California Senate Bill SB1332

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/26
• Refer: 3/4/26

Caption

An act to amend, repeal, and add Section 18720.45 of, and to add and repeal Section 1025 of, the Government Code, relating to state employment.

Summary

SB 1332 would make a person ineligible for appointment to, or employment in, any civil service or exempt position with the State of California if that person was employed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the period from January 20, 2025, through January 20, 2029. The bill also ties that disqualification to a potential court ruling: if the provision is enjoined, found unconstitutional, or otherwise invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court or California Supreme Court, the disqualification would become inoperative and be repealed. The bill also changes state employment application rules. If the ICE-based disqualification is repealed or otherwise becomes inoperative, state employment forms would instead have to ask applicants whether they have ever been employed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or any of its component agencies, and if so, to identify the agency and dates of employment. The measure is severable, meaning if one part is struck down, the rest can remain in effect where possible.

Impact

SB 1332 would add a new Government Code employment bar for state civil service and exempt positions, directly affecting applicants with recent ICE employment and, potentially, applicants with broader Department of Homeland Security employment history if the fallback disclosure provisions take effect. It would amend Government Code Section 18720.45 and add Section 1025, altering state hiring forms and Department of Human Resources-related employment screening practices for state agencies. The bill does not create a local program or appropriation, but it would change state personnel law and hiring eligibility standards.

Sentiment

The available context shows limited formal debate, but the bill’s subject matter suggests a strongly partisan and policy-sensitive proposal. The measure was introduced and then had its first hearing canceled at the request of the author, indicating it did not advance immediately. No recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts are provided, so there is no documented consensus or opposition in the available record beyond the bill’s controversial nature.

Contention

The main point of contention is the categorical exclusion of former ICE employees from state employment for a defined four-year period, which raises likely concerns about fairness, viewpoint discrimination, workforce access, and possible constitutional challenges. The bill anticipates litigation by including a court-triggered inoperability and repeal clause, suggesting the author expects legal scrutiny. A secondary issue is the broader disclosure requirement for prior Department of Homeland Security employment, which could be viewed as a screening tool or as an overbroad employment inquiry depending on the perspective.