Name: Petaluma City Council meeting, Jun 11, 2025
Start: 2025-06-11
Location: City of Petaluma

City Council

Wed, June 11, 2025

Agenda PDF Minutes PDF Watch Video

Agenda items

Vote records

Discussion summary

Transcript

Meeting summaryAI-generated

City Council Special Meeting — June 11, 2025

This was a special joint meeting of the City Council and the Petaluma Community Development Successor Agency (PCDSA), held primarily in closed session to receive legal advice on potential litigation. Councilmember Barnacle was absent; all other members were present.

Closed Session: Anticipated Litigation — Federal Immigration Enforcement Challenge

The Council met in closed session to consider whether Petaluma should join a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's executive directives ordering local governments to assist in civil immigration enforcement. The litigation at issue — *City and County of San Francisco et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.*, Case No. 3:25-CV-01350-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California — was brought by multiple cities and counties arguing that these directives violate the 10th Amendment (which limits federal commandeering of state and local governments), the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Spending Clause (by threatening loss of federal funding as coercion), and the Due Process Clause (by threatening civil and criminal prosecution of local officials).

The Council was asked to decide whether to seek to intervene in the pending case as a plaintiff city.

Two members of the public, Nickola Frye and Jodi Johnson, commented before the Council adjourned to closed session. The substance of their remarks is not recorded in the minutes.

Upon returning from closed session, City Attorney Eric Danly reported that the Council voted 5 to 1 to direct the City to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff. Councilmember DeCarli voted against; Councilmember Barnacle was absent.

Vote: 5–1 (DeCarli opposed, Barnacle absent)

Key Takeaways

Petaluma will join federal immigration litigation. The City voted to become a plaintiff in a multiCity/county federal lawsuit challenging Trump administration directives that require local jurisdictions to assist in civil immigration enforcement.

The legal basis is constitutional. The suit argues the directives violate the 10th Amendment, Separation of Powers, the Spending Clause, and Due Process — particularly the threats of funding cuts and prosecution of local officials.

The vote was nearly unanimous but not without dissent. Councilmember DeCarli was the sole "no" vote; the Council otherwise moved forward 5–1.

This is a high-profile, multi-jurisdiction case already involving numerous California cities and counties, litigated in the Northern District of California.

AI-generated summary from voice-to-text transcript. Not the official record. Verify important details with the source documents linked above.

Additional votes recorded in minutes

Join as Plaintiff in Federal Litigation

Noe 1 · Absent 1 · Aye 3

Alex DecarliNoe

Brian BarnacleAbsent

Janice Cader ThompsonAye

Karen NauAye

Kevin McDonnellAye

Verbatim transcript available

2 transcript segments indexed

CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL & PETALUMA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY (PCDSA) City Hall Council Chamber 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 MINUTES Wednesday, June 11, 2025 CLOSED SESSION 4:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER – CLOSED SESSION – 4:00 P.M. Mayor McDonnell called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. • ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmember Cader Thompon, Councilmember DeCarli, Vice Mayor Nau, Councilmember Quint, Councilmember Shribbs, Mayor McDonnell ABSENT: Councilmember Barnacle CLOSED SESSION • CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Consideration of Initiation of Litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 Number of Cases: 1 Existing facts and circumstances: Multiple U.S. cities and counties in California and other states are plaintiffs in federal litigation brought in the Northern District, Case Number 25-CV-01350-WHO, challenging federal executive directives purporting to order local jurisdictions to assist in civil enforcement of Federal immigration policies in violation of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Separation of Powers doctrine, on pain of loss of federal funding, in violation of the Spending Clause, and threat of civil and criminal prosecution of local officials, in violation of the Due Process clause of the Constitution. Direction will be sought from the City Council on whether the City should join a motion seeking to intervene in the pending litigation as a plaintiff city. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS Mayor McDonnell opened the public comment. Nickola Frye Jodi Johnson Mayor McDonnell closed the public comment. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION Council adjourned to closed session at 4:08 p.m. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION

City Attorney Eric Danly reported that by a vote of 5 to 1, with Councilmember DeCarli opposed and Councilmember Barnacle absent, City Council directed that the City join as a plaintiff in the pending litigation City and County of San Francisco et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al, a Federal District Court case in the Northern District, Case no. 3:17-cv-00485-WHO. ADJOURNMENT Mayor McDonnell adjourned the meeting at 5:22 p.m.