9th Circuit blocks California's law requiring ICE agents to show ID

On April 22, 2026, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the No Vigilantes Act and struck down the identification requirement as unconstitutional. Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett, writing for the panel, stated: '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.' (Courthouse News)

The panel included two Trump appointees, Judge Bennett and Judge Daniel P. Collins, along with Obama appointee Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen. The fact that judges appointed by different presidents unanimously agreed shows the constitutional principle crossed partisan lines. The court issued a preliminary injunction, meaning the law became unenforceable immediately while the case continues on appeal. (AP News)

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the Constitution, establishes that federal law is the supreme law of the land and that state laws conflicting with federal law are void. The 9th Circuit applied this principle to find that California can't regulate federal government conduct, even if the state argues it's for legitimate purposes like transparency or safety. The judges wrote: 'The Supremacy Clause prohibits States from enacting a law that directly regulates federal operations even if the law regulates state operations in the same manner.' (AP News)

California argued the identification requirement was a general rule applying equally to state and federal officers, like speed limits. But the court distinguished between laws regulating private conduct and laws directly regulating how federal agencies function. When a state law targets federal government operations specifically, the Supremacy Clause bars it, regardless of the state's safety or accountability reasoning. This doctrine protects federal authority from state interference.

The anti-commandeering doctrine, derived from cases like Printz v. United States, prevents states from forcing federal agencies to follow state regulatory schemes. The 9th Circuit relied on this principle alongside the Supremacy Clause to strike down California's law. States can't compel the federal government to enforce state requirements, even when the state argues those requirements serve public safety. (Times of San Diego)

The doctrine distinguishes between state regulation of private conduct and state regulation of federal operations. California can regulate private companies and individuals through identification requirements, environmental rules, or workplace standards. But California can't require federal agencies to follow state schemes when those agencies are performing federal functions. The anti-commandeering doctrine protects federal operations from state mandates.

The 9th Circuit's decision builds on 200 years of federal-state conflict. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall established that states can't tax or regulate federal institutions. Marshall wrote that state action that would 'retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control' federal operations is unconstitutional. California's identification requirement, though not a tax, attempts to control how federal law enforcement operates within state borders. (Davis Vanguard)

Similarly, in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Supreme Court established that states can't regulate interstate commerce because federal authority in that area is supreme. The principle extends beyond commerce: states can't regulate federal operations that involve national or interstate concerns, particularly immigration enforcement, which Congress vested in federal agencies.

Before the 9th Circuit's April 22 ruling, California residents and advocacy groups could use the identification requirement as a transparency tool. When ICE conducted raids, community members could document which federal agency was operating in their neighborhoods, verify agents' authority, and potentially identify misconduct or civil rights violations. After the preliminary injunction, federal agents no longer had to comply with the identification requirement. (Times of San Diego)

Communities and immigrant advocacy groups lost accountability mechanisms. The law's supporters had argued that transparency would protect both immigrants and the public from unidentified federal enforcement operations. Without state-enforced identification requirements, California residents and their attorneys couldn't easily document federal enforcement activity, and the federal government claimed that identification requirements threatened officer safety by potentially enabling 'doxing' and harassment.

The 9th Circuit's ruling is a preliminary injunction, not a final judgment on the merits, so the case continues. California can request an en banc hearing, asking all judges of the 9th Circuit to reconsider instead of just the three-judge panel. Or California can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if the full case proceeds and the panel issues a final ruling. But the law's fundamental problem—that it directly regulates federal government conduct—appears to cross into clear constitutional territory governed by the Supremacy Clause and 200 years of precedent. (AP News)

Other states considering similar transparency laws—requiring federal agents to display identification or banning masks during federal enforcement—will face the same constitutional barrier. The ruling signals that states can't use transparency or safety requirements to regulate how federal agencies conduct their operations within state borders.

Congress delegated immigration enforcement authority to federal agencies. Under the Supremacy Clause, when Congress acts within its constitutional authority—and immigration is explicitly a federal power—that federal action is supreme over any conflicting state law. The Trump administration's enforcement operations in California operated under this federal authority. (KPBS)

The 9th Circuit's decision reinforces that if Congress or federal agencies want to set identification requirements for federal officers, only Congress and federal agencies can do so—not states. States retain authority in areas Congress hasn't occupied (like most criminal law), but immigration is a federal domain. The ruling doesn't mean federal officers have absolute immunity from state law when breaking the law, but it does mean states can't use regulatory schemes like identification requirements to control how federal agencies perform federal functions.