Newsom Acts on Last of 1,160 Bills in His Final Session, Including 'No Kings Act' Allowing Lawsuits Against Federal Officers
California's term-limited governor signed SB 747 on Sept. 29. The law creates a state-law right to sue federal, state or local officers for violating the U.S. Constitution. Its author calls it a response to federal immigration enforcement. Newsom's last bill, a $7.5 billion research bond, followed on Sept. 30.
A Bridge, a Bond, and a Fight Over Who Can Be Sued
Gavin Newsom closed out his time as governor the way he spent much of this year: on top of something. On Sept. 30, 2026, he stood at the top of the Golden Gate Bridge and signed Senate Bill 895, a $7.5 billion bond for science and health research headed to the March 2028 ballot[2]. It was the 1,160th and final bill of his 2025-26 legislative session[2]. But the signature that drew the real fight came the day before, in a much plainer setting, on a bill called the "No Kings Act."
Senate Bill 747 does something narrow on paper and sweeping in effect. It lets a person sue a federal, state, or local officer for money damages if that officer violates the U.S. Constitution[8][5]. It covers conduct going back to March 1, 2025, and it took effect the moment Newsom signed it[8]. Within hours, three U.S. citizens who say immigration agents detained them wrongly added claims under the new law to lawsuits they'd already filed[6][12]. That speed was not an accident. Lawyers had been waiting for this bill.
Why a Citizen Beaten by a Local Cop Can Sue, and One Beaten by a Federal Agent Often Can't
To see what SB 747 is trying to fix, you need to understand a gap in the law that most people never run into. If a city police officer violates your constitutional rights, you can typically sue under a federal civil rights statute passed in 1871. If a federal agent does the same thing, your options are much thinner.
That second path runs through something called a Bivens action, named after a 1971 Supreme Court case that let a man sue federal narcotics agents who searched his apartment without a warrant[14]. For decades, courts treated this as a workable tool. Then the Supreme Court changed course. Starting in the 1980s, the Court has refused again and again to extend Bivens to new situations, leaving many people harmed by federal agents with no federal damages claim at all[14][8].
Supporters of SB 747 call the result "de facto immunity" — not a legal rule saying federal agents can't be sued, but a practical one, since the main tool for suing them has been hollowed out[8]. Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who wrote the bill, says he's simply giving people a way to enforce rights the Constitution already promises them, and holding federal officers to the same standard local police already face[4][22]. SB 747 does not touch federal law. It creates a brand-new state-law claim that routes around the Bivens gap entirely[8].
The Defense That Decides Who Actually Wins
Here's the part that complicates the celebration on both sides: SB 747 leaves qualified immunity fully intact[13]. This is the legal doctrine that shields officers from paying damages unless an earlier court case already established, in a closely matching fact pattern, that the specific conduct was illegal.
Defenders of qualified immunity say it protects officers who have to make split-second calls in legally gray situations from being personally ruined by a lawsuit. Critics say it lets clear abuses go unpunished whenever no past case happened to match the facts closely enough. Either way, it's the gatekeeper. Plaintiffs under the new law still have to clear that same bar, which is why the libertarian magazine Reason summarized the new right with a note of caution: good luck getting past qualified immunity[13]. Even some supporters acknowledge that many of the new claims may still fail for this reason[13].
That tension cuts against both the loudest praise and the loudest alarm. The law genuinely creates a remedy that didn't exist in state court before. It just doesn't guarantee that remedy will work.
Who's Actually Driving This, and What It's Worth to Them
Wiener wrote the bill in 2025, during a stretch of aggressive federal immigration operations and what his office describes as a federal takeover of law enforcement functions in Los Angeles[13]. For Newsom, folding SB 747 into a signing spree of 21 immigration-related bills on a single day caps a year spent positioning California as the leading state counterweight to the Trump administration[1][20][9].
The federal government has its own institutional stake, separate from any immigration policy debate. The Department of Homeland Security has argued, in disputes over earlier California laws aimed at federal officers, that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause means states can't burden how federal agents do federal work[16]. Under that reasoning, a state law exposing agents to personal lawsuits could make them hesitate during lawful arrests or invite harassment suits. I found no DHS or DOJ statement specifically addressing SB 747; the agency's Supremacy Clause argument comes from a November 2025 statement about California's mask laws for officers, a separate dispute[16].
One more bill signed the same day sharpens the stakes further. Written by Assemblymember Matt Haney, it imposes a 25% tax on the gross income of for-profit companies that run immigration detention centers[9]. It's a reminder that the day's package went beyond lawsuits into the economics of enforcement itself.
A "First" That Four Other States Already Claimed
Wiener's office and allies have branded the law the "No Kings Act" and called it a first-in-the-nation measure[4][22]. The bill's own major backer undercuts that label. Protect Democracy, the advocacy group that helped push SB 747, says New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and Massachusetts all passed similar laws earlier in 2026[7]. California is the fifth state to do this, not the first, by the backers' own count.
