Antonio Villaraigosa’s ICE Accountability Plan

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Donald Trump’s ICE thugs are out of control. As governor, I’ll end this cruelty. No more illegal raids in churches and schools, no more excessive violence and shootings, and no more arrests without a judicial warrant. Enough is enough.

On my first day in office, I will sign a series of emergency executive orders launching my ICE Accountability Plan because Californians deserve safety, transparency, and the rule of law. We will ensure that misconduct is documented, investigated, and addressed, and that ICE enforcement actions do not endanger lives nor compromise our basic civil rights.

This plan is about accountability, protecting Californians while respecting constitutional rights, because no one is above the law. On day one, we will send a clear message: California will stand for lawful enforcement, transparent government, and the dignity of every community. When I’m governor, fear will not rule California.

Executive Orders

EXECUTIVE ORDER 1: ICE DETENTION FACILITY TASK FORCE

GOAL: Establish the Ice Detention Facility Task Force, a coordinated multi-agency detention facility task force to ensure compliance with California’s workplace safety, public health, fire safety, building codes, and consumer protection standards.

The Task Force shall consist of representatives from and include coordinated deployment of the California Department of Industrial Relations/Cal/OSHA, CA Department of Public Health (CDPH), Office of the State Fire Marshal, CA Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), as well as County Public Health Departments, County Environmental Health, Building and Safety Inspectors, Consumer Protection Division personnel.

The ICE Detention Facility Task Force will conduct unannounced comprehensive inspections of all immigration detention facilities in California, to review/inspect/determine:

  • Cal/OSHA workplace safety violations;

  • Sanitation, public health and communicable disease risks;

  • Water quality, air/water compliance;

  • Waste handling and hazardous materials;

  • Food safety standards and compliance;

  • Fire safety and risk, code limits, occupancy levels;

  • Building code violations and structural safety;

  • Working/living conditions for employees/detainees including ventilation, hazardous environments, exposure risks, etc.

Accountability

The Task Force will coordinate enforcement actions to ensure accountability to the public and taxpayers under state law by:

  • Issuing citations and fines for all violations;

  • Escalating to closure orders for imminent danger/safety risks; and

  • Weekly follow-up sessions until corrections are made.

Transparency

The Task Force will operate with strict transparency standards:

  • Public reporting of all findings, violations, and enforcement actions (including photographic documentation of any violations) available for public review;

  • Comprehensive inspection reports with compliance findings, identifying health/safety risks and any violations, with enforcement actions taken; and

  • Annual report on cost savings, revenue collected, and cost analysis.

Budget Impact

  • The Task Force is designed to be revenue-positive in the first four years through collection of fines and penalties.

  • Fiscal impact: Fiscal benefits estimate revenue gain of hundreds of millions of dollars for the state and local government annually in the first few years with revenue benefits leveling out at a gain of tens of thousands on an ongoing basis.

    • Cal/OSHA citations alone can generate $50,000-$200,000 per facility per inspection cycle for serious violations.

    • The estimated annual cost is $150,000 -$190,000 incremental (primarily travel and portal maintenance), offset by $300,000 - $500,000 in citation revenue.

  • The Ninth Circuit upheld California's inspection authority in United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (2019). Federal detention contracts require compliance with state regulations.

  • Cal. Health & Safety Code § 101045 (County health officials inspection authority), Cal. H&S Code § 101030 (Authority to abate health hazards during emergencies), Cal. H&S Code § 101030 (Enforcement of public health orders and statutes in unincorporated territory of counties); Cal. H&S Code § 101025 (Board of supervisors preservation of public health in unincorporated territory of counties); SB 1132 (County health inspectors permitted to enter/inspect private detention centers), Cal. Penal Code 6031.1 (Board of State and Community Corrections empowered to inspect local adult and juvenile detention facilities), Cal. Code Regs. §15, 24 – Establishes minimum standards for local detention centers), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12532 (Attorney General inspection authority), Health & Safety Code § 101045 (county health officer authority), Cal. Labor Code § 6314 (Cal/OSHA), upheld in United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019). California operates an OSHA State Plan approved under 29 U.S.C. § 667, Federal detention contracts require compliance with state regulations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 2: ICE CHILD PROTECTION ACT

GOAL: Protect children in immigration custody from neglect and abuse.

