The California sheriff has firmly rebuffed the county’s latest immigration policy. Now what?

A rare showdown is taking shape between the county Board of Supervisors and the sheriff over barring cooperation with federal immigration authorities in the jails, a clash that’s emerging weeks before President-elect Donald Trump takes office for a second term and aims to deliver on promises of mass deportations.

The board passed a resolution a week ago to ban deputies from assisting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including when it comes to the transfer of immigrant inmates. But county Sheriff Kelly Martinez immediately said she wouldn’t comply and would continue to follow state law, which still allows some level of cooperation.

RELATED: Santa Cruz County declares itself sanctuary community for immigrants

The dispute has since grown, with immigration rights groups writing a strongly worded letter urging Martinez to reconsider, and the Sheriff’s Office reiterating in a statement that the agency would not change its policy. Each is citing state law to bolster their side.

Potentially further complicating matters, Chair Nora Vargas, who introduced the policy on Dec. 10, unexpectedly announced Friday that she will be stepping down from the supervisor’s seat for which she just won re-election, due to unspecified “personal safety and security reasons.” It was unclear if her departure might affect how the resolution moves forward in the new year, and emails to her office earlier this week about the dispute over the policy went unanswered.

The California Values Act, or SB 54, which was signed in 2017 by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, already restricts cooperation with federal immigration officials, but it still allows local agencies to notify the federal government of release dates and to transfer individuals to ICE under certain circumstances.

In 2023, 25 inmates were transferred from San Diego County jails to ICE custody, according to a sheriff’s report. The inmates had been jailed locally on felony convictions that included murder, assault with a deadly weapon, DUI, drug possession, burglary and participation in a street gang.

Under the new county policy, the Sheriff’s Office and other county agencies would be prohibited from assisting in the transfer of an inmate into immigration custody without a warrant or court order. The policy focuses only on civil immigration enforcement and does not affect federal criminal investigations.

The resolution, approved by a 3-1 vote, directed the county’s chief administrative officer to make recommendations within 180 days on how to most effectively implement the policy. The measure passed with the three votes of the Democratic supervisors, with Republican Jim Desmond casting the lone dissenting vote and Joel Anderson absent.

Both before and after the vote, Martinez, who has been sheriff since 2023, made it clear she would not be abiding by the new policy and would continue to follow the cooperation guidelines spelled out in state law.

The San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium, a coalition of more than 40 local organizations, urged Martinez to reconsider in a Dec. 12 letter.

“We were disappointed by your declaration that you would not be following (the board’s policy),” reads the letter sent by coalition Chair Ian Seruelo. “It disrespects the will of the community, and goes against not just the values of our county but state law itself.”

What the coalition argued in the letter, which was also sent to state Attorney General Rob Bonta, is that to fail to do so would be a violation of SB 54, which states “a law enforcement official shall have discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities only if doing so would not violate any federal, state, or local law, or local policy.”

But the Sheriff’s Office doubled down and defended its policy.

“Current state law strikes the right balance between limiting local law enforcement’s cooperation with immigration authorities, ensuring public safety, and building community trust,” the office said in a statement.

Under state law, the Sheriff’s Office can share the release dates of people in its custody if they have qualifying convictions for certain serious, violent or sex crimes, officials said.

“Immigration officials decide whether they will be present when the individual is released from custody. The Sheriff’s Office does not coordinate with, nor will it delay an individual’s release to accommodate immigration officials.”

The Sheriff’s Office also invoked another state law that spells out a sheriff’s authority, insisting that its policies are set by the sheriff as an independently elected official, not by the Board of Supervisors.

“California law prohibits the Board of Supervisors from interfering with the independent, constitutionally, and statutorily designated investigative functions of the Sheriff, and is clear that the Sheriff has the sole and exclusive authority to operate the county jails,” the statement read.

The language is taken from two different laws: Government Code 25303, which spells out the role of a board of supervisors, and 26605, which gives the sheriff authority over jails.

The California Attorney General’s Office said in a statement that it expects “that all local law enforcement agencies comply with SB 54 and all applicable state and local laws.”

But the office said it couldn’t provide legal advice or analysis when asked about the dispute.

“In light of the President-elect’s threats of mass detention, arrests, and deportation, we are monitoring compliance closely,” the agency said in a separate statement. “We will take a look at the facts of each scenario as it arises; and we will respond appropriately if we believe an agency is violating the law.”

The Sheriff’s Office has said the agency does not plan to seek legal action against the county.

For Trump to carry out his mass deportations, the federal government would certainly need the help of local authorities, notably jails if the focus stays on migrants with criminal backgrounds.

The county’s controversial policy has met with opposition, including from Trump’s “border czar” pick Tom Homan, who told the New York Post he will seek to thwart the policy.

Desmond, who cast the vote in opposition, has criticized the board’s decision to make San Diego a “super-sanctuary county.”

“I remain committed to standing against these extreme measures and advocating for policies that prioritize the safety and security of our communities,” he said.

An ICE spokesperson said in a statement that the federal agency values the ongoing cooperation with other law enforcement agencies as “crucial to ICE’s mission of ensuring the national security, public safety, and integrity of the nation’s immigration system.

“Some jurisdictions have chosen to limit their cooperation with ICE in recent years. This has had a negative impact on ICE operations, including the need for ICE officers to make arrests in less-secure environments which increases safety risks to both the public and the officers. Unfortunately, these non-cooperation policies often end up shielding dangerous criminals who victimize the same communities.”

While some have expressed concerns about what the county’s policy could mean in terms of public safety, others believe that keeping local law enforcement out of immigration matters will lead to greater trust among migrant communities.

Other California counties have adopted similar policies. Vargas noted in the board’s letter introducing the policy before the vote that it is similar to one first adopted in Santa Clara in 2011 and later updated in 2019.

“Our policy is meant to keep our residents safe, and to demonstrate the tremendous value that immigrants bring to our community,” Santa Clara board President Susan Ellenberg said in an interview Friday. “And the policy is not reactive specifically to any one political administration but rather is deeply reflective of our county’s values.”

Santa Clara County and San Francisco won a lawsuit in 2019 challenging Trump’s threat during his first term to withhold federal funding from cities and counties that didn’t cooperate with his immigration enforcement plan. However, Trump advisers continue to reiterate such threats.