The Ninth Circuit blocked California from forcing federal immigration agents to wear ID badges, ruling the state law violates the Supremacy Clause and siding with the Trump administration.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that California cannot compel federal immigration agents and other federal officers to display identification during enforcement operations. The court found Section 10 of the state’s “No Vigilantes Act” unconstitutional as applied to those officers, reversed a lower court, and ordered a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the mandate against federal agencies and officers.
Breitbart News reported the decision was handed down Wednesday after the same panel had paused the requirement in April and issued its merits ruling Tuesday. Judge Mark Bennett wrote for the panel, which also included Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Daniel Collins.
The ruling lands as a direct check on California’s effort to police how federal officers do their jobs inside the state. Under the Supremacy Clause, states do not get to rewrite the rules for federal law enforcement without Congress’s say-so.
California enacted the No Vigilantes Act in 2025 after federal immigration sweeps across the state. Many of those operations involved masked agents and unmarked cars, drawing objections from Democrat officials. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measure alongside the separate No Secret Police Act, which sought to restrict face coverings and was itself blocked by a district judge earlier this year.
Section 10 required non-uniformed law enforcement officers operating in California, including federal agents, to visibly display their agency and either a name or badge number while carrying out enforcement duties. Refusal opened the door to misdemeanor prosecution by the state.
In short, Sacramento tried to turn federal immigration work into a state-regulated activity. The Ninth Circuit said no.
Bennett, a Trump appointee, wrote that the government is “certain” to succeed on its constitutional challenge. The panel held the identification mandate invalid in every application to federal officers acting under federal authority. Law enforcement is a core government activity. A state measure that attempts to directly regulate the federal government as it performs its own functions cannot stand without authorization from Congress.
California argued the law did not substantially interfere with federal operations. The court rejected that framing. Even minimal interference is beside the point when a state directly regulates federal governmental conduct.
The New York Post reported that Judge Mark J. Bennett made the constitutional line unmistakable.
Bennett wrote for the court:
"As before, we conclude... the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions. No set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid."
That language shuts the door on claims that the rule could somehow survive in limited form. The Justice Department had sued to block both the ID requirement and the related mask ban. A lower court had allowed the ID rule to proceed. The appeals court reversed that outcome and locked in the injunction.
Bill Essayli, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, put the stakes in plain terms:
"Huge win for the Supremacy Clause. California continues to violate the U.S. Constitution, and we will continue to hold them accountable."
Nguyen, an Obama appointee, joined Trump appointees Bennett and Collins on the panel. The lineup underscores that the constitutional problem was not a partisan novelty. It was a basic federalism limit.
The ID mandate did not stand alone. Newsom signed the No Vigilantes Act together with the No Secret Police Act. The face-covering restrictions drew a separate district-court block earlier this year. Together, the pair amounted to a state bid to dictate how federal immigration agents could dress, identify themselves, and operate on California soil.
Federal immigration enforcement is a national responsibility. When states layer misdemeanor threats onto federal officers for failing to follow local display rules, they invert the constitutional order. The Ninth Circuit restored that order for the identification requirement.
California’s remaining paths are limited. The state can seek rehearing or petition the Supreme Court. Until then, the preliminary injunction bars enforcement of the ID rule against federal agencies and officers.
The practical result is straightforward. Federal agents conducting immigration enforcement in California are no longer exposed to state misdemeanor charges for declining to wear the badges Sacramento demanded. The Supremacy Clause does that work. The court simply enforced it.
State leaders who object to federal immigration sweeps have political avenues and policy arguments. They do not have a freestanding power to rewrite the operating rules for federal officers. Section 10 tried exactly that. The Ninth Circuit called it what it was, an unconstitutional attempt to regulate the United States in the performance of its own functions.
Taxpayers and lawful residents who want borders enforced just watched a federal court refuse to let California criminalize the basic mechanics of that work. Constitutional limits still mean something when states overreach.
