Back to blog
2 min readBy ACWI

Court Enjoins CA Sanctuary Law

A federal district court judge stayed the enforcement of a controversial California law ordering employers not to cooperate with federal immigration officials. Enacted last year, the AB 450 law threatened private employers with fines of up to $10,000 if they…

A federal district court judge stayed the enforcement of a controversial California law ordering employers not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.

Enacted last year, the AB 450 law threatened private employers with fines of up to $10,000 if they granted federal immigration authorities access to a workplace or to employee records in the absence of a warrant issued by a court or a subpoena. (AA, 10-15-17, P. 3)

Effective Jan. 1 of this year, any employer violating this law can receive a $2,000 to $5,000 civil penalty for the first violation, and $5,000 to $10,000 for each subsequent violation.

The law also requires employers to provide workers with written reports following certain immigration enforcement actions.

The legislation had been vigorously opposed by employer groups in the state but was just one of a suite of bills passed by the legislature intending to cement California’s status as a sanctuary state.

The district court judge agreed with the U.S. Department of Justice in finding that AB 450 discriminates against private employers who cooperate with the federal government.

The judge said that “these fines inflict a burden on those employers who acquiesce in a federal investigation but not on those who do not.”

The court also struck down the part of the law limiting an employer’s ability to re-verify an employee’s employment eligibility unless otherwise required by federal law on the ground that it “frustrates the system of accountability that Congress designed.”

The only portion of the law left standing by the court is the employer obligation to warn employees in writing of an imminent inspection of I-9 forms by federal immigration authorities.

Given the state government’s strong stance, the district court decision is likely to be appealed.

Originally published August 1, 2018 · updated March 22, 2023.

Related reading

Browse all posts →
4 min

ACWI Spotlight: October 2026

October Spotlight. Chris recaps year-end growth, the new member podcast with Prism Logistics, Jose's Penn State marketing partnership, and the November 3 members call — plus holiday sales, container volumes, family-business leadership, supply chain prices, driver safety, warehouse AI, a cargo-theft webinar, and a Spotlight on Lansdale Warehouse.

3 min

ACWI Spotlight: September 2026

Hello September. Chris recaps e-commerce growth, Jose's AI lead development, website and digital media updates, the new members podcast, and upcoming industry events — plus coverage on humanoid robots, AI-enabled enterprises, freight brokerage risk, B2B marketing, e-commerce expectations, transportation employment revisions, and a Spotlight on Prism Logistics.

4 min

ACWI Spotlight: August 2026

Welcome August. July was a great month for the team at ACWI. Chris recaps the August 4 quarterly members call, business development with Jose Larenas and Zach, industry coverage on sibling succession, supply chain volatility, broker liability, robotics, and last-mile growth, plus a Spotlight on Valley Distributing & Storage.