Well, as expected, the angst over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Costa Mesa took center stage at the last City Council meeting, and made it one of the more dramatic political events in recent city history.

If you missed it, I highly recommend you check out yourself. Public comments start at about the 14:45 mark, and once you’ve skimmed through that, stick around for personal comments from the City Council members. It’s well worth your time.

For those who would prefer to get a written summary, I think the Daily Pilot did a pretty good job describing the scene. For my part I was only able to view the meeting on Zoom, but from what I could gather watching it online as well as talking to folks I know well afterwards who were in attendance, it was a pretty lopsided affair. Those who spoke against aggressive ICE tactics were almost uniformly Costa Mesa residents. These speakers far outnumbered a small but vocal pro-ICE contingent, who seemed determined to provoke the crowd with chanting, taunts and interruptions.

Eventually the Costa Mesa Police Department, whose numbers seemed to swell as public comments wore on, had to step in and direct the rabblerousers to leave. We now know that this group included Nick Taurus, an Orange County right-wing provocateur who was last seen getting his face bloodied by skateboarders at a pro-Trump rally in Huntington Beach, and Ryan Sanchez, a nationalist organizer sufficiently toxic to embarrass a GOP Congressman for merely taking a picture with him.

But enough about them. Let’s focus on the asks of actual Costa Mesa residents. And their comments were very clear: do something.

What can Costa Mesa actually do?

When I looked into this question for the preview, it seemed to me that most of the action requests brought forward by activists — many of which were repeated in public comments — seemed like nonstarters. The City really doesn’t have the funds to be allocating meaningful amounts of money to legal defense or mutual aid funds, and passing ordinances to regulate how ICE behaves in the city would likely be unconstitutional.

And, of course, there is another, more human constraint. “[There are] 40,000 Latinos in my community,” Mayor John Stephens noted in his Council comments. “How do I keep them safe,” he asked, “without putting a target on their back?” In other words, Stephens seemed concerned that taking novel or dramatic steps to protect Costa Mesa’s undocumented residents could rouse the ire of the Trump Administration, which in turn may retaliate in ways that ultimately harmed the same community the city was trying to help.

But Santa Ana, and more importantly Anaheim, may have hit on a way for city governments to note their opposition to Trump’s immigration policies without drawing them into a direct confrontation with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Both cities have recently voted to join Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, et al., v. Kristi Noem, et al., a lawsuit initiated by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against DHS claiming that certain ICE tactics are unconstitutional.

While Santa Ana is a declared sanctuary city, and therefore arguably already “has a target on its back”, Anaheim is not. Anaheim’s “Welcoming City” ordinance is radically weaker than Santa Ana’s sanctuary city declaration and likely intentionally so. Frankly, it’s even weaker than the statement put out by Mayor Stephens and Mayor Pro Tem Manuel Chavez a few weeks ago. So Anaheim’s decision last week to join Vasquez Perdomo gives enormous political cover to other Orange County cities to consider joining as well — far more than if the much-more-progressive Santa Ana were going it alone.

The Pros and Cons of the Vasquez Perdomo Case

It’s probably not worth your time for me to summarize the Vasquez Perdomo complaint in detail here, so feel free to go read the the amended complaint yourself. What is interesting for our purposes is that the complaint is effectively a class action lawsuit, wherein the class consists of “all persons who, since June 6, 2025, have been or will be subjected to” unconstitutional behavior “in this District”, meaning the Central District of California. The Central District of California consists of both Los Angeles and Orange Counties as well as several of our neighboring counties. The suit is also demanding — and has preliminarily received — an injunction against DHS from continuing its allegedly unconstitutional practices anywhere in the Central District.

In plain English, this means that, if Vasquez Perdomo ultimately succeeds, its holdings will pertain to applicable Costa Mesa residents whether the City of Costa Mesa joins the lawsuit as an interested party or not.

But joining the fray might have some benefit if Costa Mesa can bring forth in its filings facts unique to its experiences. This is partly why I suggested that the city start documenting the impacts to its services, businesses and nonprofit partners caused by ICE tactics. Joining the lawsuit increases the likelihood that the case’s ultimate orders will specifically address behaviors that have been observed within the Costa Mesa city limits.

And of course, there are symbolic benefits. After voting to join Vasquez Perdomo, Anaheim Mayor Ashleigh Aitken explained that “we are standing with our community with this action.” It’s definitely doing something.

But does this version of doing something come with hard costs? Maybe. First, there are the direct costs of participating in the lawsuit. Attorneys will need to be hired, filings made, and briefs potentially prepared, all of which costs money today.

Now, if Vasquez Perdomo succeeds, the city might see that money come back, as the plaintiffs are asking for attorney fees to be covered. Vasquez Perdomo‘s case is pretty strong and its counsel is more than up to the task of pursuing it, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if need be. But it is hardly a slam-dunk: the U.S. Constitution gives broad latitude to the Executive Branch to shape and pursue Federal immigration enforcement, and the Supreme Court seems to be on a bit of a executive power kick as of late. Those two realities together mean Vasquez Perdomo is still an uphill climb. And if Vasquez Perdomo loses, the plaintiffs — including the City of Costa Mesa, if it joins — will be left holding the financial bag. There is no way of knowing today how much that might cost in the long run.

Then there are the indirect costs. While the presence of Anaheim in this suit is extraordinarily helpful, there is no guarantee that participating won’t generate blowback from the Trump Administration. For example, Trump is in the midst of issuing executive orders to reform the way the Federal government approaches homelessness and mental illness. Costa Mesa’s own efforts on that front, including the Bridge Shelter and its attendant services, are highly dependent on outside grant funding to function. A good chunk of this money comes from the County of Orange — which, in turn, receives significant funding from the Feds.

If Costa Mesa joins Vasquez Perdomo, we should consider the possibility that other Orange County cities then follow suit. And if Orange County revolts against Trump’s immigration policies and tries to join as well, would I put it past this administration to penalize the county generally by withholding funds for other priorities? No, I would not. Less money for Orange County will, almost certainly, result in less money for Costa Mesa. So that risk must be weighed.

Yet… maybe that risk is present no matter what. The Trump Administration has proven itself to be both prickly in personality and steely in resolve. As I noted the other day, Huntington Beach landed on a list of sanctuary cities even when its gone out of its way to lavish President Trump with praise. Kowtowing might not even guarantee benign neglect.

So if the City feels like it has to do something, maybe joining Vasquez Perdomo is the least bad alternative.

The wisest (if coldest) move for City Hall is probably to do nothing and hope this all blows over.

But, given what we heard a couple Tuesdays ago, the residents might not stand for that.