9th Circuit blocks California law requiring federal immigration agents to display ID

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Oct. 14 ordered a lower court to block California from enforcing a state law against federal law enforcement officers that requires them to visibly display identification (ID) while on duty, finding that the state cannot directly regulate the federal government’s operations without congressional authorization.

The unanimous decision concerns Section 10 of California’s “No Vigilantes Act,” which Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in September 2025. The provision required non-uniformed officers operating in the state to display their agency and either a name or badge number during arrests, detentions, and crowd control operations. 

Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Mark Bennett said the measure violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it “explicitly overrides the federal government’s power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers” without congressional authorization. 

“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 wrote. 

Judges Daniel Collins and Jacqueline Nguyen joined Bennett’s opinion.

California argued that the identification requirement would amount to unconstitutional regulation only if it imposed substantial burdens on federal operations. The panel rejected that argument, concluding that the degree of interference was irrelevant to whether California could directly regulate federal officers.

The decision comes from an appeals court that previously ruled against several Trump immigration policies, including his first-term travel ban, asylum restrictions, and efforts to withhold funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, Fox News reported. 

The ruling marks a setback for Newsom, who has positioned himself as a leading opponent of President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda and is widely viewed as a 2028 presidential hopeful. 

“California is proud to fight for the safety of our communities against the federal government’s campaign of terror and weaponized incompetence,” a spokesperson for Newsom's office said in a statement that Fox News cited Oct. 14. “Their tactics continue to harm our families every day.”

In November 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued California over provisions in the “No Vigilantes Act” and the “No Secret Police Act,” which restricts law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings. 

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder, whom former President Bill Clinton appointed, initially blocked the mask restriction as applied to federal officers but declined to issue a preliminary injunction against the identification requirement, according to the appellate opinion.

The Trump administration appealed Snyder's decision on the ID provision, and the Ninth Circuit temporarily blocked its enforcement against federal agencies and officers in February before granting an injunction pending appeal in April. The Oct. 14 ruling reverses Snyder’s denial and returns the case to her court with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction.

Trump administration officials welcomed the decision. Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Division, wrote on X that the circuit court “agrees that California cannot regulate federal law enforcement.”

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. wrote on X, “Today, the Ninth Circuit again affirms what common sense makes clear: California cannot regulate how Federal law enforcement officers carry out their jobs authorized by Congress.”

He called the decision 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.”