ACR 98 is a short Assembly concurrent resolution that condemns violent interference with a June 6, 2025 federal immigration operation in the City of Los Angeles and attributes the incident to California’s sanctuary-state policies. The measure explicitly criticizes Governor Gavin Newsom for his response and asks the Governor to take action to restore public order and to support full cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement.
Because this is a concurrent resolution, it does not create new criminal penalties or change state statutes; its immediate effect is political and rhetorical. The resolution matters to law enforcement executives, local officials, and policy teams because it publicly frames sanctuary policies as a cause of operational risk and seeks to alter the public narrative and administrative posture around intergovernmental cooperation on immigration enforcement.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution formally condemns a specified violent incident during a federal immigration enforcement operation and urges the Governor to take steps to restore public order and support cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement. It also urges an end to policies the Legislature characterizes as obstructing lawful immigration enforcement.
Who It Affects
State and local elected officials, the Governor’s office, municipal governments with so-called sanctuary policies, California law enforcement agencies, and federal immigration authorities are the primary audiences. Immigrant communities and advocacy organizations are also implicated because the resolution addresses the legal and operational environment around immigration enforcement.
Why It Matters
ACR 98 is a formal legislative statement that could increase political pressure on executive and local actors to change enforcement posture or interagency cooperation. Even though it has no force of law, the resolution signals the Legislature’s stance and can influence administrative decisions, public messaging, and resource prioritization around immigration operations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
ACR 98 recounts a specific incident on June 6, 2025, in Los Angeles where federal officers conducting immigration enforcement were attacked, and it explicitly links that incident to California’s existing sanctuary-state framework. The resolution’s text uses a series of 'whereas' clauses to present the Legislature’s factual narrative: that sanctuary policies limit cooperation, create communication gaps, and thereby increase risks to operational safety.
The operative language is two short 'resolved' clauses. First, the Legislature expresses condemnation of the attacks and directs that policies obstructing immigration enforcement should end.
Second, it urges the Governor to act to restore order and to support full cooperation among law enforcement at all levels. The resolution does not specify what actions the Governor should take, nor does it define the statutory or regulatory changes it envisions.Practically, ACR 98 is a political instrument.
Because it is a concurrent resolution it does not alter criminal law, modify state statutes, or impose new obligations on local agencies. Its primary mechanisms are public denouncement and political pressure: it aims to shift the public narrative, encourage executive action, and justify further legislative or administrative measures.
The text also assigns blame — naming the Governor — which can shape interbranch relations and public expectations without producing immediate legal effects.
The Five Things You Need to Know
ACR 98 is a concurrent resolution—a nonbinding legislative statement that does not change criminal or civil law or create regulatory duties.
The resolution alleges a specific violent incident on June 6, 2025, in the City of Los Angeles where federal immigration officers were 'violently attacked' while conducting enforcement operations.
The text attributes the underlying cause of the incident to California's 'sanctuary state' policies, saying those policies create communication gaps and embolden interference.
The operative requests: the Legislature condemns the attacks, calls for an immediate end to policies it views as obstructive to immigration enforcement, and urges the Governor to restore order and support full intergovernmental cooperation.
The bill’s digest flags Fiscal Committee review (Fiscal Committee: YES) and lists Assembly Members Gallagher and Ellis as primary sponsors with several coauthors named in the document.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings and narrative framing
This opening block of 'whereas' statements sets out the Legislature’s version of events and causal analysis: it identifies the June 6 incident in Los Angeles, describes violent interference with federal officers, and blames California’s sanctuary policies and the Governor’s response. These clauses matter because they function as the Legislature’s factual record—useful for public messaging and for justifying subsequent calls to action—yet they are not adjudicative findings and carry no legal force.
Condemnation and demand for policy reversal
The first resolved paragraph condemns the attacks and 'calls for an immediate end to policies that obstruct lawful immigration enforcement.' That language is broad and undefined: it names a policy target but does not identify specific statutes, regulations, or local ordinances to be repealed or amended. Practically, this creates political pressure rather than a compliance trigger because there is no mechanism in the resolution to implement or enforce such an 'end.'
Urging executive action and interagency cooperation
The second resolved paragraph urges the Governor to take action to 'restore law and order' and to support 'full cooperation' between federal, state, and local law enforcement. This asks the executive branch to change administrative behavior and posture, but because the Legislature cannot compel the Governor through a concurrent resolution, the clause functions as advocacy. It may, however, influence executive priorities, directives, or public statements.
Sponsors, coauthors, and fiscal referral
The bill lists named sponsors and several coauthors and shows the legislative counsel’s digest and a Fiscal Committee referral (noting 'Fiscal Committee: YES'). This procedural metadata indicates the resolution passed administrative filters for committee consideration and that fiscal implications were at least flagged, even though the resolution itself contains no appropriation or explicit funding instructions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal immigration enforcement agencies — they receive a formal statement of legislative support and a public narrative that legitimizes requests for greater cooperation from state and local partners.
- State and local law enforcement leaders favoring cooperative operations — the resolution strengthens their political case to pursue interagency arrangements or to push back against sanctuary policies.
- Legislators sponsoring the measure and their constituencies — sponsors gain a public platform to demonstrate a tough-on-immigration enforcement stance, which can mobilize supporters and shape local debates.
Who Bears the Cost
- The Governor’s office — the resolution explicitly criticizes the Governor by name, increasing political pressure and potentially constraining executive messaging or bargaining space with local officials.
- Cities and counties that maintain sanctuary-style policies — they face heightened legislative and public scrutiny, which can lead to political conflict or demands for policy reversal even without a legal mechanism forcing change.
- Immigrant communities and advocacy organizations — the resolution’s framing may contribute to an environment favoring expanded cooperation with federal enforcement, which can increase risk of civil immigration enforcement actions and chill community cooperation with local authorities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between two legitimate aims that pull in opposite directions: reducing threats to officer safety via stronger intergovernmental cooperation, and preserving local autonomy and community trust that sanctuary policies seek to protect. A purely symbolic resolution can press for one side without resolving the trade-offs—cooperation can improve operational safety but can also erode trust with immigrant communities that local public-safety strategies rely on.
ACR 98 is primarily symbolic. Its substantive impact depends on how executive and local officials respond to the political pressure it creates.
The resolution asserts causation—linking sanctuary-style policies to operational violence—without evidentiary findings or specificity about which policies are responsible. That vagueness makes the measure effective as a political tool but weak as a roadmap for policy change: it prompts questions about which statutes or local ordinances the Legislature expects to be ended, and who would enforce that change.
The resolution also raises implementation and coordination questions it does not resolve. Urging 'full cooperation' between federal, state, and local law enforcement collides with legal constraints (such as limits on state authority over federal immigration actions, privacy and civil-rights considerations, and local ordinances that restrict state-federal collaboration).
There is a practical resource gap: coordinated operations require training, memoranda of understanding, and funding—none of which the resolution addresses. Finally, the resolution’s strong partisan framing (explicitly naming the Governor) may harden executive-legislative relations and make negotiated, pragmatic fixes harder to achieve.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.