  • Declare child welfare state of emergency for minors in ICE/ORR custody, triggering immediate interventions under Cal. W&I Code § 300 (dependency jurisdiction); Coordinate with county social workers, juvenile courts, and child advocates to ensure every child in immigration custody receives California's child welfare protections;

  • Deploy California's child welfare system to protect children in immigration custody through coordinated county social services interventions; and

  • Establish emergency protocols for wellness checks, abuse investigations, guardian ad litem appointments, and 24/7 hotline.

The ICE Child Protection Executive Order will protect children in immigration custody through five mechanisms:

  1. Emergency declaration under Governor's authority activating California Department of Social Services (CDSS) coordination;

  2. County child welfare workers to conduct unannounced wellness checks at all immigration detention facilities or temporary locations housing minors (leveraging Flores Settlement Agreement requirement for state law compliance);

  3. 24/7 child abuse hotline (1-800-4-A-CHILD expansion) with 48-hour investigation mandate for all reports;

  4. Automatic guardian ad litem appointments for detained minors ensuring legal representation in any proceedings affecting their welfare; and

  5. Juvenile dependency court jurisdiction invoked when federal facilities fail to meet California standards, with emergency protective custody authority under Cal. W&I Code § 305-306.

Accountability

California Health and Human Services Agency shall lead implementation, with county-level implementation through existing child welfare infrastructure in all counties.

  • Bi-weekly reports to Cal HHS on:

    a)        number of wellness checks conducted;

    b)        facilities inspected, children interviewed;

    c)        abuse/neglect reports received and investigated;

    d)        guardian ad litem appointments made; and

    e)        dependency petitions filed

  • Monthly public reports on aggregate findings; and

  • If federal facilities refuse access, immediate court action seeking emergency orders. Escalation path: wellness check investigation, dependency petition, emergency custody order,  contempt proceedings if compliance refused.

Transparency

  • Cal HHS public reporting portal publishing: aggregate statistics on children in immigration custody by county and facility/holding center, number of wellness checks and outcomes, substantiated abuse/neglect findings (while protecting victim privacy), guardian ad litem representation rates, dependency court proceedings (public records), and facility compliance ratings; and

  • Quarterly reports to Legislature, and an annual comprehensive report with recommendations for policy improvements.

  • Flores Settlement Agreement (1997, modified 2015-2019) requires federal immigration detention facilities to comply with state child welfare laws and maintain conditions meeting state licensing standards. Cal. W&I Code § 300 grants dependency jurisdiction over “any child” in California suffering abuse/neglect with no immigration status exception. Cal. W&I Code §§ 305-306 authorize emergency protective custody when child faces immediate danger. Flores expressly incorporates California standards as federal requirement. Legal challenge: Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. ____ (2023) limited states' standing to challenge federal Indian Child Welfare Act compliance but did NOT eliminate state jurisdiction over children within state borders. Distinguish: Brackeen addressed state challenge to federal law; this Order exercises existing state jurisdiction. Strong argument: when federal government places children in California facilities, those children fall under California's protective jurisdiction.

  • Flores Settlement Agreement requiring state child welfare law compliance; Cal. W&I Code § 300 (dependency jurisdiction for neglected/abused children); Cal. W&I Code §§ 305-306 (emergency protective custody); Cal. W&I Code §§ 315, 319, 325 (detention hearings and judicial oversight); Cal. W&I Code § 362 (court-ordered services); Cal. Family Code §§ 3150-3153 (guardian ad litem authority); Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 372 (guardian ad litem in litigation); 8 U.S.C. § 1232 (Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act requiring state agency coordination for unaccompanied minors); Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. ___ (2023) (preserving state jurisdiction over children within borders while limiting standing to challenge federal law).

  • Estimated annual cost: $800,000 - $1,500,000 net after federal Title IV-E reimbursement.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 3: ICE MISCONDUCT PREVENTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY EMERGENCY ORDER

GOAL: Protect Californians from Immigration Enforcement Agent Misconduct, Abuse, and Excessive Force through Prevention and Accountability.

Immigration enforcement operations and agents, including ICE Agents shall be held to the same standards as California law enforcement and peace officers.

