Attorney Luis Carrillo
LOS ANGELES — Hours after California's governor signed the measure into law, a Los Angeles law firm known for suing both local police and federal immigration enforcement agencies indicated they will seek to be the first to test the reach of California's so-called "No Kings Act" in lawsuits already pending against ICE for alleged overreach.
On Sept. 30, attorneys from The Carrillo Law Firm announced they had filed amended lawsuits including new counts under the law, which California Democrats said was specifically intended to try to force open new avenues for immigrants and U.S. citizens to sue federal immigration agents for alleged abuses in enforcing federal immigration law.
The amended complaints were lodged in Los Angeles federal court on behalf of plaintiffs Cary Lopez, Javier Ramirez and Angel Piña. All three lawsuits were originally filed in late May and June, attempting to extract money from the U.S. government over alleged abuse and improper detention the three U.S. citizens allegedly suffered at the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during recent immigration enforcement operations.
The lawsuits were filed at the same time California Democratic lawmakers were moving ahead with the new state law, which Democrats said was crafted and passed in response to outrage, particularly among Democrats, over enhanced efforts by federal immigration enforcement agencies to arrest and deport illegal immigrants.
Democrats asserted the enforcement actions were illegal and carried out in an unconscionable manner that abused constitutional rights.
They asserted California law should be changed specifically to allow those targeted by immigration agents to sue federal agents in California courts for alleged overreach and other alleged abuses. California Democrats said the law was needed to bypass federal law and punish immigration agents, specifically.
From the start, California Gov. Gavin Newsom had indicated his support for the measure and his intent to sign the legislation into law.
Formally designated as Senate Bill 747 and now, as California Civil Code § 53.8, supporters of the legislation dubbed the legislation as the "No Kings Act," adopting the language from the pseudonymous "No Kings" protests staged by left-wing immigration rights activists, in which participants asserted President Donald Trump was behaving as unconstitutional autocrat or "king."
Critics of the new California law, including prominent Trump administration officials in California, have asserted the legislation amounts to an empty letter, as the state lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to actually enforce its state law against federal agents acting in the course of federal law enforcement. They asserted that also includes any attempt at state oversight of federal immigration officers' tactics and operations.
In a social media post on X in response to Newsom's signing of the law, for instance, First Acting Los Angeles U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said: "Governor, we've been through this already. If you want to regulate federal agents, you have to win a federal election. Until then, you have no jurisdiction."
Essayli added he has advised federal agents with the Department of Homeland Security, presumably including ICE, to "disregard" the new California state law.
With their new lawsuits, however, attorneys from The Carrillo Firm, however, indicated they are going to test the limits of the law in court.
The Carrillo Firm said they believe theirs were the first suits filed under California’s new law.
“What happened to Cary, Javier, and Angel is an outrageous abuse of government power," said attorney Luis A. Carrillo in a release announcing the lawsuits. "We acted the moment the No Kings Act took effect because our clients have waited too long for justice. This law gives them another path to accountability. No badge places anyone above the Constitution.”
To this point, the Trump administration has met with mixed results in federal court when attempting to stake claims to federal supremacy in immigration matters. They have fared particularly poorly before judges appointed by Democratic former presidents, and even more particularly those appointed by former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Judges presiding in the three cases in the Central District of California courts, include: U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal, who is hearing the Pina case; U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee, presiding over the Lopez case; and U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald, over the Ramirez case.
All three were nominated to the bench by Obama.
The federal government has not yet responded in courts to the three men's lawsuits. And the judges have not yet ruled in the cases.
