Ninth Circuit Blocks California's Law Requiring ICE Agents to Show ID

A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday blocked a California law that would have required federal immigration agents to display visible identification on the job. The court held that the measure, part of the No Vigilantes Act, violates the Supremacy Clause, which puts federal law above state law.

The Blaze reported that more than a dozen other states have similar laws. The notes available for this story do not say how the ruling bears on those states.

It is also a loss for Gov. Gavin Newsom, who signed the law in September 2025, according to the Daily Caller.

What the Court Said

Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote the opinion. According to The Blaze, he concluded that the Act "attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions," and that a state cannot restrict federal operations without the approval of Congress. The outlet also quoted him: "No set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid."

The panel issued an injunction blocking the identification requirement, the Washington Times reported. The Blaze described the ruling as permanent, but that is the outlet's characterization, and the precise legal disposition is unconfirmed. The opinion itself, its case name and its docket number were not available for this report.

The provision at issue, Section 10 of the Act, required agents to display the name of their agency along with either their own name or a badge number, the Daily Caller reported.

A Long Fight Over Masks and Badges

The Justice Department sued California over two laws: the identification requirement and a separate mask ban, known as the No Secret Police Act. The Department of Homeland Security says masks protect officers from doxxing and threats, according to the Washington Times.

The mask ban fell first. On Feb. 9, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder, a Clinton appointee, blocked it, Fox News reported. She found the law discriminatory because it exempted California's own state officers. Fox also reported her statement that "federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks." Attorney General Pamela Bondi praised that ruling on X.

The identification law survived at the district court level, while the mask ban did not. The Justice Department appealed the Feb. 9 ruling. In arguments, the Los Angeles Times reported, California Deputy Attorney General Cameron Bell argued for the state, and Snyder asked why state officers had been excluded.

The Washington Times reported that the department has won injunctions against mask laws in California, New York and Virginia.

Some Questions Still Open

The record is not entirely tidy. The Daily Caller reported that the Ninth Circuit ruled against Section 10 on April 22, in an opinion also written by Bennett, a Trump appointee. The Blaze described that April decision as striking down a "similar restriction" rather than the ID provision itself. How the April and October rulings relate could not be confirmed.

It is also unclear whether Wednesday's decision addresses the mask ban as well as the identification law, or only the latter. The New York Post also covered the ruling, but its report was not available for this story.

No response from Newsom, California Attorney General Bonta, DHS or the Justice Department to Wednesday's decision appeared in the reporting reviewed.