Quick Take
Santa Cruz, a sanctuary city since the 1980s, has traditionally recommitted to the policy when deportation rhetoric from the White House has ticked up. The city has so far kept quiet under the new Trump administration – and in mid-January held sanctuary city discussions behind closed doors.
Earlier this month, before President Donald Trump returned to the White House, the Watsonville City Council and the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors publicly reaffirmed their statuses as sanctuary jurisdictions committed to protecting undocumented residents.
In the county’s largest city, Santa Cruz, where pushing against federal policies and corporations has almost become a rite of passage for elected leaders, the city council had a similar discussion about its own sanctuary city status, and the possible retribution wrought under Trump 2.0.
The council chose to leave the public out of the conversation at that point, instead invoking an executive session that allowed it to have the discussion behind closed doors with no notification to the community. The move has raised questions about elected leaders privately discussing a topic of great, perhaps immediate, importance.
During the meeting, which included a briefing about the city’s current sanctuary status and what kind of conflict it could raise under the new administration, some hesitation arose about moving forward with a public reaffirmation. No votes were taken in closed session, and some city councilmembers have since said they support recommitting to sanctuary status and expect to host a public conversation in the coming weeks.
The conservation comes amid widespread soul-searching as sanctuary cities across the country figure out how to navigate a recharged Trump administration intent on punishing local officials and jurisdictions who interfere with its policies.
Staying off the radar
During the Jan. 14 city council meeting, City Manager Matt Huffaker, City Attorney Tony Condotti and the council halted the public portion of the meeting and retreated behind closed doors to hold what’s known as closed session: a confidential portion of each city council meeting, often reserved for updates on active litigation, real estate negotiations and city manager performance review.
The closed session agenda is public, though typically sparse in details. The Jan. 14 edition included two claims against the city (claimants named), two active lawsuits (names of plaintiffs and case numbers listed) and seven real estate negotiations (addresses, owners and parcel numbers included). The only other agenda item was more vague: “Conference with legal counsel, anticipated litigation.”
By law, city councilmembers and officials are not allowed to discuss the details of closed session, but multiple city councilmembers confirmed to Lookout that the sanctuary city policy was a closed-session topic on Jan. 14.
The city used a specific state government code that allows “pending litigation” to be discussed behind closed doors when “a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the local agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the local agency.”
Mayor Fred Keeley, who with the city attorney and city manager sets the council’s agenda, told Lookout that he felt the Trump administration’s threats to come after sanctuary cities with lawsuits and criminal charges were legitimate and met the “pending litigation” threshold. No specific lawsuits have yet been levied.
“It’s pretty clear that they’re coming after sanctuary cities,” Keeley told Lookout. “To me, this is a very real thing. This is not 2017 where it was a theoretical thing. It’s a very practical thing.”
The Brown Act — the state law that governs public government meetings — allows city councils to discuss an issue in closed session if there are facts and circumstances that might result in litigation, Condotti told Lookout. However, while a closed session might be wise, it’s never required and up to the discretion of the city council.
“The city council could have a robust conversation in open session about a real estate negotiation; now, that’s not wise from a strategic standpoint, but the Brown Act doesn’t compel the city council into closed session,” Condotti said. “Generally, [city counsel] advises the city council to discuss something in confidence if they are authorized to do so, but the city council has the ability to make that decision.”
Some in local government circles have privately questioned the city council’s use of closed session, particularly in this case, as the implications of sanctuary city policies is a front-of-mind topic across the community and country.
“For the collective group to discuss that topic, it’s probably something that should be done in public,” one elected official told Lookout. “It would be different if the Trump administration had actually sued, or submitted a letter of intent. Then you go into a closed session to talk about strategy.”
Other former elected officials, however, argued it benefits the city to not attract attention from the Trump administration, at least at this point.
