How did law enforcement and federal agencies respond to California AB 60 after it took effect in 2015?

1. The headline claims — what people asserted after AB 60 took effect

Supporters and opponents made competing claims about AB 60’s effects. Proponents argued the law would improve road safety and increase insurance coverage by bringing undocumented drivers into the licensing and testing regime; the DMV’s surge in applicants and early state commentary framed this as a safety and administrative success ^{[1] [5]}. Opponents warned that issuing licenses to those without legal presence could create security risks and complicate identity verification; critics specifically flagged the potential for federal access to DMV records and questioned whether foreign identity documents could be reliably validated ^{[5] [4]}. Policy documents and guidance published in the months and years after enactment sought to reconcile those claims by clarifying permissible uses of AB 60 licenses and the limits of state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement ^{[2] [3]}.

2. How state and local law enforcement were told to act — balancing public safety and limits on immigration cooperation

California issued binding and advisory guidance directing local law enforcement not to use AB 60 licenses as a basis for immigration investigation or detention absent specified exceptions, and to prioritize public-safety functions such as traffic enforcement and crash prevention ^{[2] [5]}. The California Values Act and related statutes and bulletins reaffirmed that state and local agencies must not use resources to investigate or detain people for immigration enforcement, while carving exceptions for judicial warrants and certain serious-felony convictions; this framework emphasized protecting community trust in reporting crimes and traffic safety ^[2]. Law enforcement leaders also publicly linked licensing to improved road safety citing DMV research that unlicensed drivers are likelier to cause fatal collisions, a point used to justify broad acceptance of AB 60 within California policing practices ^[5]. These state-level directions did not eliminate all practical concerns about identity verification and cross-jurisdictional enforcement, but they established a clear statutory posture within California ^{[2] [5]}.

3. Federal agencies and employers — acceptance, limits, and procedural guidance

Federal and federal-adjacent actors provided targeted clarifications: USCIS told employers that an AB 60 license could function as a List B identity document for Form I-9 purposes where it otherwise met identifying-information requirements, while cautioning that the license’s federal-notice notation does not automatically create employment eligibility and that discrimination rules apply ^{[3] [6]}. At the same time, federal authorities stressed that state-issued licenses bearing a “not valid for federal purposes” notation could be treated differently for security-sensitive contexts, like federal facility access or airline security, underscoring a split between state acceptance for driving and federal limits for identification ^{[7] [3]}. These federal advisories were intended to reduce employer confusion and to prevent unlawful discrimination, while preserving federal prerogatives over immigration enforcement and national-security-related identification standards ^{[3] [6]}.

4. Data sharing, privacy concerns, and the evolving REAL ID landscape

A recurring factual thread was that the DMV shares driver records with federal agencies under established channels, and AB 60 did not create a firewall against all federal access: the DMV supplies information via Government Requester Accounts and statewide systems, and federal agencies have used administrative subpoenas to obtain license applications—though the DMV reported limiting disclosure of application documents and redacting certain data ^[4]. California law and subsequent DOJ bulletins sought to limit active cooperation in immigration enforcement and to make ICE contact with detainees more transparent, but they did not prevent federal agencies from seeking DMV records under federal law, nor did they change federal statutes like 8 U.S.C. § 1373 ^{[2] [4]}. At the national level, DHS later offered a phased approach to REAL ID card enforcement to mitigate operational impacts and public disruption, leaving room for continued coordination and tension between state licensing practices and federal identification standards ^[8].

5. The practical aftermath — who felt safer, who stayed cautious, and why this matters now

Empirical and administrative accounts show AB 60 increased licensed driving among unauthorized immigrants and likely shifted commuting patterns and road safety metrics, supporting the state’s safety rationale ^{[9] [1]}. Yet advocates and legal advisers continued to warn applicants—especially those with prior deportation orders or criminal convictions—to seek counsel because DMV records can be accessed by law enforcement and federal authorities, creating potential immigration risks for some applicants ^{[5] [4]}. The cumulative response combined state-level limits on enforcement cooperation, federal procedural clarifications for employers, and ongoing debates about privacy and data sharing, producing a layered policy reality rather than a single agreed narrative ^{[2] [3] [4]}.