A federal appeals court has permanently blocked a California law requiring federal immigration enforcement officers to display visible identification while on duty, ruling that the state overstepped its authority by regulating federal operations.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous decision on Wednesday, overturning a lower court’s ruling that had allowed the law to proceed. The panel of judges—Mark J. Bennett, Daniel Collins, and Jacqueline Nguyen—found that the state’s "No Vigilantes Act" violated the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which bars states from directly regulating federal government functions without congressional authorization.
The law, signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom in 2023, had required federal immigration agents, including those from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to visibly display identification badges while performing duties in the state. The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the law in September 2023, arguing that it interfered with federal law enforcement operations.
The appeals court’s ruling permanently bars enforcement of the ID requirement, concluding that California’s attempt to regulate federal agents exceeded state authority. The decision aligns with a preliminary injunction issued by the same court in October 2023, which had paused enforcement of the law pending legal challenges.
Legal Rationale: Supremacy Clause and Intergovernmental Immunity
The court’s decision hinged on two constitutional principles: the Supremacy Clause and intergovernmental immunity. The judges wrote that states cannot impose requirements on federal officers that Congress has not explicitly authorized, even if those requirements apply equally to state and local law enforcement.
Judge Bennett, writing for the panel, stated: "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."
The ruling rejected California’s argument that the law functioned similarly to a "speed limit" on federal agents, noting that direct regulation of federal conduct—even in a neutral manner—remains unconstitutional without federal approval.
Background: The No Vigilantes Act and Broader Context
The "No Vigilantes Act" was part of a broader package of laws aimed at increasing transparency around immigration enforcement in California. The legislation also included a provision banning the use of masks by law enforcement officers, which was separately blocked by a federal judge in Los Angeles earlier this year.
The legal challenges emerged amid heightened scrutiny of immigration enforcement practices, including high-profile incidents involving ICE agents. In 2020, the shootings of civilians Renee Good and Alex Pretti by ICE agents in Minneapolis sparked national debate over accountability in federal law enforcement operations.
At the time of the law’s passage, more than a dozen states were considering similar measures to regulate federal immigration enforcement within their borders. California’s law was the first to face a federal legal challenge and subsequent court ruling.
Reactions and Next Steps
The Justice Department welcomed the decision, calling it a reaffirmation of federal authority in law enforcement matters. A spokesperson for the department stated that the ruling "protects the ability of federal officers to perform their duties without state interference."
California officials have not yet indicated whether they will appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.
Legal experts note that the ruling sets a precedent for other states considering similar laws, reinforcing the limits of state authority over federal immigration enforcement. The decision also underscores the ongoing tension between state and federal governments over immigration policy, a debate that has intensified in recent years.