A federal appeals court has permanently invalidated a California law that would have required ICE agents to wear identification, ruling that the state cannot regulate federal government actions. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated on Wednesday that the California law violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by interfering with the duties of federal officers. This ruling follows a previous decision in April that blocked the law.
Judge Mark J. Bennett noted, "As before, we conclude … the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions. No set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid."
First Assistant US Attorney for the Central District Bill Essayli praised the ruling, stating, "Huge win for the Supremacy Clause. California continues to violate the U.S. Constitution, and we will continue to hold them accountable."
The Justice Department had previously sued to block the ID requirement and another law aimed at banning masks for federal agents and local police. While a federal judge had blocked the mask rule, the ID requirement was allowed to proceed until now.
Bennett further explained, "If a state law directly regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional authorization, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations."
The California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office was contacted for comment, having previously argued that the law was necessary for transparency and accountability regarding immigration enforcement practices.
In response to the ruling, California Democrats have continued to pursue legislation aimed at restricting federal immigration enforcement. This year, the state has enacted laws banning wearable electroshock devices, prohibiting ICE agents accused of serious misconduct from state employment, and allowing residents to sue ICE officials. Legislative analysts have cautioned that these new laws may face legal challenges under the doctrines of intergovernmental immunity and conflict preemption.