SB 747 creates a state right to sue any official, federal, state or local, who violates constitutional rights under color of law, a rare civil liberties win that still leaves victims facing a judge-made shield
A New Right To Sue
For years, Americans whose constitutional rights were violated by federal officers have faced a near impossible legal path. State and local officials can be sued under the federal civil rights statute known as Section 1983, but that law does not cover federal agents. The Supreme Court’s Bivens doctrine, created in 1971, once offered an alternative, but the Court has narrowed it so severely that it now barely functions. California has decided to do something about it. Governor Gavin Newsom has signed SB 747, which its author, State Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco, called the No Kings Act. Reason assistant editor Tosin Akintola explained the law in a September 30 piece headlined you can now sue federal agents in California, good luck getting past qualified immunity.
What The Law Does
SB 747 allows California residents to sue any person who, under color of any law, violates their constitutional rights, whether that person is a federal, state or local official. Plaintiffs have two years from the violation to bring a claim. The law covers conduct on or after March 1, 2025, and allows nominal and compensatory damages.
The even-handedness is deliberate. Illinois passed a law in 2025 targeting immigration enforcement specifically, and the Justice Department sued the state over it. California’s law applies to all officials equally, which law professor James Pfander told Reason will be central to any legal analysis of its validity. It is not yet clear whether the Justice Department will challenge it.
Why It Matters
The Bivens problem is real. In Ziglar v. Abbasi in 2017, the Supreme Court limited Bivens claims to the specific Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendment contexts it had already recognized and rejected claims arising in a new context. In practice, that means a person whose rights are violated by a federal agent often has no meaningful way to seek damages. Federal officers can act with a degree of impunity that state and local police do not enjoy.
Reason’s article highlights the case of George Retes Jr., a United States citizen detained for three days. His attorney, Anya Bidwell of the Institute for Justice, says the new law will allow him to amend his claim that federal officers violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Cases like his show why the gap in accountability matters to ordinary people, including citizens caught up in federal enforcement operations.
The Shield Remains
But the law has a significant limitation. It does not eliminate qualified immunity, the judge-made doctrine that protects officials from liability unless their conduct violated clearly established rights. Under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, decided in 1982, courts ask whether a reasonable official would have known that the specific conduct was unlawful, often requiring a previous case with nearly identical facts. That standard has allowed many officials to escape liability for conduct that most people would regard as plainly wrong.
So while SB 747 opens a door, qualified immunity may still slam it shut in many cases. Victims will have a cause of action, but they will still need to overcome a defence that has defeated countless civil rights claims.
A Libertarian Win, With Caveats
For libertarians, this law is a welcome development. The principle that government agents should be personally accountable when they violate constitutional rights is fundamental to a free society. Nobody, whatever their badge or agency, should be above the law. Organizations such as the Institute for Justice have long argued for ending qualified immunity and restoring meaningful remedies against federal officials.
There are, of course, legitimate questions. Can a state create a cause of action against federal officers performing federal duties? The Supremacy Clause and doctrines of intergovernmental immunity may limit how far states can go. Courts will have to work through those issues. But the instinct behind the law, that rights without remedies are hollow, is sound.
Surfers And The State
Surf culture has always carried a streak of suspicion toward authority, from fights with local officials over beach access to confrontations with police over parking, camping and late-night sessions. That suspicion is not paranoia. It reflects an understanding that power, unchecked, tends to grow. A law that lets citizens hold officials accountable, regardless of which level of government employs them, speaks to that instinct.
There is also a federalism lesson. Libertarians often defend states’ authority to experiment and to protect their residents’ rights more strongly than the federal government does. SB 747 is an example of a state using its own law to expand protections for individuals against government power. Whatever one thinks of California’s politics, that is the kind of state action a liberty-minded observer should welcome.
What Should Come Next
The logical next step is to address qualified immunity itself. Colorado, New Mexico and New York City have passed laws limiting or removing qualified immunity as a defence to certain state-law claims. California could do the same for claims under SB 747, ensuring that the new right to sue is not neutralized by a doctrine the legislature never enacted. Congress could also restore a federal remedy against federal officers, closing the Bivens gap nationwide.
Until then, SB 747 is a meaningful but incomplete step. It recognizes that constitutional rights must be enforceable against every official, federal or local. Whether it delivers real accountability will depend on how courts treat it, and on whether lawmakers are willing to take on qualified immunity next. As the waves remind us, the tide can turn, but only if someone keeps pushing.