California Faces New Federal Scrutiny After Report Says Cities Rejected Nearly 9,000 ICE Detainers

A new congressional report is intensifying a dispute between federal immigration authorities and California officials, accusing major cities and counties of repeatedly declining requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hold people suspected of being in the country illegally.

The 22-page report was released on October 29 by Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jim Jordan and Representative Tom McClintock. It examines California’s so-called sanctuary policies, which limit how state and local agencies can assist federal immigration enforcement.

According to the report, agencies in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego collectively declined 8,901 ICE detainer requests over the periods examined.

Los Angeles police reportedly honored just four of 4,177 detainers received between January 2020 and June 2026. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office declined all 2,201 requests it received between January 2020 and August 2026. In San Diego County, the sheriff’s office reportedly declined 2,527 detainers between January 2023 and June 2026.

The committee argued that these policies can prevent federal authorities from taking custody of people with serious criminal histories before they are released from local custody. The report cited cases involving individuals accused or convicted of offenses including homicide, assault, burglary and weapons crimes.

One case highlighted involved Herbert Nixon Flores, who was arrested by Los Angeles police in 2020 on a domestic violence charge. According to the report, ICE had requested that authorities hold him, but he was released. Four months later, he was accused of murdering his former girlfriend in front of their young child.

The report also discussed David Mora Rojas, who was arrested days before a 2022 shooting in Sacramento that killed his three daughters and another man. He later died by suicide. The committee said ICE had requested notification of his release, but he was released on bail.

Federal prosecutors have sharply criticized California’s approach. Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, told The California Post that refusing immigration detainers creates a public safety risk and accused state and local officials of obstructing federal enforcement.

California officials have disputed the broader accusations. Governor Gavin Newsom’s office previously said claims that the state blocks cooperation with ICE are false. State officials argue that sanctuary protections help immigrant communities report crimes and cooperate with local police without fearing that routine interactions will lead to immigration enforcement.

California law does not prohibit every form of cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The California Values Act, passed in 2017, generally limits the use of state and local resources for federal immigration enforcement while providing exceptions involving certain serious or violent crimes.

The controversy is also tied to proposed federal legislation. The Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026, introduced by McClintock, would override certain state and local restrictions on cooperation with federal immigration authorities. It would also make jurisdictions that do not comply ineligible for specified federal law-enforcement grants and create a legal avenue for certain crime victims or their families to sue jurisdictions under defined circumstances.

The bill advanced through the House Judiciary Committee, but it still requires approval by the full House and Senate before it can become law.

The congressional report represents the findings and arguments of Republican committee members. Its accusations have not established that every person released after an ICE detainer was responsible for a subsequent crime. The debate over public safety, local authority and federal immigration enforcement remains ongoing.

Sources: New York Post