The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals barred California on Wednesday from enforcing a law requiring federal immigration officers to identify themselves while on duty, ruling that the state cannot dictate how federal agents carry out their work.
The three-judge panel granted the federal government a preliminary injunction against the identification provision of California’s No Vigilantes Act. The decision reverses a lower-court ruling that had refused to block the law.
“As before, we conclude that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits of its Supremacy Clause claim because … [the] No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions, and Congress has not authorized such regulation,” U.S. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, a nominee of President Donald Trump, wrote in the opinion. He was joined on the panel by U.S. Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, a nominee of former President Barack Obama, and U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Collins, another Trump nominee.
“In sum, if a state law directly regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional authorization, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations,” Bennett added.
The ruling does not end the lawsuit. Rather, it prevents California from enforcing the identification requirement against federal officers while the case continues.
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) signed the two laws in September 2025 as part of legislation responding to Trump’s immigration enforcement operations. Newsom criticized federal agents for arresting U.S. citizens, concealing their identities, and undermining transparency.
“For Trump and Miller, the only metric is mass arrests, detentions and removals — even at the expense of Americans’ constitutional rights,” Newsom said at the time, referring to White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller.
The Justice Department sued California, Newsom, and state Attorney General Rob Bonta on Nov. 17, 2025, challenging provisions of both laws before it was set to go into effect in January 2026. The federal government argued that the measures improperly regulated federal law enforcement operations and that the mask restrictions discriminated against the federal government.
The district court declined to block the identification requirement, finding that the government had not shown the law would interfere with federal immigration enforcement, prompting the federal government to appeal.
“Security concerns exist for federal law enforcement officers with or without masks,” U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder, a nominee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote in February. “If anything, the court finds that the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”
ILHAN OMAR IMMIGRATION HISTORY: SCRUTINY SURROUNDS FAMILY’S REFUGEE CLAIMS
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. welcomed the decision, posting on social media that California cannot dictate how federal law enforcement officers perform duties authorized by Congress.
“Today’s decision is a huge WIN for protecting the safety of our Nation’s law enforcement officers and ensuring @POTUS’s promise to enforce our Nation’s immigration laws,” Woodward said.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