“If you had a city council meeting and had protesters there and councilmembers openly denouncing the Trump administration, you’re on their radar, so it’s not a bad idea to have that conversation in the background,” one former elected official said. “It’s going to get complicated. In the previous Trump term, cities and counties were happy to have that fight over and over again. In this Trump term, I think it’s responsible to be more careful.”
Santa Cruz’s status
The sanctuary city assertion ranges in meaning and application across the many jurisdictions that have claimed it over the decades. Santa Cruz, the county and Watsonville abide by a more moderate version, in which elected leaders tell local law enforcement to not volunteer collaboration with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents tasked with finding and deporting undocumented citizens. They do not encourage local police to violate or ignore any federal laws — they will comply and collaborate where required — but sets working with federal agents as a bottom priority.
Santa Cruz has been a sanctuary city since the mid-1980s, when its city council declared it one amid the civil war in El Salvador.
Since then, when Oval Office promises of deportations have grown — George W. Bush in 2007 and Trump in 2017 — the city’s elected leaders have voted to reaffirm their commitment to the sanctuary ordinance.
Only days in, Trump’s second term has already brought a new level of aggressiveness to the deportation issue. Just hours after his inauguration on Monday, Trump signed his executive order, titled Protecting the American People Against Invasion, explicitly outlining financial, civil and criminal punishments against sanctuary jurisdictions.
“The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, to the maximum extent possible under law, evaluate and undertake any lawful actions to ensure that so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to Federal funds,” the order reads. “Further, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall evaluate and undertake any other lawful actions, criminal or civil, that they deem warranted based on any such jurisdiction’s practices that interfere with the enforcement of federal law.”
Earlier this week, acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered federal prosecutors to begin investigating local officials who are believed to be interfering with Trump’s deportation plan. According to the Associated Press, local officials could face criminal charges.
“These have been by far the most aggressive statements made by this administration or any administration with regard to cities that declare themselves sanctuary jurisdictions,” city attorney Condotti told Lookout. However, he said he doesn’t see anything in the city’s policy that violates state or federal laws, since local law enforcement is given the ability to collaborate with ICE when required – even if directed to make it a low priority.
If Trump’s threats hold true, Santa Cruz has much at stake by maintaining its sanctuary city status. The city has now experienced climate disasters in three consecutive winters, most recently in December when unusually strong tides snapped part of the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf. During these disasters, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, has been looked to as a lifeline that could be in jeopardy for sanctuary cities moving forward. Some legal experts believe coastal California cities will not win a competitive federal grant for the next four years.
Whether or not Santa Cruz reaffirms itself as a sanctuary city does not change its standing as one; only a city council vote could relinquish its status. Although the city has not yet reaffirmed its sanctuary city commitment, there is support among some city councilmembers to do so.
Vice Mayor Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson said the council is “discussing reaffirming” and that she “would be in support” of doing so. New District 1 City Councilmember Gabriela Trigueiro said she was working on bringing a vote to a future city council agenda but offered no timeline.
Community pressure to do so is likely to increase.
Pamela Sexton, a member of the local chapter of Showing Up for Racial Justice, said there have been “rampant rumors about ICE activity and a lot of fear.” Although reaffirming doesn’t legally change or enhance a jurisdiction’s sanctuary status, she said it sends a message of solidarity.
“It allays residents’ fears and helps people feel confident that their current leaders are committed to the sanctuary status,” Sexton said. “Many of the sitting elected leaders were not in office when these policies were last affirmed.”
Keeley said it’s “inevitable” that the city council is going to follow up the private conversation with a public one, though nothing has been scheduled. Keeley said it was important to get the city councilmembers up to speed before having the conversation publicly, since none of them were elected when the city most recently reaffirmed its sanctuary status in 2017.
“I can’t imagine going through 2025 and not having this discussion publicly,” Keeley said. “Now that [the council] knows what it means to be a sanctuary city, let’s see what the federal government is going to do in its first couple weeks. Then, there is going to be a need for a public conversation.”
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.