9th Circuit blocks California law requiring ICE agents to wear identification

Right · 2The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Wednesday 14 October 2026 that California cannot enforce the identification requirement in its No Vigilantes Act against federal immigration officers, finding that it violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. 1 2 Right · 2The three-judge panel granted the federal government a preliminary injunction and reversed a lower-court ruling that had refused to block the law; the case was sent back to the district court with instructions to block the provision. The ruling does not end the lawsuit, which continues. 2 1 Right · 2The New York Post, by contrast, described the ruling as having "permanently nixed" the law, a characterisation the other three outlets' accounts of a preliminary injunction do not support. 3 4

Right · 1Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, an Obama appointee, and Judge Daniel Collins, a Trump appointee. He wrote that the Act "attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions, and Congress has not authorized such regulation." 2 Right · 1The court rejected California's argument that a state law crosses the line only when it imposes substantial burdens on federal operations: "The burden of the regulation on federal operations, whether substantial or otherwise, is irrelevant," the panel wrote. It also said Section 10 "explicitly overrides the federal government's power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers." 4 Right · 1Because the United States showed the provision violates the Supremacy Clause, the decision said, the public interest and balance of equities also tip "decisively" in favour of an injunction. 1

Right · 2Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the No Vigilantes Act and a companion law, the No Secret Police Act, which restricts face coverings for officers, in September 2025 in response to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement. The Justice Department sued California, Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta on 17 November 2025, before the laws were due to take effect in January 2026. 2 4 Right · 2District Judge Christina Snyder, a Clinton appointee, blocked the mask restriction for federal officers but declined to block the identification requirement, finding the government had not shown it would interfere with enforcement. In February she wrote that masked and unidentifiable officers were "more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all." 4 2 Right · 2The Ninth Circuit temporarily blocked enforcement of the identification requirement in February and granted an injunction pending appeal in April, according to Fox News; the New York Post also says the court had blocked the law in April. 4 3

Right · 3Trump administration officials welcomed the ruling. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. called it "a huge WIN for protecting the safety of our Nation's law enforcement officers"; Civil Division head Brett Shumate wrote that "California cannot regulate federal law enforcement"; and Bill Essayli, First Assistant US Attorney for the Central District of California, called it a "huge win for the Supremacy Clause." 2 4 3 Right · 2Fox News said it had asked Newsom's office for comment and the New York Post said it had asked Bonta's office; neither outlet reported a response. Earlier, Bonta's office argued the law provided "transparency and accountability," and a Newsom spokesperson said "We shouldn't have unidentified, masked men terrorizing our communities." 4 3 Right · 1The New York Post reported that California has since enacted further laws, including a ban on "wearable electroshock devices", a bar on state employment for ICE agents accused of serious misconduct, and a right for residents to sue ICE officials, and that legislative analysts had warned such provisions would face legal challenge under intergovernmental immunity and conflict preemption doctrines. 3