California's effort to dictate how federal law enforcement officers identify themselves while carrying out their duties has run headlong into a constitutional brick wall, courtesy of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. (Yes, the 9th — they're showing semi-refreshing levels of sanity these days.)
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."
California's Attempt to Regulate Federal Agents Is a Non-Starter
California enacted the No Vigilantes Act (SB 805) in September 2025, amid heightened tensions over the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts. The law generally requires law enforcement officers operating in California who aren't wearing uniforms to visibly display their agency affiliation and either their name or badge number while conducting arrests, detentions, or crowd-control operations. It expressly includes federal officers, and knowing violations can result in misdemeanor charges.
The Trump administration sued California, Gov. Gavin Newsom, and Attorney General Rob Bonta, arguing that the state was attempting to impose its own rules on federal law enforcement operations. U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder declined to block the identification requirement, reasoning that the administration hadn't demonstrated that the law substantially interfered with federal officers' ability to perform their duties.
But the 9th Circuit disagreed.
The Supremacy Clause Means What It Says
The constitutional issue boils down to a fairly straightforward principle: States don't get to tell the federal government how to carry out its federal responsibilities unless Congress has authorized them to do so. That principle, known as intergovernmental immunity, flows from the Supremacy Clause.
California maintained that its identification requirements didn't impose a substantial burden on federal law enforcement. But Bennett explained that the lower court had applied the wrong legal standard — when a state law directly regulates the federal government's official functions, it doesn't matter whether the interference is substantial, minimal, or somewhere in between.
As Bennett put it:
"Section 10 thus directly regulates inherently sovereign functions. Because Congress has not authorized such legislation, it is barred by intergovernmental immunity."
In other words, California can't impose additional conditions on federal officers performing federal law enforcement duties simply because state officials believe those conditions are reasonable.
The panel also rejected California's argument that individual federal officers could raise constitutional defenses if prosecuted under the law. The problem wasn't merely the prospect of individual prosecutions — it was the state's attempt to regulate federal operations in the first place.
So, Now What?
The 9th Circuit reversed and remanded the case, directing the district court to enter a preliminary injunction preventing California from enforcing the identification requirement against federal agencies and officers.
To be clear, that restriction isn't entirely new — the same appellate panel had already blocked enforcement of the law in April while considering the administration's appeal. Wednesday's ruling resolves that appeal, directing the lower court to enter a preliminary injunction and reaffirming the panel's constitutional analysis in even stronger terms.
Something else to bear in mind: The ruling addresses the identification requirement, not California's separate No Secret Police Act (SB 627), which generally prohibits law enforcement officers from concealing their faces while performing their duties. (The district court had already preliminarily blocked enforcement of that law against federal officers, finding that it unlawfully discriminated against the federal government, and neither side appealed that portion of the ruling.)
But while the case remains at the preliminary injunction stage, the panel left little uncertainty as to where it stands on the merits. The three-judge panel included Bennett and Judge Daniel Collins, both Trump appointees, along with Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, an Obama appointee, and all three agreed: California's identification mandate crosses a constitutional line. So, yes, this is a decisive win for the administration.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.