The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against California's No Vigilantes Act, which required federal law enforcement officers to visibly display identification while performing their duties. The court's decision, issued on October 14, 2026, affects federal agencies and officers operating in California, highlighting the ongoing conflict between state and federal authority in law enforcement.
This ruling comes as a significant legal victory for the United States government, which argued that the law violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The court's opinion stated that the law directly regulates federal officers and their operations, a power that states do not possess without congressional authorization.
Background
The case, United States v. State of California, was filed in response to California's enactment of the No Vigilantes Act on September 20, 2025. This law was introduced amid concerns over federal immigration enforcement efforts in the state. Specifically, Section 10 of the Act mandated that any non-uniformed federal law enforcement officer must visibly display identification, including their agency name and badge number, while performing enforcement duties.
The United States, led by the Department of Justice, filed suit against California, Governor Gavin Newsom, and Attorney General Rob Bonta, claiming that the law infringed upon federal operations. The government sought a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of this law, arguing that it violated the Supremacy Clause by attempting to regulate federal law enforcement activities.
The Ruling
The Ninth Circuit Court reversed a lower court's denial of the preliminary injunction, stating that the United States was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim. The court emphasized that Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act directly regulates federal officers in their performance of governmental functions, which is not permissible under the Supremacy Clause. The opinion noted, "Section 10 explicitly overrides the federal government’s power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers."
The ruling means that California, along with its Governor and Attorney General, cannot apply or enforce this section of the law against federal officers. The court highlighted that the United States had shown that no set of circumstances existed under which the Act would be valid, reinforcing its position that the law was unconstitutional.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the relationship between state and federal law enforcement. It reinforces the principle that states cannot impose regulations that interfere with federal operations, particularly in areas where the federal government has not authorized such regulation. The decision sets a clear precedent that laws like California's No Vigilantes Act, which directly affect federal officers' conduct, are invalid.
The ruling also underscores the importance of the Supremacy Clause in maintaining a balance of power between state and federal governments. As states increasingly challenge federal authority, this case may serve as a reference point for future legal disputes regarding the limits of state regulation over federal operations.