The Ice Misconduct Emergency Order establishes accountability framework for ICE agent misconduct (excessive force, dangerous vehicle pursuits, firearm discharges endangering public) through four mechanisms: (1) civil liability under California tort law enabling victims to sue for damages; (2) Attorney General documentation and victim support services; (3) conditional cooperation—state assistance to ICE agents conditioned on completion of California law enforcement training (Cal. Penal Code § 832 equivalent); and (4) require ICE Agents who carry a gun in California to pass the same training that local police have taken (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act) (California law: PC 832 Arrest and Firearms).  Does NOT attempt direct regulation of federal agents (preempted), but creates consequences for misconduct and incentives for professional conduct through permissible state tools.

Three implementation strategies: (1) Civil Liability Pathway: Attorney General documents excessive force incidents, dangerous pursuits, and civil rights violations; provides technical assistance to victims pursuing Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims and Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1) actions; AG files amicus briefs supporting victims' claims; promotes awareness that California tort law governs ICE agent conduct per Martin v. United States (2025); (2) Conditional Cooperation: California cooperation with ICE (CLETS database access, task force participation, facility use, custody transfers in limited circumstances) conditioned on agents completing 40-hour California peace officer training covering: arrest/search law, use of force standards, vehicle pursuits, constitutional limits, community relations; training delivered by California POST or approved providers at no cost to federal government; (3) Public Documentation: AG maintains public database of: excessive force complaints, dangerous pursuit incidents, firearm discharge investigations, civil litigation filed, settlements/judgments obtained. Creates accountability through transparency.

Accountability

  • Attorney General serves as coordination lead. Civil Rights Enforcement Section documents misconduct through:

    a)        public records requests;

    b)        incident reports from local law enforcement;

    c)        community complaints;

    d)        media reports; and

    e)        legal services organization referrals.

  • AG maintains tracking database and issues quarterly public reports.

Transparency

  • Establish a public portal publishing:

    a)        excessive force incident database (location, date, nature, outcome);

    b)        dangerous pursuit documentation;

    c)        civil litigation tracking (cases filed, status, outcomes);

    d)        training compliance rates (percentage of ICE agents in California who completed training);

  • AG enforcement actions and amicus briefs; and

  • Quarterly statistical reports. Annual comprehensive analysis identifying patterns and trends. Educational materials for communities explaining know-your-rights regarding ICE encounters, how to document misconduct, how to file complaints, how to access legal services.

Budget Impact

Minimal costs: $75,000 - $100,000 one-time setup, $25,000 - $40,000 annually.

  • Direct training mandates face Supremacy Clause challenges, e.g., Idaho v. Horiuchi, 253 F.3d 359 (9th Cir. 2001) holding federal agents immune from state criminal prosecution when acting within scope of employment; state cannot directly regulate federal operations. However, two mechanisms survive: (1) civil liability: Martin v. United States, 605 U.S. ___ (2025) unanimously held Supremacy Clause does not bar Federal Tort Claims Act claims applying state tort law (“Congress enacted FTCA to allow claims under state law.”). Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1) provides additional remedy with $25,000 minimum penalties and no qualified immunity (§ 52.1(k)). California tort standards (Cal. Penal Code § 835a “necessary” force, duty to de-escalate) apply to federal agents via FTCA. (2) Conditional Cooperation: United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (2019) validated conditional cooperation wherein states can condition voluntary assistance on compliance with state policies. Anti-commandeering doctrine (Printz, Murphy) prevents federal compulsion of state cooperation; corollary is states can decline cooperation or condition it on training completion.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 4: SAFEGUARD CALIFORNIANS FROM ILLEGAL ICE RAIDS AND ARRESTS WITHOUT A JUDICIAL WARRANT

GOAL: Protect Californians from illegal ICE raids at schools, church, homes, hospitals and at the workplace by strengthening and establishing comprehensive protections for all Californians against warrantless immigration enforcement operations, protecting residents in six critical locations:

  1. Schools, colleges (K-12), colleges, universities, and educational facilities;

  2. Places of worship, declaring churches and religious sites protected locations, prohibiting enforcement absent judicial warrant, criminal trespass prosecution for violations;

  3. Homes and residences, requiring judicial warrants for entry, rejecting ICE administrative warrants, educating residents about right to refuse consent;

  4. Workplaces, mandatory 72-hour employee notice, legal observer access, and strengthening AB 450 to require judicial warrants;

  5. Hospitals and healthcare facilities, prohibiting enforcement without a judicial warrant, criminal trespass prosecution for violations; and

  6. Courthouses, state and local government property.

Create immediate enforcement mechanisms: 24/7 legal hotline, emergency habeas petitions, statewide Know Your Rights educational effort, mandatory violation reporting to Attorney General, civil rights litigation authority, on-site legal observers, and criminal trespass prosecution.

