Related Articles
-Editorial
California leaders are intensifying their legal and political resistance to federal immigration policies following a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits the use of nationwide injunctions—potentially complicating efforts to block an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta denounced the decision as a “mixed bag”, emphasizing that while the ruling left the constitutional right to birthright citizenship intact, it significantly curtailed a powerful legal remedy used by states.
“The Court didn’t address the core constitutional question—and that right still stands,” Bonta said. “If you’re born on American soil, you’re an American citizen. Period. Full stop.”
Bonta warned that restricting nationwide injunctions could sow “administrative chaos” and undermine equal treatment across states. “It would be unacceptable for a child born in Texas to be treated differently than one born in California,” he said.
The ruling comes amid a broader conflict between California and the Trump administration, which has escalated federal immigration enforcement in the state—drawing condemnation from immigrant rights advocates and local officials. Bonta disclosed that California has filed 26 lawsuits in 23 weeks against what he called “a barrage of unlawful executive actions,” ranging from the militarization of cities to attempts to defund public health programs and misuse federal data for immigration enforcement.
“Unfortunately, the president has shown time and time again that he has no problem flat out ignoring laws,” Bonta said. “But no one is above the law—not even the president.”
Civil rights groups report increasing incidents of aggressive enforcement tactics, including masked officers without identification conducting raids. Jeannette Zanipatin, Director of Policy and Advocacy at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), described a wave of arrests taking place outside courthouses, at check-ins, and even during U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) interviews.
“We have never seen anything like this moment,” said Zanipatin, a veteran immigration attorney. “There is a chilling effect on due process, and it raises grave constitutional concerns.”
Zanipatin cited reports of agents with out-of-state license plates and unclear authority, suggesting a growing reliance on private contractors or deputized agents. She said that legal access to detainees is being restricted, noting that CHIRLA and even members of Congress were recently denied entry to the Adelanto detention facility.
Data cited by CHIRLA suggests the majority of those detained lack serious criminal records, contradicting federal claims of targeting dangerous individuals.
Amid the mounting tensions, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa condemned the enforcement tactics as “un-American.” Villaraigosa drew parallels to historical mass deportation campaigns and warned of constitutional overreach.
“I have not seen people in military fatigues or civilian wear, armed with flash bang grenades, going after nannies, gardeners, and workers at graduations,” Villaraigosa said. “This isn’t law enforcement—it’s intimidation.”
He urged California to protect residents’ data and said the state should require subpoenas for federal access to DMV records. “This is an opportunity for all Americans—Latino or not—to come together and defend our civil liberties,” he said.
Henry Brady, Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley, echoed concerns of political targeting. “California represents everything the Trump administration is not happy with,” Brady said. “We are the exemplar of success, embracing diversity and innovation. That makes us the anti-MAGA model.”
Brady warned of economic fallout, citing research that projects up to $500 billion in losses from federal actions targeting immigration, trade, and public services in the state. “These are not just policy disputes,” he said. “They are efforts to punish California for defying the administration’s worldview.”
Bonta concluded by reaffirming his office’s commitment to legal action, press freedom, and constitutional protections. “We are winning the majority of these legal battles,” he said. “The courts have affirmed our position—and we will continue to hold this administration accountable.”