Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
This coastal city just south of L.A. has declared itself a “non-sanctuary city” and is now challenging state laws that illegally block its ability to comply with federal immigration laws, cooperate with federal law enforcement, and protect city residents.
In early March, the City of Huntington Beach filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the State of California, challenging its laws that “protect dangerous illegal aliens” and its support for sanctuary policies.
California has long been a sanctuary state, but on January 1, a new state law took effect on Jan. 1 prohibiting municipalities, including charter cities, from defying any state mandates.
Huntington Beach, a conservative coastal city located south of Los Angeles, has long chafed at the progressive policies that keep it from protecting its citizens. In January, the Huntington Beach City Council approved a resolution declaring the California coastal city “a non-sanctuary city for illegal immigration for the prevention of crime.”
In a statement, the city explained, “The intent of this resolution is to deliberately sidestep the Governor’s efforts to subvert the good work of federal immigration authorities and to announce the city’s cooperation with the federal government, the Trump Administration, and Border Czar Tom Homan’s work. City officials have a duty to follow all laws, including federal immigration laws, and neither the Governor nor the state will interfere with that.”
Now, Huntington Beach officials, with the assistance of America First Legal (AFL), are suing to overturn all of California’s sanctuary state laws, arguing that they violate federal immigration laws as well as state and national constitutional provisions.
“The State of California has shielded dangerous criminals for far too long. AFL is suing California and Gavin Newsom to END the illegal Sanctuary State Laws that protect criminal illegal aliens and threaten American citizens,” AFL wrote in a statement to X.
Huntington Beach contends that the state’s sanctuary laws, which limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, force city officials to violate federal law.
“As a matter of law, the state’s ‘Sanctuary State Law’ is unconstitutional and violates other federal laws; as a matter of enforcement policy, it is a clear and present danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the city of Huntington Beach,” the city wrote in its lawsuit, noting that under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal law takes precedence over state law.
“California’s Sanctuary State Law not only limits the ability of city officials, including Huntington Beach police personnel, to engage in the fullest of effective law enforcement practices, but it directs city officials, including Huntington Beach police personnel, to violate U.S. federal immigration laws,” the suit added.
City officials argued that these laws increase crime risks for residents, citing data showing high re-arrest rates of individuals with active ICE detainers, according to a report by the Center Square. These detainers indicate that individuals should be held for potential transfer to ICE for deportation.
Orange County data from 2023 shows that 547 inmates had ICE detainers. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) notified ICE of 302 inmates who met state requirements for transfer under sanctuary laws, with 221 ultimately handed over to the federal agency.
Of the 81 inmates of which ICE was notified but did not accept for transfer, 40 were later re-arrested for new crimes in Orange County that year. Among the 245 inmates for whom the sanctuary law barred ICE notification, 27 were re-arrested in 2023.
The lawsuit also cites a Dec. 17 press release from California Attorney General Rob Bonta reminding immigrants of their rights under state law.
“State and local law enforcement cannot ask for your immigration status,” Bonta’s office said in the release. “State and local law enforcement cannot assist ICE with immigration enforcement, with very limited exceptions. This means they cannot investigate, cannot interrogate, cannot arrest, and cannot detain you unless it is as part of [a] joint federal task force where the primary purpose is not immigration enforcement.”
In a press release, AFL’s senior counsel James Rogers further explained the city’s reasons for filing the lawsuit.
“Federal law is clear: it is a crime to conceal, harbor, or shield illegal aliens, and it is a crime to prevent federal officials from discharging their duties. It is also against federal law to prevent local officials from communicating with DHS about the immigration status of individuals.
Our nation’s immigration laws reflect the democratic will of the people, and it is disgraceful that the State of California is actively trying to subvert it while at the same time facilitating the invasion of our country. It is outrageous that the City of Huntington Beach has to seek a court order allowing it to comply with federal law and so that it can be allowed to cooperate with legitimate federal law enforcement efforts.”
The move comes as President Trump has begun deporting violent criminals who are in the U.S. illegally.
Huntington Beach has frequently clashed with the state over various issues, including housing regulations and voter identification laws. These disputes highlight ongoing tensions in constitutional federalism, in which federal law supersedes state law, while state law generally holds authority over local governance.
In May 2024, a California superior court judge ruled in favor of the state in a lawsuit over Huntington Beach’s zoning policies, determining the city violated state housing laws. The ruling found that the city had failed to designate land for the required 13,368 additional high-density housing units, as mandated by state regulations.
Huntington Beach prevailed in a separate legal battle last year over its voter ID law for local elections. In that case, another California superior court judge ruled that the measure fell within the authority of charter cities and determined the case was not yet ready for further judicial review.
In light of the new state law forcing cities to comply with state mandates, Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber filed an appeal of the voter ID ruling, which could result in a more definitive legal ruling on the issue.
A close biblical examination of sanctuary cities reveals that the practice undermines the rule of law, puts American citizens at risk, and violates biblical principles of justice and order. As Christians, we are called to love our neighbors and care for the stranger, but we are also commanded to uphold justice and respect governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7).
When states and cities defy federal immigration laws and shield those who have broken them (or are forced to do so), they create lawlessness that harms both citizens and immigrants alike.
One need only look at the recent tragic cases of Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, and 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray, among so many others, to understand how horrific and cruel these laws are to innocent and vulnerable Americans. All three were viciously assaulted and murdered by illegal aliens who had been coddled and released by sanctuary cities.
The Bible calls for fair and just treatment of all people, but that does not mean ignoring national sovereignty or disregarding the rule of law. Exodus 12:49 states, “There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
A just society cannot allow certain groups to live outside the law while expecting others to follow it. Sanctuary cities promote selective law enforcement, allowing criminals to evade justice while law-abiding citizens bear the consequences of increased crime, economic burdens, and social instability.
Protecting individuals from lawful deportation often enables repeat offenses that victimize American communities. Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities create safe havens not just for the desperate but also for dangerous criminals. Local officials should prioritize the safety and well-being of their constituents, not political agendas that compromise public security.
Christians may differ in their approach to instances where illegal immigration continues in society. In the case of Huntington Beach, its leaders believed that legal actions were necessary to move forward with legal changes to increase security for its citizens. The move may also help shift legal practices elsewhere in the state.
As Christians, we are called to help those in need, but we must do so in ways that uphold law and order. Illegal immigration undermines the fair and legal process that so many immigrants follow.
Instead of sanctuary policies, Christians should support legal immigration reforms that protect borders, ensure security, and promote justice. A compassionate and lawful immigration system that is justly enforced is the best way to care for all people while preserving the integrity of our nation.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
