Key Points
- Ninth Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal blocking California's identification mandate as applied to federal law enforcement officers.
- Panel held the United States is likely to succeed on its Supremacy Clause claim because Section 10 directly regulates federal governmental functions rather than merely affecting contractors or third parties.
- Court rejected a de minimis exception to intergovernmental immunity, finding the degree of interference irrelevant once direct regulation is shown.
- Irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest were all found to favor the United States once likely unconstitutionality was established, without further balancing.
The Ninth Circuit has granted the United States an injunction pending appeal against California's 'No Vigilantes Act,' blocking the state from enforcing an identification mandate against federal law enforcement officers while the underlying appeal proceeds.
The case arises from S.B. 805, enacted by California on September 20, 2025, which requires non-uniformed law enforcement officers, including federal agents, to visibly display identification while performing enforcement duties. Willful violations are punishable as misdemeanors under state law. The United States sued the State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom, and Attorney General Rob Bonta on November 17, 2025, arguing that Section 10 of the Act, codified at California Penal Code section 13654, violates the Supremacy Clause.
The district court had declined to enjoin Section 10 as to federal officers, reasoning that the United States had not shown its identification practices were 'essential to federal law enforcement operations such that state regulations in those areas seek to interfere with or control federal law enforcement functions.' The Ninth Circuit disagreed with that framing, first issuing a temporary administrative injunction on February 19, 2026, then hearing argument on March 3, 2026.
Writing for the panel, Judge Bennett concluded that the district court 'asked the wrong question' by focusing on interference rather than direct regulation. The opinion drew a sharp distinction between laws that regulate federal contractors or third parties dealing with the government and laws that regulate the government itself.
"Because ยง 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States, we conclude that it is likely unconstitutional."
The panel emphasized that Section 10 applies expressly to federal officers, seeks to control their conduct during enforcement operations, and purports to override the federal government's own determinations about whether and how to identify its agents. That, the court held, places the law squarely within the intergovernmental immunity doctrine rooted in the Supremacy Clause.
The opinion also rejected any suggestion that a de minimis level of interference might be tolerated. Citing prior Ninth Circuit precedent, the panel reiterated that a state law directly regulating federal conduct 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 federal functions or operations.'
The panel distinguished the case from prior rulings involving state regulation of federal contractors or private employers, noting that such regulations 'operate against suppliers, not the Government' and therefore raise different constitutional concerns. Because Section 10 applies exclusively to law enforcement officers, including federal ones, and does not regulate conduct any ordinary citizen could perform, the panel found it fell outside any permissible 'general rules' exception.
On the remaining preliminary injunction factors, the panel held that irreparable harm follows automatically from a likely constitutional violation, and that the balance of equities and public interest merge and favor the government when a state entity is the opposing party. The panel declined California's invitation to weigh public safety justifications for the Act, holding that a showing of likely unconstitutionality resolves those factors 'decisively' in the United States's favor without further balancing.
The panel's ruling leaves in place the district court's separate injunction against a related facial-covering prohibition under the 'No Secret Police Act,' which California did not appeal. Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act, however, remains enjoined against federal agencies and officers pending further order of the court.