The call for businesses looted during California’s recent “peaceful” protests to sue Governor Gavin Newsom into financial ruin is gaining steam among frustrated owners and conservatives. As anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles left 18 businesses ransacked, five vehicles torched, and $5.2 million in damages, critics argue Newsom’s sanctuary policies and soft-on-crime stance enabled the chaos. While the idea of holding him personally liable resonates with those demanding accountability, legal and practical hurdles make it a long shot, even as the debate rages over who’s to blame.
The riots, sparked by President Trump’s ICE raids targeting 3,000 daily arrests, turned Los Angeles into a battleground. Small businesses, like a family-owned taqueria in Echo Park and a Koreatown clothing store, were gutted, with owners facing losses uninsured or underinsured. Across California, protest-related damages since January 2025 have hit $12 million, with 47 officers injured and 338 arrests in LA alone. Critics point to Newsom’s SB 54, which limits state cooperation with ICE, as a magnet for unrest, arguing his rhetoric—calling raids “inhumane”—emboldened rioters mislabeled as peaceful protesters.
The push to sue Newsom personally stems from anger over his leadership. Business owners, backed by conservative lawmakers, claim his policies created a climate where looters act with impunity. They cite California’s Proposition 47, which reduced penalties for theft under $950, and Newsom’s resistance to stricter enforcement as enabling crime. With 48% of Americans supporting Trump’s raids, the argument goes that Newsom’s defiance of federal law—coupled with his $68 billion budget deficit—has left businesses defenseless, justifying lawsuits to hold him accountable.
Legally, the idea faces steep barriers. Sovereign immunity protects officials like Newsom from personal liability for actions taken in their official capacity, and courts have historically dismissed such suits. Business owners could sue the state or city, but proving Newsom’s policies directly caused looting is a stretch. A 2021 case against Los Angeles for 2020 riot damages failed due to lack of evidence tying city policy to specific losses. Even if successful, taxpayers—not Newsom—would likely foot the bill, as seen in Minneapolis’s $27 million riot settlements.
Newsom’s defenders argue he’s not the culprit. They point to Trump’s raids, which netted 32,809 arrests including non-criminals, as the root of unrest, with 52% of blue-state voters opposing the policy. Mayor Karen Bass has emphasized de-escalation to avoid worse violence, and Newsom’s $1 billion in public safety funding aims to bolster local police. They argue lawsuits distract from systemic issues like economic inequality, which fuels protests, and note that crime rose nationwide, including in red states, during Trump’s first term.
The emotional appeal of suing Newsom is undeniable. Business owners, many immigrants themselves, feel betrayed by a governor who champions sanctuary policies while their livelihoods burn. Yet, the legal reality and risk of further burdening taxpayers weaken the case. The riots’ toll—shattered windows, stolen goods, and lost dreams—demands accountability, but targeting Newsom personally may be more symbolic than effective. As California grapples with its $692 billion federal tax burden and internal chaos, the question remains: who truly pays for the wreckage of “peaceful” protests?
