The City of El Cajon has filed a lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, arguing that the state's sanctuary laws prevent local police from conducting welfare checks on unaccompanied migrant children without risking violations of state law. The April 28 complaint asks a San Diego County court to declare California's sanctuary restrictions invalid and to stop enforcement of those laws against El Cajon police.

The dispute centers on a June 2025 letter from Bonta's office warning that local law enforcement pursuing wellness checks alongside or based on information provided by federal immigration authorities could implicate conduct prohibited by SB 54, known as the California Values Act. The letter said violations could occur if officers confirmed location information provided by ICE or reported check results back to federal immigration authorities.

What the Right Is Saying

City officials in El Cajon say the state's position leaves vulnerable children unchecked and puts local police in an impossible legal position. Mayor Bill Wells told Fox News Digital that California is prioritizing its sanctuary narrative over child safety. "These are real people. These are real children," Wells said. "I think it's an incredibly insensitive argument."

City Councilman Steve Goble, who corresponded with Bonta's office about the welfare checks, said he was informed during a February 2025 meeting with San Diego-area Homeland Security officials that federal authorities had identified 52 unaccompanied migrant children with addresses in El Cajon. Federal officials asked whether local police could help ensure these children were safe.

Goble told Fox News Digital the city was not asking officers to act as immigration agents but simply wanted to confirm child welfare. "All I care about is, is the kid safe?" Goble said. "I don't care the immigration status or citizen status of anybody else in the room." He argued that California is choosing an unnecessary legal battle over basic child protection.

Wells said El Cajon officers face a no-win scenario under current state policy: "Every time an El Cajon police officer steps out onto the street, they're going to be breaking one of two laws. They're either going to be breaking federal law or they're going to be breaking state law."

What the Left Is Saying

Progressive advocates and Democratic officials argue that California's sanctuary laws exist to protect immigrant communities and encourage cooperation between local police and residents regardless of immigration status. They note that Bonta's office stated it shares concern for children who may be at risk of harm, suggesting county social services remain available as an alternative pathway for child welfare checks.

Supporters of SB 54 contend the law was designed to ensure that immigrant communities do not fear approaching local police for help, and that expanding federal immigration enforcement through local officers undermines public safety overall. They argue there are ways to address child welfare concerns without creating pathways for deportation or detention.

Civil liberties groups have long maintained that sanctuary policies reduce fear among immigrant populations about interacting with law enforcement, making communities safer overall. They argue that using police as conduits for federal immigration data creates a chilling effect on crime reporting within immigrant neighborhoods.

What the Numbers Show

SB 54, California's Values Act, restricts local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities and limits when officers can transfer individuals to federal custody or respond to immigration-related inquiries.

In Goble's March 2025 letter requesting guidance from Bonta's office, he cited inspector general concerns that unaccompanied minors face heightened risks of trafficking, exploitation, and forced labor. The letter emphasized that "time is of the essence" in determining whether flagged children were safe.

El Cajon's May 20 motion for a preliminary injunction asks the court to temporarily block Bonta from enforcing SB 54, the TRUST Act, and the TRUTH Act against El Cajon while the case proceeds. The city argues these policies are preempted by federal immigration law and force officers into impossible legal choices between state restrictions and federal obligations.

The welfare-check dispute represents one component of a broader legal challenge that also targets California's TRUST Act and TRUTH Act in addition to SB 54.

The Bottom Line

El Cajon's lawsuit raises fundamental questions about the boundaries of sanctuary policies when child welfare is at stake. A San Diego County court will now consider whether California's restrictions on local-federal immigration cooperation conflict with federal obligations or create unreasonable barriers to basic public safety functions.

The case could set a precedent for how other California jurisdictions balance sanctuary commitments with situations involving vulnerable populations, particularly unaccompanied minors who may lack other advocates. The outcome may also influence how state legislators approach potential amendments to SB 54 and related laws.

Bonta's office has maintained it shares concern for at-risk children while arguing that the city's proposed approach would effectively weaponize welfare checks as immigration enforcement tools. Both sides agree unaccompanied migrant children deserve protection; they disagree on whether using federal-provided information in local police checks represents an appropriate method to provide it.