California lawmakers want to prohibit wearable electric-shock gloves, including their use by federal agents. But whether the state can enforce that ban against ICE could depend on the limits of state power over federal law enforcement.
When an immigration officer reaches for someone, what is that hand allowed to do?
That question is moving from the streets of California into a constitutional fight over state and federal power.
The California Legislature has passed Assembly Bill 2760, a measure that would temporarily prohibit law-enforcement agencies from using wearable electroshock devices in the state. The bill also attempts to apply the prohibition to federal law-enforcement agencies operating in California.
For California’s own police and sheriff’s departments, the rule would be straightforward.
For Immigration and Customs Enforcement, it is much less certain.
What AB 2760 actually does
AB 2760 would prohibit a law-enforcement agency from using a wearable electroshock device in California until January 1, 2030.
It also would:
- prohibit state and local agencies from using state funds to purchase the devices;
- require agencies to update their use-of-force policies;
- and require the California Department of Justice to study the devices’ safety and community impacts and recommend standards and safeguards. The report would be due by January 1, 2029.
The bill specifically defines a law-enforcement agency to include a federal law-enforcement agency.
That is what turns a California use-of-force bill into a federalism question.
The technology is not a conventional Taser
The device at the center of the debate is the CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E., manufactured by Compliant Technologies.
Unlike a conventional Taser, the device is worn on the hand and delivers an electrical shock through physical contact.
The federal government has already moved toward purchasing the technology. ICE entered into a $16.7 million contract for thousands of the gloves, according to reporting by the Associated Press.
Supporters of the technology describe it as another less-lethal option for officers.
Critics argue that putting an electrical-discharge capability directly onto an officer’s hand raises questions about how and when force is used.
Those are competing claims about public safety. The available evidence does not yet establish how widespread use of the technology would affect injuries, police shootings or excessive-force incidents in California.
California police would have to put the gloves away
If Newsom signs the bill, California state and local law-enforcement agencies would be prohibited from using the covered devices.
The issue is not entirely theoretical.
Reporting has identified California agencies that have tested or possessed the gloves, including Santa Monica and El Monte.
The legislation would therefore establish a clear state rule for California agencies even if its federal provision becomes the subject of litigation.
For Californians trying to understand what this means for immigration enforcement, however, there is another important distinction.
California’s sanctuary laws do not give the state control over federal immigration arrests.
Parriva examined that distinction in What ICE’s Latest Enforcement Push Means for Southern California Families, which explains why federal immigration arrests can continue even where California limits cooperation by state and local agencies.
Then comes ICE
AB 2760 attempts to draw the line differently.
It would prohibit a federal law-enforcement agency from using a wearable electroshock device within California.
But passing that rule does not necessarily settle whether California can enforce it against federal officers.
The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause establishes federal law as supreme over conflicting state law. Modern preemption doctrine recognizes several ways federal law can displace state law, including situations where state requirements conflict with federal law or interfere with federal objectives.
Immigration enforcement presents an additional complication because federal authority over immigration is particularly strong. But not every state law touching immigrants is automatically preempted. The specific conflict matters.
That means one sentence should be avoided:
“California cannot regulate ICE.”
The law is more complicated than that.
The more accurate question is:
Can California prohibit a federal immigration agency from using a particular piece of equipment while federal officers are performing federal duties inside the state?
No court has yet answered that question specifically for AB 2760.
California has already been fighting over federal enforcement
The shock-glove dispute comes as California and the federal government are already battling over the boundaries of immigration enforcement.
Parriva previously examined Operation Guardian Angel, in which federal prosecutors used federal warrants to transfer defendants from Southern California jails into federal custody. That story showed how federal enforcement can operate even when California’s sanctuary rules limit cooperation with ICE detainers. Operation Guardian Angel: How Immigration Enforcement Is Changing California’s Sanctuary System explains that distinction.
Another Parriva report examined the federal lawsuit challenging immigration enforcement practices in Los Angeles. Inside the Los Angeles Immigration Lawsuit That Could Reshape Federal Enforcement Across Southern California follows a different question: how federal courts can review the way immigration agents conduct enforcement operations.
Together, those cases illustrate something important about AB 2760:
The argument over federal immigration enforcement does not end when California passes a law.
Sometimes the next arena is a federal courtroom.
The three-year pause matters
AB 2760 is not written as a permanent ban.
The prohibition would expire at the beginning of 2030, while the California Department of Justice is required to study the technology and recommend standards and safeguards.
That creates a second question beyond the fight over ICE:
What will California know about these devices in 2029 that it does not know today?
Law-enforcement groups argue that the technology could give officers another option during dangerous encounters.
Critics argue that California should not allow broader use of a relatively new force technology before its risks and appropriate safeguards are better understood.
The three-year study period is effectively an attempt to answer that evidence question.
What the evidence cannot tell us yet
There are still important unknowns.
We do not know whether ICE will deploy the gloves broadly in California.
We do not know whether federal officials will challenge AB 2760 if it becomes law.
We do not know whether a federal court would uphold the state’s restriction, invalidate its application to federal officers or reach some narrower result.
And we do not yet have enough California-specific evidence to determine whether wearable electroshock devices would reduce or increase injuries during law-enforcement encounters.
Those are questions that require evidence, not assumptions.
California is trying to put a three-year pause on wearable electric-shock technology.
For California’s own law-enforcement agencies, the proposed rule is clear.
For federal immigration agents, it is something else: a test of how far California’s authority extends when federal officers are carrying out federal duties inside the state.
The Legislature can write the rule.
But whether California can enforce that rule against the federal government is a question the Legislature alone cannot answer.
That could ultimately leave a federal court to decide.
And underneath the constitutional debate is a much more immediate human question:
When an officer puts a hand on you, who gets to decide what that hand is allowed to do?
