The Brief

Gov. Gavin Newsom today signed a set of bills meant to check the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown in California, including measures that limit their access on schools and force them to identify themselves in public.

The new laws echo the “resistance” measures California adopted during the first administration, when it passed a so-called sanctuary law to limit local law enforcement from cooperating with immigration agents, among other policies.

President Trump promised a historic deportation effort and assault on sanctuary-style policies when he took office for the second time. His administration criticized the state’s new immigration laws even before Newsom signed them.

The Department of Homeland Security earlier this week called on Newsom to veto the mask bill — one of the more contentious pieces of immigration legislation — calling it “despicable.”

“Once again sanctuary politicians are trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin in a Sept. 16 press release.

California may struggle to enforce the new laws, some of which have already raised constitutional questions around the state’s role in federal operations, but lawmakers maintain that they are legally defensible.

California political consultant Mike Madrid said in signing the laws Newsom is showing that he can stand up and fight, whether or not he has a chance of winning.

“In this moment, when there are very few cards to play for state governments and state legislatures, California has done what no other state has done: establish itself as the tip of the spear on resisting a lot of these efforts that are an affront to its values,” said Madrid, a longtime Republican consultant who co-founded the anti-Trump Lincoln Project.

“99% of this is the purview of the federal government. So a lot of it is just symbolic, but symbolism matters. It’s both politically astute but also morally right,” he said.

The package of bills Newsom signed included:

• Assembly Bill 49 prohibits schools from allowing immigration enforcement officers on campus without a warrant.
• Senate Bill 627 widely prohibits federal and local law enforcement officers from wearing face masks while conducting their duties. 
• Senate Bill 805 requires that law enforcement officers identify themselves while conducting their duties, with some exceptions. 
• Senate Bill 81 prohibits immigration enforcement from entering restricted areas of a health facility without a judicial warrant or court order. 
• Senate Bill 98 requires schools and higher education institutions to send community notifications when immigration enforcement is on campus, and prohibits immigration enforcement from entering certain areas without a judicial warrant or court order.

California Democrats began drafting immigration-related bills almost as soon Trump took office in January. Those efforts accelerated after the Trump administration launched aggressive immigration sweeps throughout Los Angeles, which led to weeks of protests and a subsequent National Guard deployment.

“All of this legislative resistance is to protect Angelenos from their own federal government. That is profound,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said at a news conference with Newsom and other Democratic leaders.

Will the laws make a difference?

Kevin Johnson, an immigration law professor and former dean of the UC Davis School of Law, said the legislation may have a marginal impact on federal immigration enforcement operations.

In 2018, for instance, California passed a law to restrict immigration arrests at superior court buildings. That hasn’t stopped the Trump administration from detaining people at those courts this year.

“The federal government is going to continue doing what it’s doing, in one form or another,” he said. “I do think the legislation gives some hope and optimism to communities that feel under fire, vulnerable and basically hated by the federal government.”

Shiu-Ming Cheer, deputy director at California Immigrant Policy Center, remains hopeful that the package of bills will ensure safety for people attending school and accessing health care.

“With most laws, there has to be really vigorous monitoring, both by the state as well as by advocates to ensure that it’s truly being implemented and followed,” she said.

California police opposed mask ban

The most controversial bill in the package was Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener’s proposal to widely ban federal and local law enforcement officers from wearing face masks while conducting their duties. The law, also known as the “No Secret Police Act,” does not apply to certain forms of face coverings, such as face shields, and it exempts some officers, including those who are undercover. Officers who violate the law will face an infraction or misdemeanor.

Wiener and Democratic Sens. Jesse Arreguín, Sasha Pérez and Aisha Wahab championed the legislation after seeing footage of masked and unidentifiable agents carrying out operations.

“ICE’s recklessness creates chaos as agents run around with what are effectively ski masks and no identification, grabbing people, throwing them in unmarked vehicles, and disappearing them,” Wiener of San Francisco said at a legislative hearing in August. “When law enforcement officers hide their identities, it destroys community trust.”

California’s law enforcement groups widely opposed the bill, arguing it will largely apply to local police, rather than federal agents, because the federal government is likely to sue on constitutional grounds.

“It’s using an emotionally charged issue on a federal level to pass a bill that will only affect local peace officers,” said Brian Marvel, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, an umbrella labor organization that lobbies on behalf of police unions. “You’re upset with the feds, but you’re going to punish us.”

Other law enforcement experts echoed those concerns, arguing that it’s illegal to interfere with federal operations.

“California cops are not going to enforce this law,” said Ed Obayashi, a longtime California police officer who now is a special prosecutor and policy adviser to the Modoc County Sheriff’s Office. “You cannot regulate lawful federal conduct, whether the Legislature likes it or not.”

The law allows officers to be sued personally for “tortious conduct,” including if they assault or falsely arrest someone while masked.

“Private enforcement could be the avenue where enforcement is the likeliest,” said Johnson.

The bill caused hours of contentious debate on the Senate and Assembly floors, with many Republicans calling it misguided.

“My immigrant family is not afraid” of ramped-up immigration enforcement, Fresno Republican Assemblymember David Tangipa said, “because we did not break the law.”

But Democrats were animated because just days before, the U.S. Supreme Court had sided with the Trump administration and ICE for conducting roving sweeps through Los Angeles, apparently catching bystander day laborers or anyone who appeared Latino in their dragnet. The bill, they said, was their way of pushing back.

“We need a full front defense for the violence that is coming from this regime,” said Hector Pereyra, policy manager for the nonprofit Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, which co-sponsored the mask bill and another bill to protect the private data of street vendors. “We have to respond with a united front of strength and aggressiveness, not of passiveness.”

Cayla Mihalovich is a California Local News fellow.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.