Several California immigration and detention bills are now before Gov. Gavin Newsom. Here’s what SB 873, SB 942, SB 957, SB 1399, SB 941, SB 423, SB 937 and AB 1633 would actually change — and what they would not.
California lawmakers have sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a group of bills addressing immigration enforcement, detention facilities and state oversight.
The measures cover very different issues, from courthouse arrests and detention conditions to emergency records, commissary prices and taxation of private detention facilities.
For Californians trying to understand California immigration bills in 2026, the important point is that these measures do not all do the same thing.
And none would give California control over federal immigration enforcement.
Here is what the major bills would change if enacted.
What immigration bills are on Newsom’s desk?
Among the measures sent to Newsom are bills dealing with courthouse arrests, immigration detention oversight, detention-facility transparency, enforcement tactics and private detention facilities.
Several were identified by the California Latino Legislative Caucus as 2026 priorities, including SB 873, SB 937, SB 942, AB 1896 and AB 2318. The Caucus separately highlighted SB 423, SB 957, SB 1399 and SB 941 as part of a package focused on immigration detention accountability.
The measures have different effects, so it is useful to look at them individually.
What is SB 873? Can ICE arrest someone at a California courthouse?
SB 873 would limit civil immigration arrests involving a person traveling to, attending or returning from a courthouse for a lawful purpose.
The bill also establishes procedures for immigration authorities entering courthouses and requires reporting on civil arrests at courthouses. The California Latino Legislative Caucus describes the measure as prohibiting indiscriminate civil arrests by ICE during lawful courthouse activity.
The protection is broader than simply prohibiting an arrest inside a courtroom. It addresses the person’s travel to and from the courthouse.
But SB 873 would not prohibit all immigration arrests in California.
It addresses a specific circumstance: civil immigration arrests connected to lawful courthouse activity.
We also have detailed the recent federal court order affecting certain warrantless immigration arrests in Southern California:
What the New ICE Arrest Rules Mean for People in Los Angeles
What is SB 942? What rights would people have in California immigration detention?
SB 942, the Civil Detainees’ Bill of Rights Act, would establish specific protections for people held for civil immigration proceedings.
The bill provides that people housed or detained for civil immigration proceedings retain applicable constitutional and statutory rights. It specifically addresses protections involving dignity, privacy, humane care and safe and healthy conditions. The Attorney General would have authority to enforce those protections through civil actions.
The measure therefore focuses on conditions and rights inside civil immigration detention, rather than determining who has authority to conduct federal immigration enforcement.
We also have reported on the conditions inside California immigration detention facilities:
California Finds ICE Detention Conditions Worsening
What does SB 1399 do? Will California continue inspecting immigration detention facilities?
SB 1399 would extend California’s existing authority to review county, local and private locked detention facilities holding people for civil immigration proceedings.
Under current law, that review authority is scheduled to become inoperative in 2027. SB 1399 would remove the sunset and repeal dates, allowing the framework to continue indefinitely.
In practical terms:
Without SB 1399: the existing statutory review authority has a sunset.
With SB 1399: that framework would continue beyond the sunset.
The bill therefore deals with the state’s inspection and reporting authority, not federal control of immigration enforcement.
What does SB 957 do?
SB 957 would direct the California Attorney General to develop a comprehensive state oversight plan for privately operated civil detention facilities.
The plan would include recommendations addressing the health, safety and welfare of people held in those facilities.
That makes SB 957 different from SB 1399.
SB 1399 extends an existing review framework.
SB 957 creates a pathway toward a broader oversight plan for privately operated facilities.
Neither provision, by itself, means California would take over federal immigration detention.
Could the public get more information about emergencies inside detention centers?
SB 423 focuses on transparency.
The California Latino Legislative Caucus says the measure is intended to increase public access to information about incidents inside private detention facilities.
The bill includes exceptions and protections for information that cannot lawfully be disclosed.
In practical terms, SB 423 is about what the public can learn about emergencies and serious incidents inside private detention facilities.
It does not change who has federal authority over immigration enforcement.
