Fresno County Officials Push Back on California Law, Weigh Legal Action

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

• Fresno County officials criticize California’s sanctuary law (SB 54) and are considering a lawsuit challenging its legality over public safety concerns.
• SB 54 prohibits local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE without a judicial warrant but allows publicly available data sharing.
• Legal experts warn a lawsuit faces challenges, as courts previously upheld SB 54 under state sovereignty to set law enforcement standards.

Fresno County officials have recently voiced strong criticism against California’s sanctuary law, formally known as the California Values Act (SB 54). They argue that the law, which limits the ability of local law enforcement to collaborate with federal immigration authorities, hinders public safety and the management of local jails. Amid growing frustration, the county is now considering a lawsuit to challenge the legality of the state law.

At the heart of this debate is SB 54, the legislation signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2017 that restricts local law enforcement agencies from certain types of cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Specifically, the law prohibits inquiries or actions based on individuals’ immigration status and limits participation in federal immigration enforcement unless mandated by a judicial warrant. While praised by immigrant advocates, the law has consistently been a flashpoint for law enforcement agencies in California, with concerns that such restrictions compromise safety.

Fresno County Officials Push Back on California Law, Weigh Legal Action

In January 2025, Fresno County Sheriff John Zanoni openly criticized these restrictions. He stated, “Several state leaders would prefer we do not have any communication with ICE, however, that is not what (the laws) say.” Despite his objections, Sheriff Zanoni pointed out that his department adheres to the law by avoiding direct assistance to ICE. Instead, they provide indirect cooperation by making jail booking information publicly available online and sharing fingerprint data entered into a national database accessible to federal authorities. While legal under SB 54, the approach reflects Fresno County’s effort to maintain some level of interaction with immigration officials within the boundaries of the law.

Fresno County officials view the limits on cooperation as a barrier to dealing with potentially dangerous individuals in custody. They argue that these limits may lead to the release of individuals who could otherwise face deportation. In taking this stance, Sheriff Zanoni and other officials express concern over balancing state mandates with their perceived responsibility to uphold public safety. They highlight that restrictions prevent direct communication with ICE agents about individuals who, in their opinion, pose clear threats to the community.

This mounting frustration comes at a time of renewed federal emphasis on immigration enforcement under President Donald Trump’s second term. President Trump and his administration have prioritized stricter immigration measures, including increased deportation raids and targeted arrests. Federal officials have encouraged local law enforcement to support these efforts as “force multipliers,” but California’s statewide sanctuary policies largely prevent this collaboration. As a result, counties like Fresno often find themselves caught between state requirements and federal expectations.

Sheriff Zanoni, along with other Fresno County leaders, has flagged the consequences of what they see as their inability to fully address certain public safety concerns due to SB 54. They are now evaluating the feasibility of filing a lawsuit to challenge the law’s constitutionality. This potential legal action would likely argue that restricting cooperation with federal agencies interferes with federal immigration enforcement, a key step in addressing unlawful presence in the United States. The county is currently consulting legal experts to assess their chances of success in such a challenge.

Fresno County’s criticism of California’s sanctuary law is far from isolated. Law enforcement leaders in other inland counties, such as Tulare County, have also expressed dissatisfaction with the legislation. Sheriff Mike Boudreaux of Tulare County, for example, remarked that while he respects state laws, his priority is ensuring public safety. Sheriff Boudreaux has emphasized that his enforcement approach targets individuals involved in violent or serious crimes rather than engaging in widespread raids targeting undocumented immigrants. His comments reflect the nuanced opinions of some law enforcement officials, who aim to fulfill their roles without alienating immigrant communities.

The state, on the other hand, continues to defend SB 54 as a critical tool for maintaining trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement. Advocates of the law argue that when communities fear law enforcement due to potential deportation, residents are less likely to report crimes or cooperate as witnesses, ultimately undermining public safety. Their position is that SB 54 protects the rights of undocumented residents while fostering a sense of security for all.

