El Cajon Sues California AG Bonta Over SB 54 Sanctuary Law, Represented by America First Policy Institute

The City of El Cajon (San Diego County) announced a lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Wednesday, April 29, 2026 — the date below is the announcement date, which is what the sourcing establishes; the filing date and docket are not confirmed. The suit challenges the constitutionality of SB 54 (the California Values Act), the state’s 2017 sanctuary law limiting local police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The city is represented by the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), the Trump-aligned think tank founded by former administration officials, not by outside private counsel or the county.

What the complaint asserts (allegations, not established facts; no ruling has been reported): El Cajon’s suit argues federal immigration law is supreme under the Constitution. Per KPBS, the complaint specifically cites the federal provision that “makes it an offense for any person who encourages or induces” someone to live in the U.S. without legal status — the encourage-or-induce clause at 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), NOT the § 1373 information-sharing statute. AFPI vice chair of litigation Richard Lawson: “This is a constitutional case. Under the Constitution, federal law is supreme.” The complaint targets California policies extending driver’s licenses, disability insurance, and in-state tuition to undocumented residents; Lawson: “If you look at all of that, it is designed to induce and encourage illegal aliens to reside here.” A claim, not a judicial finding.

Bonta’s response, in a statement: “El Cajon should prepare for another loss.” He added that SB 54 “has been upheld in court again and again, and we’re prepared to defend it from a baseless attack once more.”

The nearest precedent is adverse to El Cajon. Huntington Beach city officials filed a similar suit in 2025; it was dismissed in December (KPBS). That is the same city-sues-state posture, in the same state, against the same statute — and it lost.

Local context: El Cajon Mayor Bill Wells has been a vocal SB 54 critic; coverage (Voice of San Diego, Times of San Diego) notes neighboring San Diego County cities — Chula Vista’s mayor specifically — did not join or endorse the suit, indicating this is a single-city action rather than a coordinated county-wide filing. The lawsuit drew national conservative-media pickup (New York Post, Washington Times, Fox News, Washington Examiner, California Globe) framing El Cajon as a small city “at war” with the state; a Times of San Diego opinion piece was critical of Wells’s position.

Distinct from a separate, reverse legal conflict involving the same two parties: California’s AG office separately sued El Cajon (first reported around October 2025, continuing into 2026) over the city’s automated license-plate-reader (ALPR) data being shared with federal immigration authorities in violation of state law restricting such sharing — the opposite posture, with the state suing the city rather than the city suing the state. Do not conflate the two dockets; they involve different legal theories (SB 54 preemption vs. ALPR-sharing statute) and opposite plaintiff/defendant postures. The ALPR dispute is not further researched here and may warrant its own entry.

Court and docket (checked 2026-10-27): this is a state-court case, so there is no federal docket to find. NBC 7 San Diego reports the lawsuit “was filed Tuesday in San Diego County Superior Court” (Tuesday was April 28; KPBS and 10News describe the announcement on Wednesday, April 29). A CourtListener/RECAP search for El Cajon and Bonta in the Southern District of California returned no case, which fits a state filing but is not itself proof (RECAP holds only federal dockets that someone has pulled). The earlier assumption here that Southern District of California was the venue was wrong. The Superior Court case number is not in the sources read; it requires the San Diego Superior Court’s online case index.

Gaps: Superior Court case number and the complaint text (the § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) theory comes from KPBS’s description, not the complaint). Any response, demurrer or ruling since April 2026 is unchecked. AFPI’s press release (HTTP 403) and the CBS 8 article were not read.

Related: 2026-07-09–doj-sues-maryland-community-trust-act-21st-state documents DOJ’s own campaign of ~21 sanctuary-preemption suits against states under the same 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373/1644 theory (a federal government suing states) — a structurally different posture from El Cajon’s suit (a city suing a state), though both draw on the same statutory theory. A short menu of available anti-sanctuary legal arguments (§ 1373 preemption; § 1324 “inducement” theories) recurring across many jurisdictions is evidence of a limited move-set, not necessarily coordination — unless AFPI is later shown representing multiple similarly-postured city plaintiffs, which would be the actual mechanism worth naming.