California cities are clashing with state officials over sanctuary rules after Attorney General Rob Bonta warned that using federal immigration data to do welfare checks on unaccompanied migrant children could break state law. El Cajon sued, saying the guidance forces local police to choose between following state restrictions or responding to urgent safety needs. Local leaders say this legal tangle risks leaving vulnerable kids without anyone to check on them.
El Cajon officials frame the dispute as a basic public-safety problem: they were asked by federal officials to verify whether certain unaccompanied minors were safe, and they wanted to help. City leaders say Bonta’s guidance turned that request into a legal trap, raising the risk that officers could inadvertently violate SB 54. That warning is now a focal point in the city’s broader lawsuit challenging California’s sanctuary rules.
Councilman Steve Goble says a February 2025 briefing from Homeland Security flagged dozens of unaccompanied minors with local addresses, and federal staff asked whether local police could conduct welfare checks. Goble says his office sought clarity from the attorney general before sending officers, because the city wanted to act on child-safety concerns rather than immigration enforcement. The tension came down to whether safety checks could be done without running afoul of state law.
I’M A MAYOR TRYING TO FOLLOW LAW BUT CALIFORNIA IS MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR COPS “It’s kind of hard to imagine why they’re choosing this hill to die on,” Mayor Bill Wells said, pushing back against the state’s position. He argued that prioritizing a political narrative over immediate child safety looks callous and forces police into impossible choices. For El Cajon, the concern is practical: officers should be able to check on kids without being turned into immigration agents.
Goble’s March 2025 letter to the attorney general stressed urgency, citing inspector general warnings that unaccompanied minors face heightened risks of trafficking and exploitation. He wrote that time is of the essence if these children are at risk, and that local officials need a clear path to act. The city emphasized it sought to protect kids “regardless of citizenship or resident status.”
Bonta’s office replied in June 2025, warning that welfare checks “alongside or based on information provided by federal immigration authorities” could implicate conduct barred by SB 54. The attorney general’s letter said problems could arise if officers confirmed location data from ICE or relayed check results back to federal authorities. That warning tightened the legal leash on what local police felt they could safely do.
The lawsuit filed April 28, 2026, asks a court to block the state from enforcing sanctuary laws against El Cajon while the case proceeds, arguing those laws are preempted by federal immigration responsibilities. The city’s injunction motion pointed to the Goble-Bonta exchange as an example of how sanctuary rules interfere with “basic public safety work.” “Every time an El Cajon police officer steps out onto the street, they’re going to be breaking one of two laws,” Wells warned, underscoring the dilemma officers face.
Bonta’s office said it shared concerns about child safety and suggested county social-services agencies might step in when no criminal activity is suspected. Wells and Goble rejected that as unrealistic after San Diego County limited its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement in late 2024. “That means we’re not going to let our social service workers go do welfare checks on unaccompanied minors for the Department of Homeland Security,” Goble said, pointing out there’s no neutral fallback.
Advocates for immigrant rights argue ICE wellness checks can blur into enforcement and frighten sponsors away, a worry many critics raise. But El Cajon leaders say the practical fact remains: children flagged by federal authorities need timely welfare checks and there should not be legal roadblocks. The city insists officers can visit homes to confirm safety without reporting immigration violations.
“That doesn’t make us federal immigration officers,” Wells said, arguing for ordinary policing to continue as it always has. “All a welfare check on anybody in our city, regardless of immigration status, is: Are they okay?” Goble added that the goal is simple: ensure children are safe, then move on. The lawsuit is aimed at reclaiming that basic authority for local police so they can act without fearing state penalties.
