Ninth Circuit blocks California law requiring federal immigration agents to show ID
A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Oct. 14 issued a preliminary injunction that blocks California’s No Vigilantes Act requirement that federal immigration agents display identification while performing enforcement duties.
The decision matters because it reaffirms that a state cannot impose procedural requirements on federal officers carrying out federal law, a principle rooted in the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. The ruling curtails Governor Gavin Newsom’s attempt to increase transparency and accountability of immigration enforcement within California.
Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act, signed by Newsom in September 2025, required non‑uniformed law‑enforcement officers—including ICE agents—to visibly display their agency name and either a name or badge number during arrests, detentions and crowd‑control operations. A willful violation would have been a misdemeanor under state law.
The Justice Department sued California, the governor and Attorney General Rob Bonta in November 2025. A district judge initially refused to block the provision, but the Ninth Circuit temporarily halted enforcement in February and again in April. The latest opinion provides the first full appellate explanation for the injunction.
Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Mark Bennett said the measure “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions” without congressional authorization, violating the Supremacy Clause. He quoted the Court’s historic precedent from McCulloch v. Maryland, noting that states cannot control federal functions even if the regulation imposes only a minimal burden. Judges Daniel Collins and Jacqueline Nguyen joined the opinion, underscoring bipartisan agreement.
The judges rejected California’s argument that the requirement imposed no substantial burden on federal operations. They held that the degree of interference is irrelevant when a state law directly regulates federal officers; such a law is void “irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations.”
The appellate court’s order remands the case to the district court with instructions to issue a preliminary injunction, effectively preventing the state from enforcing the identification rule against federal agents pending further litigation.
Legal analysts note the decision limits California’s ability to compel federal agencies to adopt state‑level transparency measures, though the governor may continue to pursue other avenues of oversight, such as lawsuits or legislative challenges. The DOJ welcomed the ruling as a protection for federal law‑enforcement officers and a reaffirmation of constitutional authority.
