title
CC - ACTION ITEM: (1) Report on and Discussion of Culver City’s Sanctuary City Policies; (2) Consideration of an Amendment to the City’s 2016 Anti-Hate Resolution; and (3) Direction to the City Manager as Deemed Appropriate.
body
Meeting Date: March 10, 2025
Contact Person/Dept.: Jesse Mays, Assistant City Manager
Phone Number: (310) 253-6000
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [x] General Fund: Yes [] No [x]
Attachments: Yes [x] No []
Public Notification: (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas - City Council (03/06/2025)
Department Approval: John Nachbar, City Manager (03/06/2025) _____________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council (1) receive a report on and discuss Culver City’s Sanctuary City policies; (2) consider an amendment to the City’s 2016 Anti-Hate Resolution; and (3) provide direction to the City Manager as deemed appropriate.
BACKGROUND
Culver City Policy
On March 27, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 2017-R025, declaring Culver City to be a Sanctuary City for all its residents regardless of immigration status (Attachment 1). The Resolution specifies as follows:
• City officials will require a judicial warrant before detaining an individual or prolonging a detention in any manner at the request of federal immigration authorities.
• City officials will require a judicial warrant before arresting, detaining or transporting an individual solely on the basis of an immigration detainer or other administrative document.
• Unless pursuant to a court order or a legitimate law enforcement purpose unrelated to civil immigration law, City officials will not permit federal immigration authorities access to City facilities or to any person in City custody, subject to the California Truth Act.
• City officials will require federal immigration authorities to wear jackets and badges when given access to City facilities, so that they are clearly identified as federal agents.
• City officials will not inquire into the immigration status of any individual, unless there is a legitimate law enforcement purpose unrelated to civil immigration law, or where required by law to verify eligibility for a benefit or service.
• City officials will not voluntarily release personally identifiable information to federal immigration authorities, or information that may be used to ascertain an individual's race, religion or ethnicity, unless for a law enforcement purpose unrelated to the enforcement of civil immigration law.
• City officials will not engage in surveillance of any person or group based solely on their actual or perceived religion, ethnicity, race or immigration status.
• Any person who alleges a violation of the above policies may file a written complaint with the City.
• City officials will not detain, interrogate, or arrest an individual based on their perceived race, national origin, religion, language, or immigration status.
The Resolution also states:
• No City agency, department, officer, employee, or agent shall use City funds, resources, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law, unless such assistance is required by any valid and enforceable federal or state law or is contractually obligated. This prohibition shall include, but not be limited to, assisting with or participating in any immigration enforcement operation or joint operation or patrol that involves, in whole or in part, the enforcement of federal immigration law, except for purposes of protecting the public safety.
• No City agency, department, officer, employee, or agent shall use City funds, resources, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to assist any federal program requiring the registration of individuals on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity, including those persons of the Muslim faith or those perceived to be of the Muslim faith, and/or of Middle Eastern descent.
Finally, the Resolution states that the City shall continue to follow its policies to prevent bias-based policing and law enforcement personnel will continue to exercise discretion to favor citing and releasing individuals in lieu of arrest or continued detention, where consistent with protecting public safety.
State Policy
Senate Bill 54, which created the California Values Act, (SB 54) was signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 5, 2017, and went into effect on January 1, 2018 (Attachment 2). SB 54 prohibits California’s state and local law enforcement agencies from using agency or department money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for specified immigration enforcement purposes, including but not limited to the following:
• Asking someone about their immigration status;
• Detaining someone based on a hold request;
• Arresting someone based on a civil immigration warrant, or participating in any such arrests;
• Using Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Border Patrol agents (“immigration agents”) as interpreters; and
• Sharing someone’s personal information, such as home address, with ICE or Border Patrol, unless it's publicly available.
SB 54 specifies that if local police arrest someone, they:
• Cannot hold someone in jail for extra time just for immigration agents to pick the person up.
