DAVIS, Calif. — California’s restrictions on local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement are at the center of an investigation into a Davis police officer’s traffic stop of an ICE observer, testing a city ordinance that expressly prohibits using traffic enforcement to aid immigration operations.
The dispute involves more than whether an officer had grounds to issue a citation for horn use. Jill Judd, the woman stopped Thursday while following federal agents, alleges the officer intervened to help those agents leave without being followed. Davis police deny assisting immigration enforcement, and the circumstances remain under administrative review.
Under the California Values Act, commonly known as SB 54, state and local law enforcement agencies generally cannot use department money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect or arrest people for immigration enforcement purposes.
Government Code Section 7284.6 specifically prohibits holding someone on an immigration detainer, intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants and performing immigration officer functions. It also restricts the disclosure of personal information and transfers to immigration authorities, with specified exceptions.
The statute prohibits agencies from using “agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes.”
The law preserves local officers’ authority to investigate and enforce criminal laws independently. California Department of Justice guidance explains that legitimate enforcement of state criminal law can remain permissible even when it indirectly assists a federal agency engaged in immigration enforcement.
That guidance describes trust between immigrant communities and local agencies as central to the law’s public safety purpose: residents must be able to report crimes and cooperate with police without those encounters becoming immigration investigations.
Davis’ municipal ordinance imposes additional restrictions on the use of city resources, including officers’ time, equipment and personnel. Section 10.06.020(d) expressly prohibits assisting or cooperating in traffic enforcement or crowd control for the purpose of aiding immigration enforcement, except as required to protect life or property.
The ordinance prohibits city personnel from using city resources to “assist, participate in, support, facilitate or cooperate in traffic enforcement or crowd control,” except as required to protect life or property, “for the purpose of aiding immigration enforcement.”
The ordinance also restricts immigration-related stops, detention, citations and transfers, with specified judicial exceptions, and prohibits allowing city resources to be used as an immigration enforcement staging or operational base.
The ordinance specifically prohibits allowing immigration authorities “access to resources owned or controlled by the city for purposes of staging, processing, or establishing an operational base for immigration enforcement.”
According to the city’s account, federal officials notified Davis police shortly before 9 a.m. Thursday that agents would be operating in unmarked vehicles. Police said the officials did not request assistance or disclose the operation’s location or purpose.
At approximately 10:08 a.m., an officer stopped Judd near Cowell Boulevard and Lillard Drive and cited her for improper horn use. Judd alleges that the stop prevented her from continuing to follow the agents; her allegation that ICE requested police assistance has not been independently verified.
“We have not assisted or participated in federal civil immigration enforcement activities,” the department stated. Mayor Donna Neville and Vice Mayor Gloria Partida subsequently issued a public apology following the stop, as the Vanguard reported Friday.
The city’s legal restrictions are the latest development in a sanctuary commitment that began with refugees fleeing persecution in Central America four decades ago.
In 1986, Davis adopted Resolution 5407 supporting sanctuary for refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala. The measure was part of a broader movement among American communities responding to people fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries, according to the city’s 2014 historical staff report.
The council reaffirmed sanctuary status in 2007 and expanded the policy to include all undocumented residents. It also adopted a separate resolution condemning human rights violations during immigration raids.
Federal pressure over Davis’ sanctuary policy also dates to that period. A 1987 Government Accountability Office decision examined letters a U.S. attorney sent to Davis and Sacramento suggesting their sanctuary resolutions were incompatible with continued federal assistance.
Responding to a request from Reps. Vic Fazio and Joe Moakley, the GAO said it knew of no specific Justice Department grant requirement that prohibited a local government from adopting a resolution supporting sanctuary for refugees.
In 2014, Davis again reaffirmed its sanctuary status, supporting immigration reform under which local resources would not be used to enforce federal immigration laws. The resolution also recognized the fear of deportation and abuses involving employment, housing and access to services experienced by undocumented immigrants.
The Vanguard’s March coverage of the proposed sanctuary ordinance traced the effort to place those commitments into the municipal code. Previously, the city’s position had largely been expressed through resolutions and departmental policies.
The council unanimously advanced the ordinance that month. Its adoption, recorded in the code as April 7, established detailed restrictions governing city employees’ interactions with immigration authorities.
This week’s Davis dispute unfolded as voters nationally delivered control of both chambers of Congress to Democrats, while election polling showed widespread disapproval of ICE’s conduct.
In its Nov. 5 examination of the election and immigration enforcement, the Vanguard reported that NBC News exit polling found 59% of voters disapproved of ICE’s performance, compared with 41% who approved.