Yet, opponents like those in Fresno County argue that SB 54 complicates their ability to address significant threats, as well as contributes to potentially avoidable risks. Critics cite cases where individuals with criminal records are released from custody only to reoffend. Fresno officials argue that greater latitude to cooperate with ICE could effectively mitigate these risks.

The debate has also fueled scrutiny from immigrant rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California. Eva Bitran, of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights project, has stated that her organization will closely monitor law enforcement adherence to SB 54 to ensure compliance. She stressed that sheriffs must act within the law’s parameters, warning against any attempts to sidestep its provisions.

Fresno County’s potential lawsuit would not be the first legal challenge to SB 54. In 2018, the Trump administration itself filed a lawsuit against California, arguing that SB 54 and related laws improperly limited the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws. While lower courts ruled against portions of another California law included in that case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld SB 54 in 2019, affirming California’s authority to determine how its law enforcement agencies operate. Given these legal precedents, a challenge from Fresno County would face significant hurdles.

Legal experts caution that such a lawsuit would likely reignite debates over state sovereignty, which allows states to set their own standards for local law enforcement priorities. Under this framework, the courts have consistently upheld the division of powers that gives wide discretion to states in shaping their own policies. Therefore, any attempt to invalidate the sanctuary law could face an uphill battle in court.

Fresno County’s dilemma mirrors the broader nationwide debate over the role of local law enforcement in federal immigration enforcement. Laws like SB 54 were passed largely in opposition to aggressive federal immigration policies introduced during President Trump’s first term. State leaders championed these laws as products of the belief that indiscriminate enforcement actions eroded trust among immigrant communities while detracting from local policing efforts.

As legal challenges or policy shifts develop, groups advocating for immigrant rights in Fresno County remain on high alert. They argue that weakening California’s sanctuary law would intensify fear among undocumented communities, discouraging them from reporting crimes or engaging with police. This could undo years of focused work to build partnerships and trust between immigrant residents and law enforcement officers.

As the Fresno County Board of Supervisors deliberates its next steps, the potential implications of a lawsuit loom large. Any legal challenge could draw significant attention and set precedents that shape the relationship between state and federal authorities on immigration policies. The issue extends far beyond Fresno, potentially impacting law enforcement practices in counties throughout California.

At present, Fresno County officials must navigate the conflicting demands of state law and their concerns about public safety. Amid their ongoing opposition to SB 54, officials like Sheriff Zanoni continue to engage federal authorities through limited, legally acceptable means, such as providing access to publicly available data. This cautious approach reflects the legal tightrope many California jurisdictions are forced to walk when seeking to address their concerns related to immigration enforcement.

For individuals and communities following these developments, the legal and policy landscape surrounding sanctuary laws remains complex. Policymakers, advocates, and citizens alike will need to stay informed as Fresno County moves forward with its deliberations. For official details about SB 54 and its provisions, you can refer to the text of the law on the California Legislative Information website.

Analysis from VisaVerge.com highlights that developments in Fresno underscore ongoing tensions between state and federal policies on immigration. As the debate unfolds, stakeholders on all sides are awaiting what could be pivotal legal and policy shifts that redefine enforcement strategies across sanctuary jurisdictions.

Learn Today

Sanctuary Law → A state or local law limiting cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities to protect undocumented immigrants.
California Values Act (SB 54) → California legislation restricting local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration enforcement except under specific conditions.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) → A federal agency tasked with enforcing immigration laws, including detaining and deporting undocumented individuals.
Judicial Warrant → A legal document issued by a court that authorizes law enforcement actions, such as arrests or searches.
State Sovereignty → The authority of a state to govern itself and make decisions, including setting its own law enforcement priorities.

This Article in a Nutshell

Fresno County’s clash with California’s sanctuary law, SB 54, spotlights a deep divide over immigration enforcement. Officials argue safety is compromised by limits on ICE collaboration, while advocates defend trust-building within immigrant communities. As tensions rise, a potential lawsuit could challenge SB 54’s constitutionality, igniting debates on public safety and state sovereignty.
— By VisaVerge.com