admin
The California Legislature just sent a provocative new law to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk. AB 1896, nicknamed the “Get the Feds Out” Act or the “GTFO Act,” would bar people who worked in federal immigration enforcement during the specified period from holding most state and local public jobs. This is no quiet policy tweak — it’s a full-on political statement with a likely highway of lawsuits waiting at the offramp.
What AB 1896 would do
Key provisions and who it targets
Assembly Majority Whip Mark González and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas pushed the measure through, and the enrolled bill is now awaiting the governor’s signature. AB 1896 would make anyone who “personally engaged in immigration enforcement” between January 20, 2025 and January 20, 2029 ineligible for state, county, or local public employment in California. The bill requires hiring forms to ask about prior immigration work, orders background checks tied to news reports or complaints, and directs the state’s peace‑officer standards board to create a “suitability” rule by January 1, 2028. It’s written to kick in later, but the targeting is immediate and specific.
A constitutional landmine
Federal preemption and legal headaches
This is where the fireworks start. The state is trying to regulate hiring standards to punish federal service — and that runs headlong into federal preemption and intergovernmental immunity questions. If AB 1896 becomes law, expect rapid litigation arguing that California cannot single out federal employees for punitive treatment or effectively penalize service to the federal government. Courts will also have to answer how an agency proves someone “personally engaged” in federal enforcement. That sounds less like careful lawmaking and more like inviting an expensive courtroom scavenger hunt.
Practical fallout for California communities
Beyond the legal drama, the bill creates real problems for public safety and state staffing. Police departments, schools, social services, and courts already struggle to hire. Now agencies must police their own recruiting, parse news reports and social media for “evidence,” and potentially turn away qualified applicants on politically charged grounds. The companion measures in the package — a ban on law‑enforcement moonlighting for federal immigration work and a restriction on certain use‑of‑force tools — underline the political theater here. This isn’t careful public‑policy design; it’s virtue signaling with operational costs.
The governor’s choice — common sense or political applause?
Governor Gavin Newsom now has the final call: sign, veto, or do the bureaucratic dance and let it become law without a signature. If he signs, California will likely be headline fodder and litigant central — lawsuits will arrive faster than the bill’s promised “suitability” rules. If he vetoes it, he risks angering the bill’s backers, but he spares the state a costly constitutional fight and the practical headaches that come with enforcing a politically selective hiring ban. Either way, AB 1896 is a blunt reminder that policy should be about public safety and law, not one‑sided political theater. If Sacramento wants to protect communities, there are smarter, less legally risky ways to do it than a law that reads like a campaign slogan in statute form.