Key Strategic Elements and Legal Foundation

  • Emergency authority: Governor has authority to act immediately to protect residents from imminent constitutional violations;

  • Fourth Amendment protections apply to ALL persons in California regardless of immigration status;

  • Judicial warrant requirement: Administrative warrants (ICE Form I-200) are NOT sufficient for home entries;

  • Location-specific protections: Specific safeguards for schools, churches, workplaces, churches, and hospitals;

  • Immediate enactment through 24/7 hotline, legal observers, emergency habeas petitions;

  • Anti-commandeering: California cannot be forced to assist federal violations of constitutional rights;

  • Concurrent jurisdiction: State courts enforce Fourth Amendment, issue habeas corpus, hear civil rights claims;

  • Civil and criminal remedies include criminal trespass prosecution, state tort liability, § 1983 civil rights suits;

  • Work with non-profits to expand a Know Your Rights education effort on warrant requirements and consent rights; and

  • Attorney General documents violations, brings pattern-and-practice suits against systematic abuses.

Legally Protected Locations: These location categories are protected under California law, immigration enforcement at these locations is strictly prohibited without a judicial warrant for specific violent felony suspect .

  • a. Constitutional Foundation: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U S 202 (1982) (children have constitutional right to education regardless of immigration status) Enforcement at schools violates this right by deterring attendance and creating fear.

    b. California Protections: All educational facilities (K-12 schools, preschools, colleges, universities, trade schools, daycare centers, school buses, school events) are protected locations Enforcement prohibited except with judicial warrant for specific violent felony suspect Includes: school buildings, playgrounds, parking lots, athletic facilities, parent-teacher conferences, graduation ceremonies Schools cannot facilitate enforcement, must post protection notices, must report violations to AG within 24 hours Criminal trespass prosecution for violations Civil liability for educational disruption.

    c. Rationale: Documented chronic absenteeism when enforcement occurs at schools Parents afraid to drop off children Students unable to focus on learning when enforcement feared Educational access is fundamental right that cannot be chilled by enforcement operations.

  • a. First Amendment (free exercise of religion) Constitutional Protection. ICE immigration enforcement at churches and religious facilities stifles religious exercise and deters worship attendance.

    b. California Protections: Churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and religious services are designated protected locations. A judicial warrant is required except for specific violent felony suspect. Facilities cannot facilitate, must post notices, and must report violations – with criminal trespass prosecution and civil liability for violations.

  • a. Constitutional Standard: Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrant required for home entry). An administrative warrant (ICE Form I-200) is insufficient, consent must be voluntary and can be withdrawn. 

    b. California Protections: Statewide education that residents can refuse warrantless entry. 24/7 hotline (1-800-CA-RIGHTS) for immediate legal advice. Emergency habeas corpus for warrantless arrests. Civil liability and criminal trespass prosecution for violations.

  • a. Legal Foundation: AB 450 (2017) upheld in United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019). Employers must demand warrants before allowing ICE access to non-public areas.

    b. Enhanced Protections: Judicial warrants are required; mandatory 72-hour employee notice; legal observer access during operations; documentation requirements; anti-retaliation protections.

  • a. ICE raids and operations at healthcare facilities deters patients from seeking necessary medical care, creating public health crisis. Constitutional Foundation includes state police powers to protect public health (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11).

    b. California Protections: Hospitals, emergency rooms, clinics, doctor's offices, mental health facilities designated protected locations. EMTALA (federal emergency medical treatment law) reinforced with state enforcement. A judicial warrant is required except for specific violent felony suspect and facility obligations mirror those of schools and churches.

  • a. Constitutional right to access courts. ICE enforcement at courthouses deters crime victims, witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants from participating in legal proceedings, undermining justice system.

    b. Additional California protections:  Civil and criminal courthouses designated protected locations. ICE enforcement is prohibited except with judicial warrant for specific violent felony criminal defendant; additionally, crime victims, witnesses, civil litigants cannot be detained when accessing courts.

