A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a unanimous opinion this week enjoining the state of California from applying or enforcing section 10 of its “No Vigilantes Act”, which had attempted to force federal officers (read: “ICE”) to “visibly display identification” in the course of their duties. This law — more of a “message bill” used to attack the administration on a locally unpopular issue than an effort to address a real problem — was doomed from the start, but it’s good to receive assurance that the Constitution is still the law in the Golden State.
ICE Operations in Los Angeles
In June 2025, ICE launched what Al-Jazeera termed “military-sized raids” in Los Angeles, triggering “protests” that quickly devolved into chaos as rioters assaulted local law enforcement.
Over the objections of L.A. Mayor Karen Bass (D) and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), Trump called out the National Guard and Marines to protect agents and federal property in response to those protests, prompting a lawsuit by the state.
That September and December, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer declared the deployment illegal.
SB 805
On June 23, 2025, California State Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena) introduced Senate Bill 805, dubbed the “No Vigilantes Act”. As she breathlessly explained at the time:
We have seen law enforcement operations being conducted in the name of immigration enforcement. But their appearance, tactics and behavior do not look like normal law enforcement practices. ... We've seen guns pulled on civilians, and people snatched off the streets and in workplaces by masked people in civilian clothing and unmarked cars. This creates tremendous confusion, fear, and mistrust in communities across the state. We need to protect our residents and that means knowing who is actually conducting law enforcement operations on our streets.
Consistent with that (questionably accurate) plaint, section 1 of SB 805, as passed in Sacramento and signed by Newsom, begins:
The federal government has launched broad immigration enforcement efforts in California, deploying personnel from various federal agencies.
The increasing use of face coverings, the absence of visible names, officer identification number, or other individually identifying information, the failure to be clearly and conspicuously identifiable as federal law enforcement, or the use of unmarked vehicles during enforcement activities has raised concerns for public safety.
Section 10
Section 10 of SB 805 added a new section 13654 the California Penal Code, which states in pertinent part at subsection (a):
A law enforcement officer operating in California that is not uniformed, and therefore is not required to clearly display identification pursuant to Section 830.10, shall visibly display identification that includes their agency and either a name or badge number or both name and badge number when performing their enforcement duties.
Violations are a misdemeanor, and there are exceptions for undercover officers, plainclothes officers working for certain state agencies (and their federal counterparts), officers wearing protective gear “that prevents display”, “exigent circumstances”, SWAT officers, and those working security details “where the display of identification would compromise the safety, anonymity, or tactical effectiveness of the protection detail”.
That said, the law explicitly applies not only to state and local authorities, but also to “any federal law enforcement officer”, though it includes a “safe harbor” exception for those working for an agency that “maintains and publicly posts a written policy pursuant to Section 7288 of the Government Code”, section 2 of SB 805, which circularly relates to visible ID on law enforcement — a policy ICE does not have.
District Court Order
On November 17, DOJ filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (C.D. Cal.), challenging both the No Vigilantes Act and a separate law, SB 627, which bars law enforcement (including federal officers) from wearing facial coverings, on constitutional grounds.
The case was assigned to Judge Christina Snyder of the C.D. Cal. (a Clinton appointee), and on February 9, she enjoined the facial covering ban as it related to federal officers but denied the government’s request for a preliminary injunction of sections 2 and 10 of the Not Vigilantes Act, the former section on standing grounds because the policy requirement doesn’t carry any penalties for noncompliance.
The Ninth Circuit Opinion
The government appealed Judge Snyder’s order as it related to the ID requirement in section 10 of SB 805 to the Ninth Circuit, where it was assigned to a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Jacqueline Nguyen (an Obama appointee), Mark Bennett (nominated to the bench by Trump), and Daniel Collins (also nominated by Trump).
On February 19, the court issued a temporary “administrative injunction” that barred California from applying or enforcing the ID requirement in section 10 against officers and employees of the federal government while the panel considered a broader injunction.
The circuit went one step further on April 22, issuing a unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Bennett, which enjoined the state of California from applying or enforcing the law “against federal agencies or officers” pending appeal.
