A legal fight over California’s sanctuary policies has expanded into a dispute over whether local police can conduct welfare checks on unaccompanied migrant children using information provided by federal immigration authorities.
Officials in El Cajon, a city in San Diego County, say they were told about a group of unaccompanied migrant children with addresses in the city and wanted police to check whether the children were safe. But guidance from California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office warned that local police activity based on federal immigration data could raise concerns under the state’s sanctuary law, known as SB 54 or the California Values Act.
The dispute has become a flashpoint in El Cajon’s broader lawsuit against California’s sanctuary laws. City leaders argue that the state has created an impossible situation for local law enforcement: either officers act on safety concerns involving vulnerable children and risk violating state law, or they avoid the checks and risk leaving children unchecked.
El Cajon Mayor Bill Wells and City Councilman Steve Goble have framed the issue as a child-safety matter, not an immigration-enforcement effort. They say police would not be acting as federal immigration agents and would not be asking about anyone’s immigration status. Their stated goal, they argue, would be simple: determine whether children are safe.
TRENDING TODAY
Goble said he learned during a February 2025 meeting with San Diego-area Homeland Security officials that federal authorities had information about unaccompanied migrant children, including 52 with addresses in El Cajon. According to Goble, federal officials asked whether local police could help confirm the children’s welfare.
Before sending officers, Goble sought legal guidance from Bonta’s office. In a March 2025 letter, he asked whether El Cajon police could conduct welfare checks using contact information provided by federal authorities. He wrote that the city wanted to ensure children were safe regardless of citizenship or residency status.
Bonta’s office responded in June 2025, warning that welfare checks conducted alongside or based on information from federal immigration authorities could implicate conduct prohibited by SB 54. The letter said potential problems could include confirming location information for ICE or reporting results back to federal immigration authorities.
SB 54, signed into law in 2017, limits the use of state and local law-enforcement resources for federal immigration enforcement. Supporters say the law helps immigrant communities report crimes and cooperate with local police without fear that routine contact will lead to deportation. Critics argue it restricts cooperation even when public safety is at stake.
The El Cajon lawsuit challenges SB 54 and related California laws, including the TRUST Act and TRUTH Act. The city argues the laws are preempted by federal immigration law and place officers in conflict between state restrictions and federal responsibilities.
Local outlets reported that El Cajon filed the lawsuit against Bonta with support from the America First Policy Institute, a Trump-aligned organization. The city is asking the court to limit or block enforcement of California sanctuary restrictions against El Cajon police while the case proceeds.
The welfare-check dispute is now being used by El Cajon officials as an example of how they believe the sanctuary laws interfere with ordinary public-safety work. In court filings, the city argues that officers should not have to spend time navigating legal uncertainty when children may be at risk.
Immigrant-rights advocates see the issue differently. Some national advocacy groups have warned that ICE or DHS “wellness checks” on unaccompanied migrant children can function as immigration enforcement under another name. They argue that visits tied to federal immigration information can scare sponsors, discourage families from coming forward, and potentially expose households to deportation action.
That concern is central to the state’s sanctuary policy. California officials and supporters of SB 54 argue that separating local policing from immigration enforcement helps protect trust between immigrant communities and local authorities.
El Cajon officials reject the idea that welfare checks would be disguised immigration enforcement. Goble and Wells say local police could check whether a child is safe without reporting immigration violations or helping ICE locate people for deportation.
The dispute also raises questions about which agency should handle checks involving unaccompanied minors. Bonta’s office suggested county social services could have a role in situations where there is no evidence of criminal activity requiring law enforcement. El Cajon officials say that option may not be practical because San Diego County has also adopted policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The legal and policy questions are complicated because both sides are invoking child safety. El Cajon officials argue that children could be at risk of trafficking, exploitation or forced labor if no one checks on them. Immigrant-rights advocates argue that enforcement-linked visits can make children and sponsors less safe by driving families into fear and isolation.
The lawsuit will likely test how far California can go in restricting local cooperation with federal immigration authorities while still allowing police to respond to public-safety concerns. It may also test whether welfare checks based on federal immigration data are considered ordinary child-safety work or immigration enforcement.
For California, the case could become another major legal challenge to sanctuary policies that have been debated since the first Trump administration. Federal courts previously allowed much of SB 54 to remain in place, but El Cajon is asking courts to revisit how those rules apply to local policing.
For El Cajon, the case is about local control and officer discretion. City leaders say their police department should be able to respond when officials are told children may need help.
For immigrant-rights groups, the case is about preventing local police from becoming an extension of federal immigration enforcement.
The outcome could affect not only El Cajon but other California cities that receive federal information about unaccompanied minors or other vulnerable migrants. If courts side with the city, local police may have more freedom to conduct checks using federal data. If courts side with the state, California’s limits on immigration-related cooperation will remain strong.
For now, the central question remains unresolved: when federal authorities provide information about migrant children, can local police act on it without violating sanctuary laws?
Why It Matters
This matters because the case puts two major public concerns in direct conflict: protecting vulnerable migrant children and maintaining California’s limits on local participation in federal immigration enforcement.
It also matters because the lawsuit could affect how California cities handle future requests from DHS or ICE involving unaccompanied minors, welfare checks and local police resources.
What Comes Next
El Cajon’s lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta will continue in court. The city is seeking relief from enforcement of SB 54 and related sanctuary laws while the case moves forward.
The court may eventually have to decide whether welfare checks based on federal immigration information count as public-safety work or prohibited cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Concerns over unaccompanied migrant children have become part of a wider debate over whether local police can conduct welfare checks using information from federal immigration authorities.
During the Biden administration, more than 450,000 unaccompanied children were referred into the immigration system, averaging over 300 children per day for four years.
Many of these children were released to sponsors with unverified addresses, and insufficient oversight,… pic.twitter.com/oQ1rGnoXxt
— One America News (@OANN) June 11, 2026
