Federal Appeals Court Rules Against California's ID Requirement for Federal Agents

A federal appeals court ruled that California cannot require federal immigration agents and other federal officers to display identification during enforcement operations. In a decision issued on October 14, 2026, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Section 10 of California’s "No Vigilantes Act" violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling reverses a lower court's decision and orders a preliminary injunction preventing the state from enforcing the identification requirement against federal agencies and officers. The law mandated that non-uniformed law enforcement officers operating in California, including federal agents, visibly display their agency and either a name or badge number while performing enforcement duties. Officers who did not comply could face misdemeanor prosecution by the state. Judge Mark Bennett, writing for the panel, stated that the measure attempts to directly regulate the federal government in its functions, which a state cannot do without congressional authorization. The court held that law enforcement is a core government activity, rendering the identification mandate invalid for federal officers acting under federal authority. The panel expressed confidence that the federal government would succeed in its constitutional challenge. California contended that the law was permissible as it did not significantly interfere with federal operations, but the judges dismissed this argument, asserting that even minimal interference is irrelevant when a state directly regulates federal conduct. The panel, which included Obama appointee Jacqueline Nguyen and Trump appointees Bennett and Daniel Collins, had previously paused the requirement in April before the ruling on the merits. California enacted the No Vigilantes Act in 2025 following federal immigration sweeps across the state, many conducted by masked agents in unmarked vehicles, which prompted objections from Democratic officials. Governor Gavin Newsom signed the law alongside the No Secret Police Act, which restricts officers from wearing face coverings and was separately blocked by a district judge earlier this year. With the appeals court siding with the Trump administration, California's remaining options include seeking a rehearing or petitioning the Supreme Court. The ruling has elicited strong reactions, reigniting the conflict between California and the federal government over immigration enforcement.