Justice Dept. Asks California Sheriffs for Names of Inmates Who Aren’t Citizens

The U.S. Department of Justice has issued a formal request to sheriffs throughout California, urging them to provide detailed information about inmates in county jails who are not U.S. citizens. The department has warned that failure to comply voluntarily may lead to more aggressive measures to obtain the data through other legal avenues.

The request, disclosed on Thursday, seeks not only the immigration status of incarcerated individuals but also the nature of their crimes and their expected release dates. This move reflects a broader federal push, intensified under the Trump administration, to increase arrests and deportations of undocumented immigrants. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has faced growing pressure from the White House to boost its enforcement activities, following a series of recent immigration raids across Southern California.

Attorney General Pam Bondi emphasized the administration’s intent in a public statement: “Removing criminal illegal aliens remains the highest priority of this administration. I am eager to collaborate with California’s sheriffs to fulfill our shared responsibility of safeguarding all Americans.”

However, the federal push has already sparked significant concern among legal and civil rights advocates. Andres Kwon, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), warned that any sheriff who complies with the DOJ’s request might be at risk of violating California’s “sanctuary state” law. Enacted in 2018, the law—formally known as the California Values Act—strictly limits the ability of state and local law enforcement agencies to engage in federal immigration enforcement efforts. It prohibits the use of local resources to assist ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection in civil immigration matters and forbids officers from inquiring about immigration status or sharing personal information with federal immigration authorities.

“These federal requests are just that—requests,” Kwon explained. “They are not mandates. If they were, that would infringe upon the 10th Amendment, which protects state sovereignty by reserving powers not explicitly given to the federal government.”

As of Thursday afternoon, California’s attorney general’s office had not issued an official response to the DOJ’s demand.

In Los Angeles, Sheriff Robert Luna addressed the issue during a press briefing, noting that his department had not yet received an official letter from the federal government. Nonetheless, he made clear that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department would not act on such requests without appropriate legal authority.

“We will only transfer an individual to ICE if we are presented with a federal judicial warrant signed by a judge,” Luna stated. He added that any federal request would undergo legal review to ensure compliance with California law.

According to Luna’s department, at least 20 inmates were transferred to ICE custody during May and June. Nineteen of those individuals were transferred based on federal judicial warrants, while one was released under a separate agreement between the Department of Homeland Security and the local district attorney’s office. Luna underscored that the individuals handed over had committed serious or violent offenses, stating, “These are not ice cream vendors or taco cart operators. These are people who pose legitimate public safety risks.”

In Northern California, San Francisco Sheriff Paul Miyamoto took an even firmer stance. He declared that his department does not participate in civil immigration enforcement under any circumstances. “My duty is to ensure public safety—not to engage in politics,” Miyamoto said. “We will not instill fear in our immigrant communities by acting as an extension of ICE.”

San Francisco has maintained its sanctuary status since 1989. The city’s policies prevent public agencies from inquiring about immigration status, particularly in non-criminal contexts like seeking health care or public services. Local law enforcement does not cooperate with ICE operations or provide assistance with investigations or arrests related to immigration.

The city’s current mayor, Daniel Lurie, reiterated this stance through his spokesperson, Charles Lutvak: “San Francisco and California have long-standing laws that prevent local agencies from collaborating with federal immigration enforcement. That is not going to change.”

The DOJ’s latest move appears poised to escalate already strained relations between federal and local authorities in California, particularly in urban centers like Los Angeles and San Francisco. With ICE raids causing widespread anxiety among immigrant populations, tensions have grown significantly. Many undocumented residents report living in fear—avoiding work, public transportation, and even medical appointments for fear of arrest and deportation.

Mark González, a California Assembly member representing parts of Los Angeles County, condemned the Justice Department’s letter as an outrageous overstep. “L.A. County jails should not be in the business of cooperating with ICE. Period,” he said.

Civil rights and immigration advocacy groups have already taken legal action to oppose the federal government’s recent surge in immigration enforcement. A coalition of organizations filed a lawsuit to halt indiscriminate ICE raids in Los Angeles, citing racial profiling and civil liberties violations. Several cities and counties, including Los Angeles, have joined the suit as co-plaintiffs.

Last week, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction temporarily prohibiting ICE from conducting blanket immigration arrests in the Los Angeles area. The ruling also explicitly barred federal agents from using race or ethnicity as a basis for enforcement actions.

In response, the U.S. government appealed the decision, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to lift the restrictions. However, on Wednesday, the appellate court denied the government’s request, allowing the injunction to remain in effect while the case proceeds.

The ongoing legal battles underscore the deep divisions between federal immigration enforcement priorities and California’s sanctuary policies. While the Trump administration has framed its actions as necessary to remove dangerous individuals from the country, state and local officials in California argue that such efforts are counterproductive and harmful to public safety.

By refusing to act as agents of ICE, many California sheriffs say they are building trust within immigrant communities, which encourages cooperation with law enforcement on serious crimes such as domestic violence, robbery, and assault. “If our residents are afraid to talk to the police,” Sheriff Miyamoto explained, “we all become less safe.”

As this confrontation plays out, local authorities remain firm in their commitments to uphold state law and protect the rights of all Californians—regardless of their immigration status. But with the Department of Justice signaling a willingness to take legal action to force cooperation, the conflict between Washington and Sacramento appears far from over.