• Cannot let immigration agents interview someone without the person’s written consent.
• Cannot tell immigration agents when someone will be released, or transfer someone to their custody, with some exceptions, including where the individual has certain convictions such as:
o State prison felony convictions
o Most other felony convictions within 15 years
o Higher-level misdemeanors within 5 years
• Local law enforcement can notify immigration agents of someone’s release date if the information is already public, or where the person has the aforementioned convictions, provided this does not violate local law or policy.
• If local law enforcement decides to notify or transfer someone to immigration agents, they must give the person advance written notice and a copy of ICE or Border Patrol's request.
SB 54 allows law enforcement agencies to take certain actions that do not otherwise violate any local laws or policies, such as making inquiries into information needed to certify an individual who is a potential crime or trafficking victim for a T or U Visa and conducting enforcement or investigative duties associated with a joint law enforcement task force so long as certain requirements are met.
Finally, SB 54 requires local police to annually report certain statistics, such as about their participation in joint law enforcement task forces and their transfers of individuals to immigration authorities.
In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the legality of SB 54 in a lawsuit filed by the United States against the State of California.
DISCUSSION
Culver City’s Compliance with SB 54
The Culver City Police Department has integrated the policies of Culver City’s Sanctuary City Resolution and SB 54 into Section 438 (Immigration) of the CCPD Policy Manual (Attachment 3), and into Section 502 (Reception and Housing) of the CCPD Jail Manual (Attachment 4).
On December 12, 2024, in anticipation of a new presidential administration taking office in January 2025, CCPD issued a Training Bulletin to its staff that included all CCPD policies regarding immigration and SB 54 (Attachment 5). The Training Bulletin included both Section 438 of the CCPD Policy Manual and a Frequently Asked Questions document on SB 54 prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (Attachment 6).
SB 54 requires CCPD to submit an annual report to the California Department of Justice regarding SB 54 and any assistance provided to ICE. Since SB 54 was passed, every annual report has reported no assistance with ICE. CCPD has not assisted ICE in any way. The CCPD jail does occasionally get phone calls from ICE officials who inquire about arrestees in CCPD custody. CCPD staff do not share any information with them. When ICE sends “ICE Detainers,” staff does not respond and discards the requests. No arrestees have been interviewed by ICE officials in the CCPD jail and no one has been removed from the CCPD jail facility by ICE.
Federal Actions/Statements; State and Legal Responses
The current landscape regarding this issue is constantly changing. The following is a summary chronology over the last two months of the Federal government’s actions/statements, as well as responses by state officials and pending legal challenges, as of the writing of this report.
January 7, 2025 - Warning Letters:
California City News reported that “hundreds of city and county leaders across the U.S. have begun receiving letters from incoming Trump administration officials threatening legal consequences for their policies on immigration.” The Letters, which were sent to numerous officials in California, warn they could be held civilly and ‘criminally’ liable for supporting sanctuary city policies.” In the report, California Attorney General Rob Bonta stated, “[t]his is a scare tactic, plain and simple…While we are unable to comment on the specifics of the letter, we want to be clear: [California’s sanctuary law] SB 54 was upheld by the courts during the first Trump administration…California will continue to comply with all applicable state and federal laws, and we expect all local law enforcement agencies to do the same.” (<https://w.californiacitynews.org/2025/01/local-leaders-threatened-jail-time-over-sanctuary-city-policies.html>)
January 7, 2025 - Huntington Beach Lawsuit:
The City of Huntington Beach, California, filed for a judicial declaration invalidating an injunction order enjoining SB 54, from the U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Attachment 7). The suit claims that “California’s Sanctuary State Law not only limits the ability of City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to engage in fullest of effective law enforcement practices, but it directs City officials, including Huntington Beach Police personnel, to violate U.S. Federal immigration laws.” The suit further states, “[t]he conflict of laws created by the State presents an untenable “Hobson’s Choice” for the City of Huntington Beach, e.g., comply with the State’s new Sanctuary State Law and violate U.S. Federal immigration laws, or comply with the Federal immigration laws, and violate the Sanctuary State Law. This conflict must be reconciled by this Court.” This legal action, and any outcome, is pending as of the date of this report.