The election results illustrated among other things, a sharp reversal in South Texas, where Trump had made substantial gains in 2024. Democrat James Talarico defeated Ken Paxton in the Senate race, while Gina Hinojosa defeated Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.
Several border counties that Trump carried two years earlier recorded substantial Democratic margins in the Senate contest.
Coverage has also noted that economic dissatisfaction and broader opposition to the administration contributed to the results, preventing a precise accounting of immigration enforcement’s electoral effect.
California polling had already registered opposition to enforcement within communities. A February Public Policy Institute of California survey found that 73% of likely voters disapproved of ICE’s performance. Six in 10 said ICE operations made the communities where they occurred less safe.
Business organizations that support immigration reform described the election as a rejection of mass deportations and their effects on workplaces and families. In its post-election analysis, American Business Immigration Coalition Action argued that targeting longtime immigrants had disrupted businesses, increased costs and alienated voters, including former Trump supporters.
“Hispanics in South Texas sent a clear message: Don’t mess with our workers or our families,” Mario Guerrero, executive director of the South Texas Builders Association, said during a Nov. 5 coalition briefing.
Participants urged Congress to provide work permits and legal pathways for longtime immigrants. Agriculture, construction, restaurant and senior care representatives described enforcement operations as a threat to their workforces and the communities their businesses serve.
Trump’s first major White House personnel decision after the election elevated the adviser most closely associated with that enforcement campaign.
The president announced Friday that Stephen Miller would replace Susie Wiles as chief of staff, placing the architect of his mass deportation policies in charge of White House operations beginning Monday.
The New York Times reported that Miller’s promotion marked an aggressive response to the election losses and elevated an adviser with extensive experience using executive authority. The newspaper reported that people familiar with Miller’s views expected him to discourage accommodation with Democrats.
“I wanted to make a change,” Trump told reporters. Asked what Miller should do differently, the president said, “Just run things well.”
Reuters subsequently reported that administration officials expected continuity in immigration enforcement. “Nothing is changing, same quotas,” one official told the news service anonymously.
Rep. Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican retiring from Congress, told Reuters that Miller had dismissed warnings before the election about immigration and tariff policies driving voters away. Bacon characterized the promotion as “doubling down on a failed strategy.”
The Washington Post reported Friday that agriculture and construction industry representatives reacted with alarm to Miller’s promotion. The Washington Post
In a separate public statement, American Business Immigration Coalition CEO Rebecca Shi questioned why Trump had promoted an adviser whose policies she blamed for Republican losses.
“Stephen Miller lost the Hispanic vote. He lost Texas,” Shi said.
The organization called for bipartisan legislation providing work permits and legal pathways for longtime immigrants and urged lawmakers to resist further indiscriminate enforcement.
The incoming Democratic majorities have identified immigration enforcement as a subject for congressional scrutiny. The Associated Press reported that lawmakers are preparing to examine agency spending, hiring and training, detention conditions and alleged abuses, with control of congressional committees giving them subpoena power.
The administration, meanwhile, has signaled that deportations will continue. Trump retains the power to veto legislation, and Congress has already provided substantial multiyear enforcement funding.
Democratic demands for restrictions on ICE predate the election.
In a PBS interview during this year’s funding battle, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries called for body cameras, limits on masks, judicial warrants and accountability for agents who break the law.
“Fundamentally, we believe that ICE should conduct itself like every other law enforcement agency in the country,” Jeffries said.
Senate Democrats also sought to separate funding for ICE and Customs and Border Protection from other Homeland Security agencies while negotiating enforcement reforms. In March, Chuck Schumer urged Republicans to support funding for agencies including the Transportation Security Administration and Coast Guard without resolving the disputed immigration enforcement appropriations.
The funding already available to ICE complicates congressional efforts to constrain operations through annual spending bills alone. According to the Congressional Research Service, the 2025 reconciliation law provided ICE with $74.85 billion, including $45 billion for detention capacity and $29.85 billion for operations and procurement.
The debt ceiling creates a separate point at which the administration will need congressional action. Reuters reported Thursday that investors were assessing the risk of a confrontation following the Democratic sweep, with the borrowing limit not expected to become binding until late 2027.
That deadline could become part of broader budget negotiations, although Democratic leaders have not publicly announced plans to use the debt ceiling to demand restrictions on ICE funding or enforcement.
The debt limit restricts Treasury’s ability to borrow to meet obligations Congress has already established, including previously appropriated spending. It does not automatically cancel that spending or selectively stop payments to ICE.
Congress has previously combined a debt ceiling increase with changes to spending policy. In 2011, President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans resolved a confrontation through the Budget Control Act, which raised the borrowing limit while imposing limits on future spending.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
