What specific provisions does California’s SB 54 and Washington’s 2019 sanctuary law contain, word-for-word, and how have they been implemented?
Executive summary
California’s SB 54 (the California Values Act) is a statutory framework that restricts use of state and local resources for most immigration enforcement, creates privacy limits on information-sharing, and mandates reporting and guidance from the Attorney General; the official bill text and state guidance supply the operative language for those duties and exceptions [1] [2]. Reporting and academic audits show broad statewide adoption with pockets of outdated or non‑compliant local policies, and the law has been litigated up to the Ninth Circuit which upheld most protections [3] [4]. Available material in the briefing does not include verbatim text of Washington’s 2019 law, so any word‑for‑word quotation or implementation assessment for that statute cannot be supplied from these sources; this analysis states that limitation explicitly (no source).
1. What SB 54 says, and the limits of reproducing “word‑for‑word” here
The official SB 54 bill page contains the statute’s operative provisions—including prohibitions on use of state and local resources for immigration enforcement, directions that the Attorney General issue guidelines and post reports, and requirements that joint task forces designate an agency to complete annual reporting—so the bill text is the authoritative place to read the law word‑for‑word [1]. Secondary summaries repeat that SB 54 “broadly prohibits local law enforcement from assisting in federal immigration enforcement” and requires AG guidance and reporting obligations, but the precise statutory language and full text must be consulted on the legislative page cited above for verbatim quotations [5] [1]. No source provided here contains the entire statute reproduced in this briefing beyond the official bill navigation page, so exact “word‑for‑word” replication of every section is limited by the supplied documents [1].
2. Key substantive provisions distilled from the statute
SB 54 creates a baseline that prevents state and local law enforcement from using taxpayer funds to perform immigration enforcement except in narrow, enumerated circumstances; it directs the Attorney General to issue guidelines to protect personal information in law enforcement databases and to annually report on joint law enforcement task forces, including the number of arrests for immigration enforcement by participants [2] [1] [5]. Advocacy and legal groups characterize the Act as ensuring that schools, hospitals and courthouses remain accessible by curtailing local participation in deportation efforts and by limiting data-sharing with federal immigration authorities [6] [7] [5]. Legal and policy summaries note additional operational elements such as prohibitions on asking about immigration status in many contexts and requirements on local agencies that choose to participate in joint task forces to submit annual operational reports [8] [1].
3. Narrow exceptions and practical cooperation points
SB 54 was negotiated with carve‑outs: it permits cooperation with federal authorities in cases involving individuals convicted of certain serious or violent felonies and allows notification to ICE in limited circumstances, reflecting compromises reported during passage [9] [10]. The statute also contemplates coordination when disclosure is otherwise required by law or court order, and it specifies administrative responsibilities for joint task forces, such as designating an agency to complete reporting duties when multiple agencies participate [1].
4. How SB 54 has been implemented in practice
Implementation has been uneven: an Oxford/Asian Americans Advancing Justice co‑authored report reviewing publicly available policies from 169 California law enforcement agencies found that many agencies either retained pre‑SB 54 language or adopted post‑SB 54 policies that omitted new prohibitions, leading the authors to call for stronger enforcement mechanisms and AG oversight [3]. State agencies (including the Attorney General’s office) have issued guidance and continue annual reporting duties as required by the law’s text [1] [2]. Advocacy groups and the ACLU describe SB 54 as the state’s “minimum standard” limiting local participation in deportation, and community coalitions have organized to monitor compliance [4] [6].
5. Litigation and political pushback
The law was challenged by the federal government and faced political opposition; courts have largely rejected efforts to bar California from implementing SB 54, with the Ninth Circuit upholding the sanctuary state law and the Supreme Court declining further review, while political opponents continue to propose legislation to narrow SB 54’s scope [4] [10]. National critics framed SB 54 as undermining public safety during debate, and some local law enforcement leaders warned of potential funding consequences prior to enactment, leading to negotiation of the statute’s exceptions [11] [9].
6. Washington’s 2019 sanctuary law: reporting gap and next steps
The sources provided do not include the text or implementation records of Washington State’s 2019 sanctuary/immigration statute, so this analysis cannot quote that law word‑for‑word nor assess its implementation from these materials; to obtain verbatim language and implementation data, the Washington Legislature’s bill text repository and state Attorney General or ACLU‑Washington publications should be consulted (no source provided). Without those documents in the evidence set here, any claim about Washington’s statutory language or compliance would be beyond the supplied reporting and thus omitted.
Conclusion
SB 54 is publicly available in its full statutory form via the California legislative site and sets statewide limits on local participation in federal immigration enforcement while mandating AG guidance and reporting; implementation shows broad adoption with notable compliance gaps flagged by academic and advocacy audits, and the law has survived significant litigation [1] [3] [4]. For verbatim wording and implementation of Washington’s 2019 law, primary Washington state legislative text and implementation reports will be required because the provided corpus contains no direct texts or studies of that statute (no source).