January 20, 2025 Executive Order:
Donald Trump took office as President of the United States on January 20, 2025 and, on the same date, signed an Executive Order entitled, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” (Attachment 8). Section 17 of this Executive Order affects sanctuary jurisdictions by potentially removing access to federal funds for allegedly interfering with federal law enforcement operations, as well as authorizing any lawful criminal or civil enforcement actions by the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security “that they deem warranted based on any such jurisdiction’s practices that interfere with the enforcement of Federal law.”
January 21/22, 2025 - DOJ Memo and CA Attorney General Response:
The Acting Deputy Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memorandum on January 21, 2025 informing DOJ employees of interim policy changes regarding charging, sentencing, and immigration enforcement (Attachment 9). This memorandum includes statements regarding local governments’ mandated compliance with the Executive Branch’s immigration enforcement activities, as well as potential DOJ investigations and resulting legal proceedings for local governments’ failure to comply with said activities. On January 22, 2025, California Attorney General Bonta issued a press release in response to the DOJ Memo stating, “[t]his is a scare tactic, plain and simple. The President is attempting to intimidate and bully state and local law enforcement into carrying out his mass deportation agenda for him. My team is reviewing the U.S. Department of Justice’s memo, and we’ll be prepared to take legal action if the Trump Administration’s vague threats turn to illegal action.” (<https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-president-cannot-bully-california-carrying-out-his-mass>)
January 27, 2025 - OMB Memo:
Matthew Vaeth, the Acting Director of the President’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), issued a memorandum to heads of executive departments and agencies to “temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal” (Attachment 10). The memorandum stated that the pause would begin on January 28, 2025, at 5:00 PM, and would provide the Administration time to review agency programs and determine best uses of funding for such programs consistent with law and the President’s priorities.
January 29, 2025 - Rescission of OMB Memo:
After lawsuits were filed and the January 28th funding freeze was temporarily halted by a federal judge, Acting Director Vaeth issued a memorandum rescinding the January 27, 2025, OMB memorandum (Attachment 11). White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that although the January 27th OMB memo was being pulled back, “[t]his is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze . . . [i]t is simply a rescission of the OMB memo. Why? To end any confusion created by the court's injunction. The President's EO's on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.” (<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyv48540n4po>) As of the date of this report, there are continued lawsuits filed by various parties (including many states) seeking to block the suspension of federal funding.
February 6, 2025 - US Lawsuit:
The United States filed a lawsuit against the State of Illinois, the City of Chicago, Cook County, and state and local officials in Illinois, seeking to prohibit the enforcement of various state and local sanctuary laws (Attachment 12). This action is pending as of the date of this report.
February 7, 2025 - New CA Legislation:
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed laws “setting aside $50 million to help the state protect its policies from challenges by the Trump administration and defend immigrants amid the president’s mass-deportation plans. One of the law allocates $25 million for the state Department of Justice to fight legal battles against the federal government, and another sets aside $25 million in part for legal groups to defend immigrants facing possible deportation.” (<https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/newsom-approves-50m-protect-immigrants-california-policies-against-trump/>)
February 19, 2025 - Executive Order:
President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” which orders the head of each executive department or agency to “ensure, consistent with applicable law, that Federal payments to States and localities do not, by design or effect, facilitate the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration, or abet so-called “sanctuary” policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.” (<https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ending-taxpayer-subsidization-of-open-borders/>)
February 21, 2025 - NYC Lawsuit:
The City of New York filed a lawsuit in a federal district court against President Trump and his administration alleging that funds that were previously awarded and disbursed to the city by FEMA to house migrants were removed over $80 million from a city bank account without notice or an administrative process. The city had received a “noncompliance” letter from FEMA on February 18, 2025, claiming the city was engaging in or facilitating illegal activities. (<https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/098-25/new-york-city-law-department-lawsuit-against-trump-administration-unlawful-80>; see also <https://www.nyc.gov/assets/home/downloads/pdf/press-releases/2025/signed_noncompliance_letter_nyc_ssp.pdf>)
Culver City’s Possible Response to Federal Administration’s Sanctuary City Policies
There are some potential actions the City Council could consider taking to respond to these policies, including but not limited to:
• Adding support for sanctuary city policies to the City’s Legislative and Policy Platform.
