A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily barred California from enforcing a law requiring plainclothes federal law enforcement agents to show badges and identification while conducting operations. The ruling, issued Wednesday, was a win for the Trump administration in its challenge to the state’s No Vigilantes Act.
The appeals court concluded the administration was likely to succeed on its argument that the identification requirement violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes federal law’s priority when it conflicts with state law. The panel said the provision intrudes on the federal government’s authority to decide whether and how its officers identify themselves in public.
California argued that its rule did not unconstitutionally regulate federal operations, maintaining that a state law crosses that boundary only if it creates a substantial burden. The panel rejected that standard, saying the level of operational burden was not the central issue because the state lacked authority to directly regulate federal officials.
The case concerns two state laws, the No Vigilantes Act and the No Secret Police Act. The latter restricts law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings. The Trump administration sued California over provisions in both measures in November 2025.
U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder initially blocked the mask restriction as applied to federal officers but declined to block the identification requirement. The administration appealed that decision. The Ninth Circuit first halted enforcement of the identification provision temporarily in February and issued an injunction pending appeal in April, according to the supplied report. Wednesday’s ruling maintained the block while the legal challenge proceeds.
The dispute is part of a broader conflict between the Trump administration and California over immigration enforcement. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has backed state laws intended to protect immigrant communities and impose limits or oversight on federal immigration operations. The report described the ruling as a setback for Newsom, who has been viewed as a potential 2028 presidential candidate.
The Ninth Circuit has previously ruled against aspects of Trump administration policies. The supplied report cites decisions involving federal funding for sanctuary cities, asylum eligibility restrictions and the administration’s travel ban. Those earlier cases form part of the backdrop to the latest dispute, but the current ruling addresses the state’s authority over federal officers and the identification requirement.
Justice Department officials welcomed the decision. Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate wrote on X that the Ninth Circuit agreed California could not regulate federal law enforcement. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. also praised the ruling, saying it supported officers’ safety and the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
The report said Fox News Digital sought comment from Newsom’s office. It did not include a response from the governor’s office or further detail about the next steps in the appeal.