Legislative Proposals

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL: CALIFORNIA DETENTION FACILITY STANDARDS ACT

This legislation to strengthen comprehensive health, safety, and welfare standards for ALL detention facilities operating in California, including federal immigration detention facilities. Creates enforceable requirements governing:

  • maximum occupancy and space per detainee

  • medical and mental health services

  • sanitation and hygiene facilities

  • nutrition and dietary standards

  • recreation and outdoor access

  • communication rights (attorney access, visitation)

  • temperature control and environmental conditions

  • mandatory inspection protocols

  • public transparency and reporting

  • private right of action for violations

  • escalating penalties including facility closure 

Standards apply equally to all detention facilitate and legislation explicitly states these are minimum standards; facilities may exceed but cannot fall below. California has firmly established authority to impose standards exceeding federal minimums for facilities within state borders.

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL: CALIFORNIA CHILD WELFARE PROTECTION ACT

This legislation asserts California's comprehensive jurisdiction over all children detained within California borders, regardless of immigration status or federal custody claims. The bill requires any location that is temporarily housing minors in California to:

  • obtain state licensing from Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD) with no federal exemption

  • register with California within 24 hours of receiving any minor and provide daily population updates

  • grant unrestricted access to state and county social workers for health, safety, and welfare checks and for any investigations

  • ensure automatic appointment of guardian ad litem for every detained minor

  • provide continuation of education

  • facilitate daily family contact via phone/video

  • provide trauma-informed mental health care and counseling

  • submit to emergency removal authority by county social workers for any children facing imminent danger

  • comply with all California child welfare laws and licensing standards

Accountability: Operating an unlicensed child facility constitutes a felony with $10,000 per day fines.

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL: DETENTION FACILITY PROHIBITION AND CLOSURE ACT

This legislation strengthens California's restrictions on immigration detention facilities following GEO Group v. Newsom (2021), using integrated mechanisms, including CEQA, local land use authority, infrastructure capacity restrictions, mandatory closure for violations, government land prohibition, utility service restrictions, and 18 month transition period.

Key Provisions:

  • CEQA environmental review

  • Local land use authority (counties/cities can use zoning)

  • Infrastructure capacity (water/sewer districts)

  • Facially neutral standards (all detention facilities)

  • Mandatory closure for serious violations

  • State land prohibition (government property decisions)

  • 18-month transition allows orderly compliance

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL: WORKPLACE PROTECTION FROM ILLEGAL ICE RAIDS ACT

The Workplace Protection legislation strengthens AB 450 (2017 California Immigrant Worker Protection Act) by establishing comprehensive protections against warrantless workplace immigration enforcement operations. The bill strengthens worker protections, including:

  • judicial warrant requirement - only judges (not ICE) can authorize workplace access, rejecting administrative warrants

  • mandatory 72-hour advance notice to employees before employers allow ICE access

  • legal observer access, employers must permit attorneys/advocates to observe any ICE operation

  • comprehensive documentation, with requirements to record all ICE operation/interactions and provide copies to affected employees and Attorney General

  • anti-retaliation protections, affirming that it is illegal for employers to retaliate against workers who refuse to cooperate with ICE or assert Fourth Amendment rights

Legislation builds on AB 450's foundation (upheld in United States v. California, 2019) by adding stronger procedural protections, enhanced enforcement, and direct worker remedies.

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL: PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH PROTECTION ACT

The Public Safety and Health Protection Act establishes comprehensive protections for sensitive locations in which immigration enforcement operations create severe public health, public safety, and constitutional concerns.

Specifically, the bill prohibits immigration enforcement at the following sensitive locations:

  • schools (K-12), colleges, universities and daycare centers

  • hospitals and healthcare facilities (including emergency rooms, clinics, doctor's offices, mental health facilities)

  • churches and places of worship

  • domestic violence shelters and victim services facilities

  • disaster relief sites and emergency shelters

  • courthouses (except for specific criminal proceedings against violent felony suspects)

Legislation includes narrow emergency exception only with judicial warrant for specific, identified violent felony suspect, and imposes obligations on facility operators (cannot facilitate immigration enforcement, must post notice of protections, must report violations).