The San Clemente City Council decided against joining Huntington Beach in its litigation regarding California Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), known as the California Values Act, during a council meeting on Feb. 4.
Council members voted 4-1 against the motion, with no intent to reschedule it for the agenda, effectively rejecting it. The decision followed extensive public comment and discussion.
The lawsuit, originally filed on behalf of Huntington Beach by the City Attorney Michael Gates on Jan. 7, argues that SB 54 conflicts with federal law and interferes with local law enforcement’s ability to work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal immigration officials. The bill, which prohibits local authorities from assisting with federal immigration enforcement, was amended on Oct. 5, 2017, making California a sanctuary state. The motion, pushed by Mayor Steve Knoblock, would have had San Clemente join Huntington Beach in challenging the state’s governing administration.
Multiple council members, both before and after public comment, voiced concerns over joining the litigation, citing numerous differences between Huntington Beach and San Clemente.
Councilmember Victor Cabral noted that Huntington Beach is in a starkly different position for litigation than San Clemente.
“Huntington Beach is a lot different [than] San Clemente,” Cabral stated at the council meeting. “Huntington Beach has their own legal department, so they can accrue the cost. They have their own police force … and they’re a charter city, unlike us. And those differences make our situation a lot different.”
San Clemente, like several other cities in southern Orange County, does not have its own police department and instead contracts with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD). That contract does not grant the city full governance over OCSD, making the litigation’s objective much more difficult to implement. Additionally, San Clemente is a general law city, meaning it is bound by state laws rather than a locally adopted city charter.
Many public comments echoed Cabral’s concerns. Discussion frequently questioned the use of local funds for the litigation, as well as the dispute over what many described as a federal responsibility. One speaker described the motion as politically charged, failing to see the local benefit from pursuing the action.
“This has nothing to do with making our city safer or improving the lives of residents,” one resident said. “This is purely a political move with no benefit to San Clemente, and it comes at a high price.”
However, Knoblock stated that the motion’s primary concern was public safety at the local level. He also clarified that any litigation the city participated in would not come out of local funds but rather be covered by a local nonprofit group. Knoblock claimed that the litigation would challenge a state law that conflicted with federal procedures and directly impacted community safety.
“When we talk about [whether it is] a federal issue, it is a federal issue. But this law that we’re talking about hinders our local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE in a way that would make public safety more effectual,” Knoblock said.
Additionally, both council members and residents acknowledged that the litigation could discourage local citizens from reaching out to local law enforcement.
Sheriff Don Barnes, the sheriff-coroner for OCSD, reassured residents in an Instagram post on Jan. 27 following the filing of the Huntington litigation, that the safety and service for San Clemente would not change.
“The Orange County Sheriff’s Department will provide for your safety and respond to your calls for service regardless of your immigration status,” Sheriff Barnes wrote. “We enforce state and local laws equally, without bias, and without concern for your citizenship. That has not and will not change.”
Makyla McLeod is a Staff Writer. She can be reached at msmcleod@uci.edu.
Edited by Jaheem Conley