California Gov. Gavin Newsom often seems to think he’s president, but the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just stomped that notion to the curb — as RedState Deputy Managing Editor Susie Moore reported Wednesday — when it nuked a law that would have forced ICE agents to wear identification and show their badge numbers on their uniforms. See: 9th Circuit Hands Trump Administration Decisive Win Over California's 'No Vigilantes Act.'
Moore:
In a unanimous ruling Wednesday, a three-judge panel reversed a lower court's refusal to block enforcement of California's so-called "No Vigilantes Act" against federal officers, concluding that the law's application to federal officers violates the Constitution's Supremacy Clause — and the panel wasn't exactly on the fence about it.
Writing for the court, Judge Mark Bennett concluded that the federal government wasn't merely likely to succeed in its challenge to the law — it was "certain to succeed."
So why did they say, "you can't do that?" Because a state can’t regulate actions by the federal government, the panel reminded California in a unanimous decision.
You’re not the boss, Gav:
The Details: A three-judge panel unanimously voted that the state's No Vigilantes Act violated the Constitution Supremacy Clause, which established that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state law. The judges said that states generally can't regulate federal operations without congressional approval. The law would've required non-uniformed and plainclothes law enforcement officers to display visible identification, such as their name, badge number or agency.
BREAKING: The Ninth Circuit Court just ruled that California's law requiring ICE agents to show visible ID during immigration operations is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it violates the Supremacy Clause.
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) October 14, 2026
MAJOR WIN pic.twitter.com/qLfMLTAVip
Newsflash to Mr. Newsom: You don’t get to tell the federal government what to do:
“As before, we conclude … the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote. “No set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.”
Trump officials cheered the ruling. First Assistant US Attorney for the Central District Bill Essayli condemned California on Wednesday.
“Huge win for the Supremacy Clause,” Essayli said. “California continues to violate the U.S. Constitution, and we will continue to hold them accountable.”
You can read the full decision here. The judges further explained how the No Vigilantes showed a state getting way out over its skis:
The panel concluded that the United States was likely to succeed on the merits of its Supremacy Clause claim because § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions, and Congress has not authorized such regulation. Section 10 explicitly overrides the federal government’s power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers, and therefore regulates the manner and conditions under which federal agents can enforce federal law. Section 10 thus directly regulates inherently sovereign functions. Because Congress has not authorized such legislation, it is barred by intergovernmental immunity. The United States has also shown that no set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.
Sorry, Newsom and Co., you’ll have to win a presidential election before you get to dictate how federal law enforcement conducts its business.
🚨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. Today's decision is a huge WIN for protecting the safety of our Nation's law enforcement officers… pic.twitter.com/tEvbbNlQT7
— Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr. (@ASGWoodward) October 14, 2026
🚨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. 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.
When the lefty Ninth Circuit can’t even buy your argument, Newsom and state Attorney General Rob Bonta, you know you’ve got a dog that won’t hunt.
Democrat governors from Virginia's Abigail Spanberger, Illinois' JB Pritzker, Newsom, New York's Kathy Hochul, Minnesota's Jazz Hands Walz, and others have repeatedly attempted to stymie the Trump administration's efforts to clean up Aisle 5 after former President Joe Biden's disastrous — and many would argue purposeful — surrender of our southern border.
Where they cross the line, however, is going from refusing to cooperate with the federal government, which is bad enough, to trying to tell them what to do. That is a bridge too far.
Let this be a lesson to Democrat governors everywhere: you don't run the entire country.
