SB 1399 mandates reviews by the California Attorney General (or a designee) of county, local, and private locked detention facilities where noncitizens are held for civil immigration proceedings. The scope explicitly includes facilities that house accompanied or unaccompanied minors under contracts with the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The Department of Justice (DOJ) gets to choose which facilities are reviewed and the schedule for reviews.
The bill requires DOJ to report findings to the Governor and Legislature, post a comprehensive report on the Attorney General’s website, and provide updates through the state budget process. The statutory authority is temporary: the review regime is inoperative as of July 1, 2027 and repealed January 1, 2028.
The text contains internal date and drafting anomalies that raise implementation questions for counties, private contractors, and federal partners.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Attorney General to conduct on‑site reviews of locked facilities holding noncitizens for civil immigration purposes, with DOJ determining the order and number of sites. Reviews must examine conditions of confinement, standards of care and due process, and the circumstances of apprehension and transfer.
Who It Affects
County jails, local lockups, private detention contractors, facilities operating under ORR or ICE contracts that house minors, and DOJ staff responsible for inspection and reporting. The Legislature and Governor receive summaries and public posting of the findings.
Why It Matters
This creates a state-led, time‑limited oversight mechanism over immigration detention in California — including sites where federal contractors house minors — putting California’s DOJ between local/federal actors and public accountability without creating new enforcement penalties.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1399 charges the California Attorney General (or a designee) with performing reviews of locked detention facilities that house noncitizens for civil immigration proceedings. The statute defines the review universe broadly to include county, local, and private facilities and explicitly names facilities that house accompanied or unaccompanied minors under ORR or ICE contracts.
The Department of Justice decides which facilities will be inspected and in what order, giving the AG substantial discretion over scope and timing.
The bill lays out three review topics: conditions of confinement, standards of care and due process for detained noncitizens, and the circumstances surrounding individuals’ apprehension and transfer to the facility. DOJ must provide a comprehensive report of its findings to the Governor and Legislature and post that report on the Attorney General’s website.
In addition, the department must provide progress updates and written summaries through the state budget process.To carry out reviews, the AG is to be given “all necessary access,” including to detainees, staff, officials, and records. The statute ties the oversight to a clear, temporary timeline: the review authority operates until July 1, 2027, becomes inoperative on that date, and is repealed entirely as of January 1, 2028.
Notably, the bill text contains anachronistic deadlines (a repeated requirement to complete a review by March 1, 2019) and overlapping clauses that will require resolution before implementation.Operationally, the AG’s discretion over which facilities to inspect means DOJ can prioritize sites by risk, complaints, or capacity, but the statute does not provide criteria or minimum review frequency. The combination of a short statutory window and broad discretion will force DOJ to choose between depth at a few sites and shallow coverage of many.
The requirement to post reports and include summaries in the budget process creates transparency obligations, but the statute does not create enforcement remedies or penalties tied to findings.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The AG (or designee) must review county, local, and private locked facilities housing noncitizens, explicitly including facilities that hold accompanied or unaccompanied minors under ORR or ICE contracts.
The reviews must examine three core areas: conditions of confinement; standard of care and due process for detained noncitizens; and circumstances of apprehension and transfer to the facility.
DOJ determines the order and number of facilities to be reviewed and has sole authority to decide which facilities and when they are inspected.
The Attorney General must provide a comprehensive report to the Governor and Legislature, post the report on the AG’s website, and include progress summaries during the state budget process.
The review authority is temporary: it is inoperative on July 1, 2027, and the statute is repealed on January 1, 2028.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Scope: which facilities are subject to review
This section sets the review universe: any county, local, or private locked detention facility in California that houses noncitizens for civil immigration proceedings. It expressly captures facilities that house accompanied or unaccompanied minors under ORR or ICE contracts. Practically, that pulls in a mix of county jails, dedicated immigration facilities, and private contractor sites; it does not limit reviews to facilities owned by the state or to facilities with a particular capacity or security level.
