Body
A federal appeals court blocked a California law requiring federal immigration agents to wear identification, issuing an injunction pending appeal and citing constitutional limits on how states can regulate federal officers. The decision was handed down by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday.
The court said the California measure conflicts with federal authority over immigration enforcement. In the panel’s view, the law “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” according to an opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett.
The panel’s order came after the appeals court had already prevented the law from taking effect earlier in the litigation. The Wednesday decision maintained the block while the case proceeds, and the opinion issued unanimously by the judges involved Daniel P. Collins and Jacqueline H. Nguyen.
In court filings and arguments, the Trump administration contended the state’s identification requirement could endanger officers by exposing them to harassment, doxing and violence. The Justice Department also argued that California could not regulate federal officers directly and that the law ran afoul of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
California’s attorneys argued that the law operated more broadly than the federal government’s characterization suggested. They said the measure applied equally to all law enforcement officers without discriminating against the federal government, and they argued that states could enforce “generally applicable” laws while addressing public-safety concerns.
California officials also argued that visible identification helps the public distinguish law enforcement from other individuals. People would be less likely to attack officers in self-defense if they could see that the officers are law enforcement, California lawyers wrote in a brief, saying confusion creates “serious risk of harm to peace officers and members of the public.”
The appeals court said it did not weigh those public-safety considerations, reasoning that federal constitutional rights would be violated by the legislation and that “all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution.” The panel’s approach signaled a stricter view of the state government’s ability to regulate federal officers.
The dispute is part of a larger effort by California that includes limits on officers’ facial coverings during enforcement activities. According to the court record described in the case, California enacted two major pieces of legislation last fall aimed at reining in federal immigration agents after a sweeping crackdown in Southern California in June, with one measure addressing identification requirements and another covering masks and other facial coverings.
In February, a federal judge blocked California’s mask ban as discriminatory toward the federal government. That judge ruled that the measure did not apply to state troopers, while also recognizing exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment such as N95 respirators, tactical gear and other circumstances in which not wearing a mask would jeopardize operations.
The administration sued both laws in November. At an appeal hearing on March 3, Justice Department lawyers again argued that California’s identification requirement sought to regulate the federal government, in violation of the Supremacy Clause. A federal judge had allowed the identification law to stand after the earlier challenge stages, even as the mask ban was struck down, leaving the identification issue to proceed.
Outside the courtroom, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli called the ruling a “huge legal victory” in a post on X. California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said it was reviewing the order.
In a statement, Bonta’s office said the Trump administration had “stepped well outside the boundaries of normal practice,” deploying masked and unidentified agents to carry out immigration enforcement despite risks that the tactics posed to public safety and basic civil liberties.