Appeals court blocks California law forcing ICE agents to wear ID: 'Certain to succeed'

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that California cannot force federal immigration agents to wear name or badge identification while they make arrests. The court found that the 2025 state law violates the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

In a unanimous 21-page opinion, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a Los Angeles federal judge who had refused to block the law. It ordered her to issue a preliminary injunction barring California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta from enforcing it against the United States, federal agencies and federal officers.

The court did not stop at "likely." "Indeed, we conclude that the United States is certain to succeed," Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote for the panel, which also included Judges Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Daniel P. Collins.

The ruling was first flagged on X by the account Libs of TikTok, which called it a "MAJOR WIN."

What the law required

Section 10 of Senate Bill 805, which California calls the "No Vigilantes Act," required any federal law enforcement officer working in the state without a uniform to "visibly display identification that includes their agency and either a name or badge number or both" during arrests, detentions and crowd control. A "willful and knowing" violation was a misdemeanor, meaning California could criminally prosecute federal agents for doing their jobs.

The opinion notes that California enacted the law on Sept. 20, 2025, explicitly "in response to" the federal government's "broad immigration enforcement efforts."

'Void'

The panel said the problem is basic constitutional structure. Under the Supremacy Clause, states may not directly regulate the federal government, and Congress never authorized California to tell federal officers how to identify themselves.

"Section 10 explicitly overrides the federal government's power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers, and therefore regulates the manner and conditions under which federal agents can enforce federal law," Bennett wrote.

The court added that such a law "is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations."

The panel rejected the idea that the ID rule was just an ordinary state law that happens to touch federal officers. Unlike a traffic law "which regulate[s] conduct that any ordinary citizen could engage in," the opinion said, Section 10 "applies exclusively to law enforcement officials and exclusively to their performance of law enforcement operations."

A pattern of losses

Wednesday's decision is the latest setback for the package of laws Sacramento passed to rein in immigration enforcement.

The same Ninth Circuit panel had already frozen the ID requirement in April, when it granted the Trump administration an injunction while the appeal was pending. And the state's companion "No Secret Police Act," Senate Bill 627, which banned federal agents from wearing masks, was partly blocked by the trial court itself. U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder found that the mask ban "unlawfully discriminates against the federal government" because it did not apply to every state officer. California did not appeal that ruling, according to the opinion.

Bill Essayli of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, which brought the case, celebrated on X. "Huge win for the Supremacy Clause," he wrote. "California continues to violate the U.S. Constitution, and we will continue to hold them accountable."

Newsom's office and Bonta's office had not posted a public response as of Thursday morning. The state could ask a larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges to rehear the case or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What it means for San Diego

The law would have applied to every federal officer operating in California, including the ICE, Border Patrol and other Homeland Security agents who work across San Diego County. Under Wednesday's ruling, California cannot prosecute those officers for declining to display a name or badge number while making arrests.

The case is *United States v. State of California*, No. 26-926, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.