• Using the City’s communications channels to raise awareness about our sanctuary city policies.
• Writing letters to Culver City’s elected officials at the state and federal levels supporting sanctuary city policies.
• Authorize the City Attorney to join amicus briefs in alignment with our sanctuary city policies.
Culver City’s Anti-Hate Resolution
On October 24, 2016, the City Council approved a resolution (Attachment 13) that:
• Condemns all hateful speech and violent actions directed at people who are Muslims, those perceived to be Muslims, or people based on their religious beliefs, their immigration status, their race, their ethnicity, or their sexual orientation;
• Categorically rejects political tactics that use fear to manipulate voters or to gain power or influence;
• Commits to pursuing a policy agenda that affirms civil and human rights, and ensures that those targeted on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or immigration status can turn to the government without fear of recrimination; and
• Reaffirms the value of a pluralistic society, the beauty of a society composed of multiple cultures, and the inalienable right of every person to live and practice their faith without fear.
At the February 10, 2025, City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to return to City Council with a draft of an amended Anti-Hate Resolution. The City Council requested options for the amended language: one version adding additional categories of people who may experience discrimination (Version A, Attachment 14), and a second version using more general language to reference all persons who may experience discrimination (Version B, Attachment 15).
In Version A, categories have been added that are citied by the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations, and which appear in California state law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. California Penal Code Sections 422.55 to 422.94, related to hate crimes, list actual or perceived race, ethnicity, or ancestry; religion; nationality; disability; gender; or sexual orientation.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed by the United States and nearly 75 other nations, commits signatories to respect and fulfill the right to life and security regardless of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, or birth.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
There is no fiscal impact from this discussion item.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 250127 ATT Culver City Resolution 2017-R025
2. 250127 ATT California Values Act (SB 54)
3. 250127 ATT CCPD Policy Manual - Section 438 (Immigration)
4. 250127 ATT CCPD Jail Manual - Section 502 (Reception and Housing)
5. 250127 ATT December 12, 2024 CCPD Training Bulletin
6. 250127 ATT ACLU FAQ on SB 54
7. 250127 ATT Huntington Beach Suit
8. 250127 ATT Protecting the American People Against Invasion Executive Order
9. 250127 ATT January 21, 2025 DOJ Memorandum
10. 250127 ATT January 27, 2025 OMB Memorandum M-25-13
11. 250127 ATT January 29, 2025 OMB Memorandum M-25-14
12. 250127 ATT U.S. v. State of Illinois, et al. Complaint
13. 250127 ATT Culver City 2016 Anti-Hate Resolution
14. 250127 ATT Redlined Culver City Anti-Hate Resolution - Amended Version A
15. 250127 ATT Redlined Culver City Anti-Hate Resolution - Amended Version B
16. 250127 ATT Resolution Condemning Violence and Hate - Version A
17. 250127 ATT Resolution Condemning Violence and Hate - Version B
MOTION(S)
That the City Council:
1. Receive a report on and discuss Culver City’s sanctuary city policies; and
2. Adopt an amended Anti-Hate Resolution:
A. Adopt amended Anti-Hate Resolution Version A; OR
B. Adopt amended Anti-Hate Resolution Version B; and
3. Provide direction to the City Manager as deemed appropriate.