A federal appeals court blocked a California law that required federal immigration agents to wear identification, issuing an injunction pending appeal as the legal fight moves forward. In its order Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the measure improperly tried to regulate federal operations, striking at the core question of who can set rules for federal immigration enforcement.
The appeals court’s decision was the latest setback for California’s efforts to limit how the Trump administration conducts immigration enforcement. The identification requirement was part of a package of last fall’s laws aimed at reining in what advocates and state officials described as aggressive enforcement tactics, including actions taken during operations in Southern California earlier this year.
In the court’s view, the state law did not merely apply alongside federal practices—it “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” according to the opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett. The panel also said that, under the Supremacy Clause, states cannot enact a law that directly regulates federal operations even when the state statute would regulate similarly situated state operations.
The Trump administration argued in court that the identification requirement would violate the Constitution and could endanger officers by exposing them to harassment, doxing and violence. At an appeal hearing on March 3, Justice Department lawyers also argued that California was trying to regulate the federal government in a way that the Constitution does not allow.
California, according to the court filings described in the opinion, said the law applied equally to all law enforcement officers and did not single out federal agents. The state also argued that identification for law enforcement is important to public safety, citing concerns that a lack of visible identifying information can increase confusion and risk during confrontations.
California’s attorneys said people are more likely to attack officers in self-defense if there is no visible identification, and they described the confusion as a safety risk for both peace officers and members of the public. They also pointed to an FBI report from October 2025 warning that increased U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity had helped spur “criminal actors impersonating ICE agents to commit violent crime.”
The appeals court rejected the idea that those public-safety factors should control the constitutional question, saying the judges did not consider them because the federal government demonstrated its rights would be violated by the legislation. The panel also emphasized that “all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution,” while concluding that the state’s approach was incompatible with federal authority over its own operations.
The identification fight has unfolded alongside another California law targeting facial coverings. Last fall, California also enacted a mask-related measure that would have banned most law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters and other facial coverings. After a federal judge blocked the mask ban in February, that judge ruled the state law discriminated against the federal government because it did not apply to state troopers, while leaving open the possibility that California could craft restrictions that applied more broadly.
According to the appeals court’s description of the history, the mask ban law included exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment such as N95 respirators and other situations in which not wearing a mask would jeopardize operations. But the identification ruling suggests the appellate court was drawing a stricter line on the state government’s ability to regulate federal officers directly.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli called the outcome a “huge legal victory” in a post on X, and California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said it was reviewing the order. In a statement, Bonta’s office said the Trump administration stepped “well outside the boundaries of normal practice” by deploying masked and unidentified agents to carry out immigration enforcement, despite risks to public safety and “basic civil liberties.”
As the case proceeds, California has also been working on ways to revive portions of its earlier restrictions, including by drafting a new mask-related bill aimed at applying facial-covering limits to state troopers as well. The appeals court’s opinion, however, indicated it viewed the Supremacy Clause as barring state laws that directly regulate federal operations, even if those laws target the same general risks.