That gap shows up in how outlets covered the story. Right-leaning sites like Breitbart and Liberty One News shrank the law to "making it easier to sue ICE agents," largely skipping over the fact that it covers state and local officers too, and they didn't dwell on the qualified-immunity hurdle that could blunt it[11]. Left-leaning outlets, including the San Francisco Chronicle, KQED, and Davis Vanguard, led with accountability for ICE and passed along the "first-in-the-nation" framing without much scrutiny[5][9][8]. A Justia Verdict legal commentary offered a different split: it argued SB 747 itself is constitutionally sound, while criticizing other bills in the same immigration package for more directly regulating federal operations[15].
What Happens Next Depends on Judges, Not Governors
The law is already live, and the first claims are already filed[6]. Whether it survives is now a question for federal courts, which will have to decide whether a state can create a damages claim against federal officers for violating the U.S. Constitution. Four other states took the same approach earlier in 2026, so whatever courts decide in one case is likely to ripple into the rest[7].
Newsom's other final-days bills move on a calmer timeline. SB 868 makes California the 10th state to legalize small "balcony" solar panels, plug-in systems up to 1,200 watts that don't require a utility interconnection agreement, costing between $300 and $2,200[17][18]. Those systems are expected to hit the California market in mid-2027[17]. Unlike SB 747, nobody expects that one to end up in front of a judge.
Summary
California Gov. Gavin Newsom finished acting on bills from his last legislative session on Sept. 30, 2026. His final signature put a $7.5 billion science and health research bond on the March 2028 ballot. It was the last of 1,160 bills acted on during the 2025-26 session[2]. Newsom is term-limited and in his final year in office[1]. In the closing days he also signed laws on child marriage, competition, local news and other topics[1][3]. One of them, SB 868, makes California the 10th state to allow small 'balcony' solar panels that plug into a wall outlet[17][18].
The most contested signing was Senate Bill 747, which its author calls the 'No Kings Act.' Newsom signed it on Tuesday, Sept. 29. It was one of 21 bills about immigration enforcement signed that day[9]. The law lets a person sue any federal, state or local officer for money damages over a violation of the U.S. Constitution. It covers violations on or after March 1, 2025, and it took effect immediately[8][5]. Within hours, three U.S. citizens who had been detained by immigration agents added claims under the new law to their existing lawsuits[6][12].
The main dispute is about what the law really does. Its author, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), and backers such as Protect Democracy say it closes a gap. Under their account, the Supreme Court has nearly shut down the old federal path for suing federal agents, while state and local police can still be sued[4][7]. Critics on the right describe it as a tool to target ICE agents[11]. The federal government has argued in court that earlier California laws on federal officers violate the Supremacy Clause[16]. Even some supporters note that qualified immunity still applies, so many suits may fail anyway[13].
The Event
On Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2026, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 21 immigration-related bills, among them SB 747, the 'No Kings Act'[9][5]. SB 747 took effect on signing. Within hours, three plaintiffs amended their lawsuits against immigration officers to add claims under it[6][12]. On Sept. 30, Newsom signed SB 868 on balcony solar[17]. He then signed SB 895, a research bond, on top of the Golden Gate Bridge, the last of 1,160 bills acted on in the 2025-26 session[2].
Undisputed Facts
- Newsom signed SB 747, written by Sen. Scott Wiener, on Sept. 29, 2026, as part of a group of 21 immigration-related bills[5][9].
- SB 747 creates a state-law claim for money damages against federal, state or local officers who violate the U.S. Constitution. It covers conduct on or after March 1, 2025[8].
- The law does not remove qualified immunity. It sets a two-year deadline to file a lawsuit[13].
- Three U.S. citizens who had been arrested and detained by immigration agents amended their lawsuits to add No Kings Act claims within hours of the signing[6][12].
- Protect Democracy, the group that backed the bill, says New York, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts passed similar laws earlier in 2026[7].
- Another bill in the same package, by Assemblymember Matt Haney, puts a 25% tax on the gross income of for-profit companies that run immigration detention centers[9].
- SB 868 allows plug-in solar systems of up to 1,200 watts per household without a utility interconnection agreement. California is the 10th state to allow such systems[17][18].
- SB 895, a $7.5 billion research bond headed to the March 2028 ballot, was the last of 1,160 bills acted on during the 2025-26 session[2].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- The narrowing of Bivens
- Since the 1980s the Supreme Court has refused to extend Bivens suits to most new situations. So people harmed by federal agents often have no federal claim for damages. That gap is the legal opening SB 747 is built on[14][8].