Would SB 941 limit immigration-detention commissary prices?
SB 941 addresses something much more immediate for people held in private detention facilities: the price of commissary goods.
The bill would cap the price of an item sold through a private detention facility commissary at 35% above the amount paid to the vendor.
The provision is specific to private detention facilities covered by the measure.
It is not a general California price-control law for all correctional facilities.
What does SB 937 change?
SB 937 concerns the use of flash-bang grenades and explosive breaching charges.
The measure restricts the use of flashbang grenades for crowd control, subject to specified exceptions, and specifically prohibits the use of flashbang grenades and explosive breaching charges for immigration enforcement.
The measure raises a broader legal question: how far can California regulate conduct by federal immigration agents operating inside the state?
That question can involve federalism and federal preemption. Passage of a California law does not, by itself, determine whether every provision can ultimately be enforced against federal officials.
Parriva has examined a similar state-versus-federal question involving California’s attempted restrictions on wearable electric-shock devices:
California Wants to Ban ICE Shock Gloves. But Can the State Actually Stop Federal Agents?
What does AB 1633 do? Will California tax private immigration detention facilities?
AB 1633 takes a different approach: taxation.
The enrolled version now before Newsom would establish a Private Detention Facility Tax Law beginning July 1, 2028.
It would impose an annual tax equal to 25% of a private detention facility operator’s gross income for the prior fiscal year. The bill would also establish the Due Process for All Fund, with money available for immigration-related services following legislative appropriation.
This is an important distinction because earlier versions of AB 1633 proposed a 50% tax and a different effective date. The enrolled version is the version that matters now.
Does California control ICE?
No.
These bills would regulate specific areas within California’s legal authority, including state oversight, public records, detention-facility requirements and certain conduct within the state.
They would not transfer federal immigration authority to California.
ICE is a federal agency, and federal immigration enforcement, immigration courts and federal removal proceedings remain governed primarily by federal law.
That means a California law can establish requirements for state agencies or regulate conduct within areas of state authority without giving California the power to direct federal immigration operations.
What these bills would not do
Taken together, the measures would not:
- give California control over ICE;
- eliminate federal immigration enforcement in California;
- automatically give anyone legal immigration status;
- prohibit every immigration arrest;
- determine federal immigration court proceedings; or
- decide the outcome of federal removal cases.
The practical effect depends on the specific bill.
Someone going to court would be most directly affected by SB 873.
Someone held in civil immigration detention could be affected by SB 942, SB 941, SB 957 and SB 1399.
Someone seeking information about an emergency at a private detention facility could be affected by SB 423.
Private detention operators could be affected by AB 1633 and other detention-related requirements.
What California immigration laws changed in 2026?
This is an important question, but it requires a distinction.
Bills awaiting the Governor are not yet laws.
The measures discussed above have passed the Legislature and are before Newsom. Their ultimate status will depend on whether the Governor signs or vetoes them and, for enacted measures, when their provisions take effect.
California has also enacted other immigration-related measures during the 2026 legislative session. For example, AB 2624, which expands California’s address-confidentiality protections for certain immigrant-service providers, is already identified by the Latino Legislative Caucus as Chapter 117, Statutes of 2026.
So readers should not treat every 2026 immigration bill as an existing law.
The next step is Newsom.
The bills sent to the Governor can be signed or vetoed. If enacted, additional questions will involve effective dates, agency implementation, regulations and potential legal challenges.
For Californians, that means the important question is not simply what lawmakers passed.
It is:
What actually becomes law, when does it take effect, and how will it work in practice?
What the evidence cannot tell us yet
The text of a bill tells us what the Legislature has approved and what the statute would require if enacted.
It does not tell us exactly how every provision will operate in every real-world situation.
Implementation could involve state and local agencies, detention operators, courts and interactions with federal authorities. Some provisions could also face legal challenges.
For readers, the key distinction is simple:
A bill passed by the Legislature is not necessarily a law already in effect.
And a new California law is not necessarily a change in federal immigration authority.
