Dozens of immigrant-rights advocates rallied outside the Contra Costa County Courthouse in Martinez, California, on Thursday morning, November 12, protesting what they describe as a sharp increase in federal immigration enforcement across the county, as the Board of Supervisors prepares to vote next week on a policy that would formally bar U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from staging operations on county property.

Source: The San Francisco Focal

The demonstration followed claims by the Contra Costa County Public Defender's Office that ICE agents have been conducting operations on county property for the past two weeks. Attorneys with the office said video footage shows ICE agents detaining a person in the courthouse parking lot last week, and they allege the agency detained another person in a similar operation on Thursday. These are allegations by the public defender's office; ICE did not respond to a request for comment, The San Francisco Focal reported.

Legal observers with the public defender's office said they have been monitoring ICE activity in the courthouse parking lot and believe the agency is breaking the law. The office argues that what it calls ICE's "unlawful and persistent presence" has made the community less safe, because people become afraid to come to court, report crimes or seek county services.

What the protesters said

"It's aggravating, it makes me angry. It makes me sad. I can't believe that our country is doing this," demonstrator Sheila McGrath told The San Francisco Focal at the rally. Mary-Beth Meyer, another protester, said: "It's obscene. I'm outraged by it and I'm outraged that our county leaders haven't done anything to stop ICE from operating on our county property."

The rally also drew attention to the case of Ann Lawani, the John Muir Health nurse and University of San Francisco professor arrested by ICE at her Lodi home eight weeks ago. Her brother, Sam Lawani, told the rally her detention has taken a heavy toll on the family: she had been caring for their 83-year-old father, who has spine cancer. "The day she was picked up his health took a dive, his nervous system completely crashed. And then that's when we started this whole running to the ER and ICU," he said. He said there has been no movement in her case because the court is backlogged, and she remains detained in Louisiana.

Background: a policy more than a year in the making

The supervisors' vote next week is the latest step in a process that has run for well over a year. According to the county staff report reported by Claycord, the issue was first referred to the Board's Equity Committee in August 2025, followed by several public discussions and revisions before the committee voted in June to send a proposed "Non-Cooperation Policy" to the full Board. In the most recent board action, reported by the East Bay Times, supervisors voted unanimously to direct staff to draft an official policy prohibiting the use of county resources to assist ICE operations unless presented with a judicial warrant, with staff directed to route requests to legal counsel or designated staff.

As described in the staff report, the proposed policy would prohibit the use of county funds and resources to assist immigration enforcement except where required by law; bar access to non-public areas of county facilities without a judicial warrant or other legal requirement; prohibit departments from honouring administrative immigration warrants; prevent county-owned property — including parking lots, vacant lots and parking garages — from being used to stage or conduct immigration operations; restrict sharing of county-maintained information with immigration authorities unless legally required; and require the Sheriff's Office to report monthly on contacts with immigration authorities. County services and benefits could not be conditioned on citizenship or immigration status unless required by law.

The draft largely incorporates a model policy released July 1 by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, prepared as required by Senate Bill 580, the 2025 state law that directed the Attorney General to issue guidance on how local and state agencies may interact with civil immigration enforcement, the East Bay Times reported. County Counsel Tom Geiger told supervisors the main difference is that the Attorney General's model is much more detailed, containing procedures for how staff should respond to requests from immigration officials. Supervisors also agreed that county contractors should have to abide by the policy.

Policy or ordinance: the point supervisors argued over

One sticking point has been whether the protections should be adopted as a policy or as an ordinance, which carries the force of law. Supervisors John Gioia and Shanelle Scales-Preston pressed for the stronger ordinance route; their motion failed. Board Chair Diane Burgis, Vice Chair Ken Carlson and Supervisor Candace Anderson voted for the policy approach, which they said could be amended more swiftly if necessary. After the unanimous vote for a policy, Gioia called the debate "rigorous" before the board landed on a common position, the East Bay Times reported.

What happens next

The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote next week on the final policy in Martinez. If adopted, county employees who receive requests from immigration authorities for access to non-public areas or records would be required to notify their supervisors immediately, and the restrictions would apply across county property, including the courthouse parking lots at the centre of this week's protest. The vote will test whether the county codifies the limits its public defender and advocates are demanding, while the underlying legal fight — how far a county can go in restricting a federal agency — continues across the Bay Area.