- Federal supremacy over immigration
- Immigration enforcement is a federal job. The federal government has repeatedly gone to court, arguing that California laws aimed at federal officers violate the Supremacy Clause[16].
- Qualified immunity as the real gatekeeper
- Here is how qualified immunity works. An officer is shielded from paying damages unless earlier court rulings made it 'clearly established' that the specific conduct was illegal. Supporters of the defense say it protects officers who make split-second decisions in gray areas from personal ruin. Critics say it lets clear abuses go unpaid because no earlier case matched the facts closely enough. SB 747 left the defense in place, so it decides many cases no matter which way the federal-power fight goes[13].
- End-of-term legacy building
- Newsom is term-limited, and these were the last bills of his tenure. That raises the political value of high-profile signings[1][2].
Material realityThe law is in force now, and the first claims under it have been filed[6]. Whether it survives depends on federal courts. They will have to decide whether a state can create a damages claim against federal officers for violating the U.S. Constitution. One commentary argues it can. Federal officials have argued against similar state reach in other cases[15][16]. Four other states took the same route in 2026, so the courts' answer will apply well beyond California[7]. Separately, balcony solar systems that meet the new standards are expected to go on sale in California in mid-2027. They cost between $300 and $2,200[17].
Narrative as a weaponWiener and Newsom's office are shaping coverage with the 'No Kings' brand and a 'first-in-the-nation' label[4][22]. Backers' own count, five states in 2026, undercuts that label[7]. Right-leaning outlets shrink the law to 'suing ICE agents' and leave out its reach to state and local police[11]. The assigned framing of this story also had premise problems. SB 747 was signed Sept. 29 and was not Newsom's final bill; that was SB 895 on Sept. 30[2]. The law covers 'any person' and any level of government, not just Californians suing federal agents[8]. And 'direct response to Trump administration tactics' is the author's stated motive, not neutral fact[13].
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asTheir core argument is equal treatment under the law. A person beaten by a city police officer can sue. A person beaten by a federal agent, they say, often cannot, because the Supreme Court has narrowed what are called Bivens suits[4][14]. A 'Bivens action' is a right to sue federal agents that judges inferred from the Constitution in 1971. The Court has since refused to extend it to most new situations. Supporters say this leaves federal officers with 'de facto immunity,' meaning they cannot be sued in practice even for deliberate violations[8]. Wiener says his law only gives a remedy for rights the Constitution already guarantees. In his words, it holds federal officers to the same standard as local police[4][22].
WhyWiener wrote the bill in 2025 after federal immigration operations and the federal takeover in Los Angeles[13]. For Newsom, the package caps a final year spent positioning California as the leading counterweight to the Trump administration[1][20].
Impact on themThe law gives Democrats a concrete accountability measure to show voters. It also invites a likely court fight with the federal government. If courts strike it down, its practical effect may be small[13][15].
Frames it asIn past disputes over California laws on federal officers, DHS has argued that 'California does not control federal law enforcement.' It says such laws violate the Supremacy Clause, the part of the Constitution that makes valid federal law override conflicting state law[16]. Under that view, states cannot burden how federal agents do federal work. Threatening agents with personal money damages under state law, the argument goes, could make them hesitate during lawful arrests. It could also expose them to harassment suits[16]. I found no federal statement aimed specifically at SB 747 as of this writing.
WhyTo keep immigration enforcement fast and centrally controlled, and to stop a model now adopted by five states from spreading[7][16].
Impact on themAgents in California face possible personal lawsuits, though qualified immunity still applies, and the federal government would likely defend them. The DOJ has already sued over earlier California laws, such as the mask rules[16].
Frames it asThey say a right with no remedy is not a real right. The three citizens who sued right away are offered as proof that the gap is real and current[6][7]. Protect Democracy places the law within a multistate effort to restore a 'universal remedy,' not a California-only gesture[7].
WhyTo create a working path to damages and to build pressure for Congress to pass a federal version[7].
Impact on themPlaintiffs still have to show the officer violated a 'clearly established' right. Under that qualified-immunity test, which comes from the Supreme Court case Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), many claims fail early[13].
Frames it asSome commentators say this act is legally sound but criticize other bills in the same package. In their view, those bills directly regulate federal operations, which states cannot do[15]. Other skeptics say the law changes little in practice. Qualified immunity was left in place, so officers win unless a court has already ruled that nearly identical conduct is illegal[13].
WhyTo keep the debate focused on what courts will actually allow, not on headline symbolism[13][15].
