A new California law will prohibit San Mateo police and county sheriff’s deputies from using electric shock gloves beginning Jan. 1, 2027, and require law enforcement agencies to update their use-of-force policies.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2760 on Tuesday, Sept. 29. The chaptered law prohibits law enforcement agencies from using electric-shock weapons designed to be worn as gloves in California. It also bars agencies from using state funds to buy them.

The ban does not cover Tasers, stun guns or similar electric-shock weapons designed to be held like a pistol.

The ban was part of a package of more than 20 immigration-related bills Newsom signed that day, according to the governor’s office. Newsom said California was acting to strengthen transparency and oversight of immigration enforcement in the state.

Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins, D-San Diego, said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s plan to equip officers with shock gloves was the catalyst for the legislation, according to Associated Press reporting carried by Patch. ICE awarded a nearly $17 million contract in August to buy 6,000 pairs of the devices, AP reported.

Sharp-Collins said she wanted to “put a pause” on the devices while the state examines their risks, according to that report.

AB 2760 requires the California Department of Justice’s Division of Law Enforcement to study the devices’ safety and community impacts and report findings and recommended safeguards to the Legislature on or before Jan. 1, 2029, according to California POST’s legislative summary.

California law enforcement groups broadly opposed the measure, AP reported. Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper, a Democrat and former state lawmaker, said the ban “really makes no sense” because it removes a force option he considers useful, according to AP’s report carried by Patch.

The law’s application to federal officers is disputed.

Kevin Johnson, a professor emeritus at UC Davis School of Law, told AP that courts are likely to reject California’s restrictions on federal officers’ use of the gloves. He said the restrictions likely conflict with the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which generally gives federal law precedence over conflicting state law.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, a Trump appointee, challenged the state’s authority on X, arguing that California cannot dictate federal officers’ equipment, according to AP. His statement and Johnson’s assessment are not court rulings on the glove ban.

The ban expires Jan. 1, 2030, unless lawmakers act to extend it.