councilmembers acknowledged that legal representation is one of the most critical needs but noted that the city’s current fiscal situation limits its ability to fund such efforts directly. Davis is currently facing an estimated $3 million budget deficit, constraining new programmatic spending.
Mayor Neville noted that in other jurisdictions, immigration defense efforts are often funded through philanthropic sources or state grants rather than local general funds. Councilmembers discussed the possibility of supporting nonprofit-led efforts or leveraging existing funding streams such as Community Development Block Grants, though no immediate action was taken.
The council also expressed support for expanding “Know Your Rights” education and improving language access across city services, both of which can be implemented within existing structures.
In addition, the Human Relations Commission recommended the creation of an ICE preparedness and rapid response plan involving regional partners such as UC Davis, local school districts and community organizations. Staff indicated that further clarification would be needed regarding the scope and structure of such a task force.
Throughout the meeting, councilmembers emphasized that the ordinance represents a meaningful step forward but not a comprehensive solution.
“I don’t want whether we decide to go this way or not, this one piece to overshadow what I think is an extremely strong ordinance,” Councilmember Josh Chapman said, highlighting the collaborative process that shaped the policy.
The final vote on the ordinance was unanimous, with all councilmembers expressing support for its core provisions while acknowledging the limits of local authority in immigration matters.
The adopted policy reinforces Davis’ position as a sanctuary city, formalizing its non-cooperation stance while leaving more ambitious or legally uncertain proposals for future consideration.
As federal immigration enforcement policies continue to evolve, city officials signaled that they expect ongoing legal and policy challenges, underscoring the need for flexibility and continued engagement with community stakeholders.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