The Supremacy Clause and Its Limited Exceptions
The opinion is relatively short (16 pages), but then the circuit’s conclusions were direct: The federal government was likely to succeed in its challenge to the ID requirement because section 10 “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions” in violation of the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, of the U.S. Constitution.
That clause states, in pertinent part:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added.]
As the Supreme Court explained in 2022, a concept that has emerged from application of the Supremacy Clause is the doctrine of “intergovernmental immunity”, which was key to the circuit court’s conclusions.
That doctrine prohibits state laws that (1) “regulate the United States directly”; or (2) “discriminate against the Federal Government or those with whom it deals”, such as contractors.
That said, a 1990 plurality opinion of the Supreme Court concluded that not all state regulations on federal contractors are prohibited under the clause, but they are only permissible if they are “imposed on some basis unrelated to the object’s status as a government contractor”.
Keep that exception in mind as I explain the rest of the opinion.
Of course, section 10 doesn’t regulate federal contractors; it governs the federal officers, and therefore is subject to strict application of the Supremacy Clause, which, the Ninth Circuit explained, “prohibits States from enacting a law that directly regulates federal operations even if the law regulates state operations in the same manner” — the enforcement scheme at the heart of section 10.
The Supremacy Clause, however, does not give federal officers license to engage in illegal activity; as the Supreme Court has explained: “Of course, an employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while acting in the course of his employment.”
Specifically, “general rules” that regulate conduct anyone could perform, like codes “regulating the mode of turning at the corners of streets” are permissible areas for state action against federal employees.
By its terms, though, section 10 doesn’t “regulate conduct that any ordinary citizen could perform”; it applies specifically to officers performing their official law-enforcement duties, something the rest of us would be prosecuted for if we tried to do them without proper authority.
Congress could always expressly leave certain federal government activities subject to state and local regulation, but it hasn’t done so in this scenario. Instead, section 10 “purports to override the federal government’s power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers”.
And because section 10 “attempts to directly regulate the United States”, the panel concluded it was “likely unconstitutional” and enjoined its enforcement against the federal government pending appeal.
The District Court “Asked the Wrong Question”
In her decision, Judge Snyder of the C.D. Cal. concluded that the impact of section 10 on federal agents was “likely to be minimal, and comparable to the effects of any other generally applicable rules, such as speed limits”.
The Ninth Circuit concluded, however, that Judge Snyder below “asked the wrong question”. It continued:
By looking to the degree § 10 interfered with the activities of the United States, the district court applied a standard pertaining to States’ regulation of federal contractors and third-party employers, not the standard applicable to direct regulation of governmental activities of the United States.
“[W]here, as here, the governmental action is carried on by the United States itself and Congress does not affirmatively declare its instrumentalities or property subject to regulation or taxation, the inherent freedom from direct regulation continues.”
“With All Due Respect”
With all due respect, section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act was doomed from the start, and even if the Ninth Circuit panel had skipped class the day they taught the Supremacy Clause in law school, the Supreme Court would have enjoined the regulation on appeal — it’s that blatant a violation of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine.
To be fair, however, the sponsors of this bill and the governor who signed it likely never intended it as a law that could pass constitutional muster but rather as a “message bill” it could wield to cudgel the administration on a locally unpopular federal activity (immigration enforcement) in a “sanctuary” state.
Depending on your point of view, Trump II either acceded to the state’s demands or refused to rise to the bait.
On March 17, “Border Czar” Tom Homan sent a letter to the U.S. Senate agreeing to “enforce the use of visible officer identification for DHS law enforcement carrying out immigration enforcement activities”, with an exception for undercover officers.
From my experience, that has long been the unofficial rule in immigration enforcement, though curiously the president’s opponents haven’t latched onto Homan’s seeming concession to claim victory.
Our federal constitutional system cuts both ways, barring the U.S. government from “commandeering” state officers to perform federal duties but also prohibiting states from regulating and discriminating against the feds when they perform those duties. And whether the grandees in Sacramento like it or not, the Constitution still applies in the Golden State.