The city of El Cajon has sued the state of California over its “sanctuary state” laws.
There are enormous potential ramifications for this country, depending on the outcome of this case.
The city argues that offering illegal aliens drivers’ licenses and various protections is essentially illegal enticement under the federal statute that outlaws human smuggling.
The City Council voted 3-2 on Tuesday to pursue the litigation, which alleges in part that the El Cajon Police Department and its officers risk being held civilly and criminally liable under federal law if they follow California’s SB 54 and other state laws that limit their ability to work with federal immigration authorities.Though the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the legality of SB 54 in 2019, the lawsuit filed Tuesday challenges that law and others on different legal grounds. It alleges that California’s various laws offering some benefits to undocumented immigrants amount to a violation of part of the human-smuggling statute — U.S. Code Section 1324 — that makes it a felony when a person “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States.”
Mayor Bill Wells was joined by representatives of the America First Policy Institute to make the announcement, indicating they intend to force the issue of which takes precedence…federal or state laws.
Mayor Bill Wells and the America First Policy Institute announced the lawsuit outside City Hall, arguing that federal law supersedes state policy and that SB 54 puts local police officers in a difficult position.”This might be one of the most important days of my life,” Wells said.The America First Policy Institute says the lawsuit is meant to resolve a fundamental legal question.”To seek clarity on the precedents of law. What takes precedence, federal or state law?” said Mike Garcia, a former congressmember from Santa Clarita.
One of the big targets in this case is Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), which was signed into law in 2017. It prohibits state and local law enforcement from assisting with federal immigration enforcement, with some exceptions.
The lawsuit specifically cites a section of federal law that “makes it an offense for any person who encourages or induces” someone to live in the U.S. without legal status. Lawson pointed to California policies that allow people without legal status to access driver’s licenses, disability insurance and in-state tuition.“If you look at all of that, it is designed to induce and encourage illegal aliens to reside here,” he [Richard Lawson, vice chair of litigation for the America First Policy Institute] said.City leaders say SB 54 can make it harder for police to do their jobs. In March 2025, El Cajon City Councilmember Steve Goble asked the California Department of Justice about conducting wellness checks on unaccompanied children. Federal authorities sometimes share contact information with local police so they can do wellness checks.“Currently, local law enforcement is wary of performing these wellness checks in collaboration with federal authorities due to concerns whether elements of California Senate Bill 54 apply,” Goble wrote.
El Cajon’s lawsuit is about far more than one San Diego–area city chafing at Sacramento’s politics; it is a direct challenge to California’s entire sanctuary architecture and its practice of showering illegal immigrants with benefits while tying the hands of local law enforcement.
By invoking the federal anti–human smuggling statute, the city and the America First Policy Institute are daring the courts to confront whether policies such as SB 54, driver’s licenses, and in‑state tuition cross the line from mere “tolerance” into unlawful inducement to reside in this country illegally.
If a judge agrees that these state measures “encourage or induce” unlawful presence, the ripple effects will be felt far beyond East County, as other jurisdictions and activist politicians will have to reconsider how far they can go in defying federal immigration law.
No matter how this case is ultimately decided, El Cajon has forced a long‑overdue reckoning on one fundamental question: Do state politicians get to nullify federal immigration law by legislative fiat, or does the Constitution’s supremacy clause still mean what it says?
;
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY