Ninth Circuit: California No Vigilantes Act Unconstitutional

• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled California's "No Vigilantes Act" unconstitutional, preventing its enforcement.
• The Act, which required federal law enforcement to wear visible identification, violates the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
• This decision reversed a lower court ruling by U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder and ordered a preliminary injunction against the law's enforcement.
• The law was enacted in 2025 in response to federal immigration enforcement tactics by ICE agents who often operated without visible identification.
• The ruling reinforces that states cannot directly regulate federal government operations without congressional authorization.

For legal professionals advising state or federal entities, this judgment is a significant reminder that state legislative attempts to directly regulate federal government operations, even for well-intentioned transparency measures, are likely to be challenged successfully under the Supremacy Clause.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently declared California's "No Vigilantes Act" unconstitutional, effectively preventing its enforcement. This state law, enacted to compel federal law enforcement agents to display visible identification while on duty, was found to violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The appellate panel's unanimous decision reversed an earlier ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder, who had initially denied the federal government's request for a preliminary injunction to halt the law's implementation.

Following a hearing in August, the three-judge panel concluded that the federal government was indeed entitled to such an injunction. Their ruling specifically instructed Judge Snyder to issue the preliminary injunction, thereby blocking the state from enforcing the identification requirement against federal agents. This outcome underscores a significant limitation on state legislative power when it attempts to regulate federal operations without explicit authorization from Congress.

The core of the Ninth Circuit's decision rests on the principle that states cannot directly regulate the activities of the federal government. U.S. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, a Donald Trump appointee who authored the panel's opinion, articulated this by stating that the Supremacy Clause prohibits states from directly regulating federal operations, even when they regulate state operations in a similar manner. He further clarified that any state law directly governing the conduct of the United States government, absent congressional authorization, is void. This holds true regardless of whether the regulated activities are deemed essential to federal functions or the degree to which the state law might interfere with those operations.

Judges Jacqueline Nguyen, an appointee of Barack Obama, and Daniel Collins, also appointed by Donald Trump, joined Judge Bennett in this unanimous opinion. This appellate reversal contrasted with Judge Snyder's earlier stance in the U.S. District Court, where she had not been convinced by the government's argument that discretionary masking and identification policies were crucial for agent safety in a politically charged environment. While Judge Snyder had blocked a provision of the California No Secret Police Act concerning face masks due to its discriminatory application to state agents, she maintained that "security concerns exist for federal law enforcement officers with or without masks."

The "No Vigilantes Act" was passed in California in 2025, emerging from a period of heightened tension surrounding federal immigration enforcement. This legislation, alongside the California No Secret Police Act, which sought to prohibit federal agents from wearing face masks during their duties, was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2025. These measures were a direct response to what was perceived as aggressive tactics by the Trump administration's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Southern California during June 2025.

During this period, ICE agents, often operating in unmarked vehicles, wearing face masks, and lacking visible identification, conducted widespread roundups of individuals suspected of being in the country without proper authorization. These operations frequently targeted locations such as Home Depot parking lots, car washes, bus stops, and towing yards, focusing on individuals described as working-class Latinos. Governor Newsom publicly criticized these actions, asserting that for figures like Trump and his White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the sole objective was mass arrests, detentions, and removals, even at the expense of constitutional rights. He specifically highlighted concerns that ICE agents had wrongfully arrested citizens, concealed their identities, and undermined transparency.

This Ninth Circuit ruling serves as a critical affirmation of the Supremacy Clause, delineating the boundaries of state legislative power, particularly concerning federal regulation and federal law enforcement identification California. The decision reinforces that states cannot unilaterally impose transparency or operational requirements on federal agencies without explicit congressional approval. The California Attorney General's office expressed disappointment with the outcome, emphasizing that "transparency and accountability are the foundation of good law enforcement" and that unidentified officers undermine collective safety. They indicated they are reviewing the court's opinion.

For legal professionals advising state or federal entities, this judgment is a significant reminder that state legislative attempts to directly regulate federal government operations, even for well-intentioned transparency measures, are likely to be challenged successfully under the Supremacy Clause. It impacts compliance strategies for state laws affecting federal agents and provides a strong precedent for future challenges to similar state-level regulations that seek to govern federal conduct without specific federal authorization.

Lawyers advising state or federal entities must note this ruling reinforces the Supremacy Clause, limiting state legislative power to directly regulate federal government operations, even for transparency measures like identification requirements, without explicit congressional authorization. This impacts compliance strategies for state laws affecting federal agents and could be cited in challenges to similar state-level regulations.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News