A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday blocked California from forcing federal immigration agents to display identification during operations, ruling that the state’s No Vigilantes Act likely violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. The decision marks the second time a federal court has struck down a key provision of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s legislative push to constrain ICE enforcement in the state.
The panel, composed of two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee, was unanimous. The court found that California overstepped its authority by attempting to dictate how federal officers conduct immigration operations, a function reserved to the national government.
As Fox News Digital reported, the ruling specifically targeted section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act, one of two bills Newsom signed into law last fall. Together, the No Vigilantes Act and the No Secret Police Act required ICE agents to wear visible identification and banned them from wearing masks during enforcement actions. Both laws were pitched as responses to reports of unidentified federal agents, sometimes masked and in tactical gear, carrying out arrests and detaining illegal immigrants across California.
The Trump administration sued over both bills and sought injunctions. In court papers, the administration argued bluntly that “a state law that directly regulates the federal government’s operations is straightforwardly invalid, no matter the size of the burden it imposes.”
The Ninth Circuit agreed. In its written opinion, the panel stated:
“We conclude that [section 10] of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions. The Supremacy Clause forbids the State from enforcing such legislation.”
Wednesday’s ruling was not the first blow. A federal judge had already blocked California’s mask ban back in February, preventing the No Secret Police Act from taking effect. State Democratic lawmakers responded by trying to rewrite that bill, a process that remains ongoing. Now the identification mandate has fallen too, leaving Newsom’s twin-bill strategy in ruins at the appellate level.
The Washington Times identified the opinion’s author as Judge Mark Bennett, who wrote that “because Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States, we conclude that it is likely unconstitutional.” Bennett added pointedly that the Supremacy Clause “does bar direct state regulation of the federal government. And that is precisely what the No Vigilantes Act does.”
The legal reasoning was straightforward. AP News noted that the appeals court unanimously sided with the Trump administration’s position: the Supremacy Clause prohibits states from enacting a law that directly regulates federal operations, even if the same law also regulates state operations in the same manner.
That distinction matters. California’s defenders tried to frame the identification requirement as a neutral, generally applicable rule, the kind of thing any law enforcement officer should follow. The court rejected that framing. A state cannot dress up direct regulation of the federal government as mere good-government housekeeping.
The Trump administration’s case rested on more than constitutional theory. Newsmax reported that the administration argued the law “would threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing and violence.” The administration sued in November after Newsom signed the legislation, contending that requiring agents to display their names during enforcement operations put them and their families at risk.
ICE itself had raised similar concerns. Last summer, the agency said that Trump’s intensifying immigration crackdown had prompted anti-ICE protests and riots, and that rhetoric from the political left had caused a spike in “threats and assaults against [agents’] families.” The mask and identification requirements, in that context, were not abstract policy questions. They were operational security issues with real consequences for the men and women carrying out federal law.
California’s broader pattern of governance failures has given the state’s political leadership little credibility on questions of competence and accountability. The same administration that demanded ICE agents identify themselves sat on a $2 billion budget miscalculation for months before the public found out.
Newsom had defended the legislation in March, saying that “Trump’s ICE agents need to be reined in and held to the same standards as any other law enforcement agency” and that “federal accountability and clear identification shouldn’t be optional.”
A spokesperson for the governor responded to the ruling by telling Fox News Digital that “these laws shouldn’t even be necessary” and that “we shouldn’t have unidentified, masked men terrorizing our communities.” The spokesperson added: “We will continue demanding federal accountability and fighting against Trump and Miller’s reign of terror against our communities.”
The language is worth pausing on. “Reign of terror” is a political phrase, not a legal argument, and it is the kind of escalation that has become routine from Sacramento even as courts keep ruling against the state’s position. Newsom’s office did not dispute the constitutional reasoning. It simply restated its preferred framing and promised to keep fighting.
California could appeal the decision. But the trajectory is clear: two federal courts have now rejected two separate provisions of Newsom’s signature immigration enforcement legislation. The state’s lawmakers are already scrambling to rewrite one of the blocked bills. The other just got dismantled at the appellate level by a unanimous panel that included a judge appointed by a Democratic president.
Meanwhile, the state’s political class continues to generate headlines for reasons that have nothing to do with good governance. Federal authorities are investigating Rep. Eric Swalwell over alleged misuse of campaign funds, adding to the list of California Democratic figures facing legal scrutiny.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche called the ruling “another decisive victory in this administration’s effort to remove illegal aliens from this country.” He commended the DOJ Civil Division, which handled the litigation.
Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney in California, celebrated what he called a “huge legal victory… where the court permanently enjoined California’s unconstitutional mask law targeting federal agents.” Just The News confirmed the scope of the injunction, noting that the court blocked enforcement of the law requiring ICE officials to refrain from wearing masks and to display identification.
Harmeet Dhillon, head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division, posted two words on X: “Told ya!” Former DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf offered a more measured take, writing: “Finally, a good decision for common sense and strong immigration enforcement.”
The celebrations were not subtle. But they were earned. The Ninth Circuit, long considered the most liberal federal appellate court in the country, delivered a ruling that was not close. The constitutional principle was clear, and the panel applied it without hesitation.
The case also fits a larger pattern of blue-state overreach colliding with legal reality. Progressive governors have increasingly used state law as a tool to obstruct federal immigration enforcement, testing constitutional boundaries that courts have repeatedly reaffirmed.
The No Vigilantes Act’s identification mandate is now blocked pending appeal. The No Secret Police Act’s mask ban was already blocked in February. State lawmakers are trying to rewrite the mask provision, but that effort remains unfinished. Newsom’s office has signaled it will continue to fight, though the legal ground beneath the state’s position has narrowed considerably.
The Newsom spokesperson’s reference to Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and architect of many of the administration’s immigration policies, suggests Sacramento’s strategy going forward will lean more heavily on political messaging than on courtroom victories. The spokesperson accused undercover ICE agents of acting “at the direction of Trump and his aide Stephen Miller,” framing the dispute as a matter of executive overreach rather than constitutional law.
But the courts have now spoken twice, and both times they said the same thing: California cannot regulate how federal agents do their jobs. That is not a close call. It is a foundational principle of the constitutional order, one that Sacramento’s leadership appears determined to keep learning the hard way.
Newsom’s record of ambitious policy ventures running into hard walls of fiscal and legal reality extends well beyond immigration. The governor’s office can promise to keep fighting. The question is whether anyone in Sacramento has noticed the scoreboard.
When a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel, including an Obama appointee, tells you that your law is unconstitutional, the problem is not the court. The problem is the law.
By signing up, you agree to receive our newsletters and promotional content and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.