Ninth Circuit Blocks California Law Requiring Federal Agents to Show ID
A federal appeals court ruled that California's identification requirement for federal law enforcement violates the Supremacy Clause.
The Trump administration secured a legal victory Wednesday when the liberal-leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked a provision of a California law that mandated plainclothes federal law enforcement agents display badges and identification during operations.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Trump administration was "certain to succeed" in its legal challenge against California, concluding that the identification requirement in the state's No Vigilantes Act unconstitutionally infringes on federal authority, a violation of the Supremacy Clause.
"Section 10 explicitly overrides the federal government’s power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers," the court stated in its ruling. This preliminary injunction comes from an appeals court that has previously ruled against several of the Trump administration's immigration policies.
The decision represents a significant setback for California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been a vocal opponent of the Trump administration's immigration agenda and has signed multiple laws aimed at protecting immigrant communities and limiting federal enforcement actions within the state.
The Trump administration filed suit against California in November 2025 over provisions in both the No Vigilantes Act and the No Secret Police Act, which restricts officers from wearing face coverings. While a federal judge initially blocked the mask restriction aspect of the No Secret Police Act for federal officers, she declined to block the identification requirement of the No Vigilantes Act. The administration appealed that decision, leading to the Ninth Circuit's preliminary injunction.
California had argued that its identification requirement did not unconstitutionally regulate federal operations, contending that state law only crosses that line when it imposes substantial burdens. However, the appeals court determined that states do not possess the authority to directly regulate federal officials.
"The burden of the regulation on federal operations, whether substantial or otherwise, is irrelevant," the court found. "The state never had the authority to directly regulate federal officials."
Officials from the Justice Department praised the ruling. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Brett Shumate commented on X, formerly Twitter, stating, "The Ninth Circuit agrees that California cannot regulate federal law enforcement." Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr. added, "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."