Impact on themTheir analysis shapes how judges and the public weigh the law's real reach[15].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.7
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fox LA | U.S. center (local TV, Fox-owned station) | 2 | 3 Californians amend immigration lawsuits after 'No Kings Act' signed into law | A plain, case-focused headline. It reports what happened in court without loaded labels. |
| San Francisco Chronicle | U.S. center-left | 4 | It just got easier to sue an ICE officer under raft of immigration bills signed by Newsom | Focuses on ICE and the speed of the first lawsuits. It is factual, but it leaves the federal legal objections mostly offstage. |
| KQED | U.S. center-left (public broadcaster) | 4 | Newsom Signs Bills to Rein In Trump Immigration Efforts | 'Rein in' adopts the supporters' framing of what the bills do. The body is a straight list of what was signed. |
| SFist | U.S. left (local) | 5 | Newsom Signs Laws That Will Tax Detention Centers, Make It Easier to Sue ICE Agents | Puts the detention tax and the lawsuit law together in the headline as twin wins, with little space for opposing views. |
| Breitbart | U.S. right | 6 | CA Gov. Newsom Signs 'No Kings Act,' Making It Easier to Sue ICE Agents | Narrows a law that covers all officers down to 'ICE agents,' and frames it as part of a fight against immigration enforcement, not as a civil-rights remedy. |
| Liberty One News | U.S. right | 6 | Newsom Signs 'No Kings Act,' Opening Door to Lawsuits Against ICE Agents in California | 'Opening door' suggests a flood of suits, without mentioning the qualified-immunity limits. |
| Davis Vanguard | U.S. left (criminal-justice reform advocacy) | 6 | California's No Kings Act Targets Federal Officials for Constitutional Abuses | 'Constitutional abuses' treats alleged violations as settled. The piece leans heavily on the backers' 'de facto immunity' language. |
References
- What bills did Gavin Newsom sign into law — or veto — in his final year leading California? — CalMatters · Nonprofit California newsroom, foundation-funded; generally center-left in audience
- At the top of the Golden Gate Bridge, Governor Newsom signs his final bill — Office of the Governor of California · Official government source (Democratic administration)
- Governor Newsom issues legislative update 9.30.2026 — Office of the Governor of California · Official government source (Democratic administration)
- California Authorizes People To Sue ICE, Border Patrol For Constitutional Violations Under New Law By Senator Wiener — Office of Sen. Scott Wiener · Bill author's press office (Democrat)
- It just got easier to sue an ICE officer under raft of immigration bills signed by Newsom — San Francisco Chronicle · Hearst-owned metro daily; center-left editorial page
- 3 Californians sue ICE officers hours after Newsom signs bill greenlighting lawsuits — San Francisco Chronicle · Hearst-owned metro daily; center-left editorial page
- Protect Democracy applauds Governor Newsom's signing of the No Kings Act — Protect Democracy · Advocacy group that backed the bill; founded by former Obama administration lawyers
- California's No Kings Act Targets Federal Officials for Constitutional Abuses — Davis Vanguard · Criminal-justice reform advocacy outlet, left-leaning
- Newsom Signs Bills to Rein In Trump Immigration Efforts — KQED · Public broadcaster (NPR/PBS member), center-left audience
- Newsom Signs Laws That Will Tax Detention Centers, Make It Easier to Sue ICE Agents — SFist · Local San Francisco digital outlet, left-leaning
- CA Gov. Newsom Signs 'No Kings Act,' Making It Easier to Sue ICE Agents — Breitbart · Right-wing, pro-Trump digital outlet
- 3 Californians amend immigration lawsuits after 'No Kings Act' signed into law — Fox LA · Local TV station owned by Fox Corp.; local newsroom, roughly center
- You Can Now Sue Federal Agents in California. Good Luck Getting Past Qualified Immunity. — Reason · Libertarian magazine; skeptical of both expansive immigration enforcement and expansive qualified immunity; original publisher of the piece (republished on Yahoo News)
- SB 747 (Wiener) Senate Judiciary Committee analysis: Civil rights: deprivation of federal constitutional rights — California Senate Judiciary Committee · Official legislative staff analysis (Democratic-majority committee)
- One Step Forward and Two Steps Back: The California Legislature's Passage of the "No Kings" Act, the "Get the Feds Out" Act, and the "Shock Gloves" Measure — Justia Verdict · Legal commentary by law professors; favors the No Kings Act but criticizes the other measures
- DHS Applauds White House Lawsuit Against California's Unconstitutional Anti-Cop Legislation That Endangers Federal Law Enforcement — U.S. Department of Homeland Security · Official federal source (Trump administration); Nov. 2025, about California's earlier mask laws, not SB 747
- California officially legalizes balcony solar, opening the market to the new technology — LAist · Public radio (Southern California Public Radio), center-left audience
- California is 10th state to legalize balcony solar — Solar Power World · Solar-industry trade publication
- Newsom signs new California laws to rein in immigration agents — CalMatters · Nonprofit California newsroom, foundation-funded; generally center-left in audience
- Newsom signs first-in-the-nation bills targeting federal immigration enforcement in California — ABC10 · Local TV (Sacramento, Tegna-owned), roughly center