DOJ discretion to select facilities and schedule reviews
Subdivision (a) gives the Department of Justice the power to determine the order and number of facilities reviewed and states that the Attorney General controls which facilities may be reviewed and when. This creates broad executive discretion without statutory criteria or minimum inspection frequencies, leaving prioritization (complaints, incident history, size, minors present) to DOJ policy and practice rather than to the statute.
Required review topics and reporting
Subdivision (b)(1) lists the substantive areas the AG must evaluate: conditions of confinement; standards of care and due process; and the circumstances of apprehension and transfer. Subdivision (b)(2) requires a comprehensive report to the Governor and Legislature, public posting on the AG’s website, and budget‑process updates. The bill therefore mandates both investigative work and public transparency but does not prescribe remediation steps or follow‑up oversight for identified deficiencies.
Access: detainees, personnel, and records
The statute requires facilities to provide the Attorney General 'all necessary access' for observations, explicitly including detainees, officials, personnel, and records. That language is broad and operationally significant: it anticipates onsite inspections, interviews, and records review. However, the bill is silent about how federal privacy rules, ongoing federal litigation, or contract terms with federal agencies will affect access to records and individuals.
Sunset and repeal
Subdivision (d) makes the review regime time‑limited: the section becomes inoperative on July 1, 2027 and is repealed January 1, 2028. The limited duration focuses the effort but also compresses the timeframe for DOJ to complete reviews, produce usable findings, and for any policy responses to be developed.
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
- Noncitizens detained in California locked facilities: the mandated reviews focus on conditions, care, due process, and transfer circumstances, which could surface deficiencies and lead to public scrutiny.
- Accompanied and unaccompanied minors housed by ORR/ICE contractors: inclusion in the statutory scope ensures state reviewers may inspect facilities that house minors under federal contracts.
- Civil rights and legal services organizations: public reports and posted findings give those groups evidence for advocacy, litigation, or targeted monitoring.
- California Legislature and Governor: the bill creates a structured source of information — comprehensive reports and budget‑process updates — to inform policymaking and oversight.
Who Bears the Cost
- County jails and local detention agencies: they will face onsite inspections, staff time for interviews, and records production, and may need to respond to findings without new state funding.
- Private detention contractors operating under ORR/ICE or county contracts: they must provide access and may incur compliance and reputational costs from published reports.
- Department of Justice (state): DOJ must allocate personnel and investigative resources to complete reviews within a compressed timetable and to prepare public reports and budget updates.
- California taxpayers and budget offices: the requirement to include progress and findings in the budget process adds workload to fiscal staff and could create unfunded operational demands for DOJ.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between California’s interest in conducting state‑level oversight of detention conditions — including sites housing minors under federal contracts — and the practical/legal limits of such oversight: federal immigration authorities and contractors control many operational aspects and records, and the statute gives the AG broad discretion but a short window and no enforcement tools, forcing a choice between rigorous reviews at a few sites or cursory coverage of many.
The statute contains several implementation challenges and unresolved questions. First, it gives DOJ wide discretion to choose which facilities to inspect and when, but it provides no prioritization criteria, minimum coverage, or frequency requirements; that raises predictable questions about how DOJ will allocate limited investigative resources and whether the results will be nationally or locally representative.
Second, the bill demands "all necessary access" to detainees, personnel, and records but does not grapple with federal preemption, privacy protections (HIPAA and immigration file confidentiality), or limits set by federal contracts with ORR/ICE — so practical access could be contested or narrowed in practice.
A striking drafting problem is the repeated reference to a March 1, 2019 deadline for conducting and reporting a review. That date is in the past and inconsistent with the bill’s 2026 context and its sunset provisions; it will require technical correction to avoid confusion about enforceable deadlines.
Finally, the statute mandates reporting and public posting but creates no statutory enforcement mechanism, remedial authority, or funding to act on identified harms; a transparency exercise without follow‑up may identify problems that the state cannot compel private contractors or federal partners to fix within the temporary window provided.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.