Reported / Citable
Background
In September 2025, in response to federal immigration enforcement activity inside California, the State enacted two new laws. Senate Bill 805, called the No Vigilantes Act, and Senate Bill 627, called the No Secret Police Act. Both regulate how law enforcement officers may operate inside California.
Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act, codified as California Penal Code section 13654, requires any non-uniformed “law enforcement officer” operating in California — including any federal law enforcement officer — to “visibly display identification” that includes the officer’s agency and either a name or badge number, with limited exceptions, while performing enforcement duties. Officers who violate the requirement face state criminal prosecution.
The United States sued California, Governor Newsom, and Attorney General Bonta in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, arguing that section 10 (and other provisions of both new laws) violate the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. The district court declined to enjoin enforcement. The federal government appealed and asked the Ninth Circuit for an injunction pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit first issued a temporary administrative injunction; in this opinion, it addressed the full motion for an injunction pending appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit panel granted an injunction pending appeal as to section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act, holding that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits of its Supremacy Clause challenge.
The court’s core conclusion is that section 10 attempts to directly regulate the federal government’s performance of governmental functions. By imposing visible-identification requirements on federal officers acting in their federal capacity, and by backing those requirements with state criminal sanctions, California is trying to control how federal agencies and officers carry out federal law. The Supremacy Clause forbids that.
The court emphasized the long-standing principle that states may not directly regulate the federal government or its instrumentalities, even where the regulation seems modest or generally applicable. Section 10 sweeps in immigration officers, FBI agents, ATF agents, and any other non-uniformed federal officer performing enforcement duties in California, and it does so by force of state criminal law. That kind of direct, state-on-federal regulation falls outside what the Tenth Amendment allows California to do.
Having concluded that the United States is likely to prevail on the merits, the panel found the other preliminary injunction factors — irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest — also weigh in the federal government’s favor. Federal officers face the threat of state criminal prosecution for performing their federal duties, which is itself irreparable harm. The court therefore granted the injunction pending appeal, leaving California enjoined from enforcing section 10 against federal agencies and officers while the appeal proceeds.
The opinion does not address other contested provisions of the two California laws, such as the facial-coverings requirements in S.B. 627; those issues remain to be litigated.
Key Takeaways
- Under the Supremacy Clause, a state may not directly regulate the federal government or its officers in the performance of their governmental duties, even where the regulation appears procedural (such as displaying ID).
- California Penal Code section 13654, the visible-ID provision of the No Vigilantes Act, is enjoined as applied to federal agencies and officers pending the federal government’s appeal.
- The threat of state criminal prosecution against federal officers carrying out federal duties supports a finding of irreparable harm sufficient to justify a preliminary injunction.
- The decision is limited to section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act. Other provisions of S.B. 805 and the parallel No Secret Police Act (S.B. 627) remain in dispute.
Why It Matters
This is one of the most significant federalism rulings of the term, and its impact on California is direct. The state legislature’s response to federal immigration enforcement — including the No Vigilantes Act and the No Secret Police Act — has been a central feature of California politics for the last year. The Ninth Circuit’s preliminary ruling sharply curtails the State’s ability to police how federal officers identify themselves while carrying out federal enforcement work in California.
For local agencies, immigrant communities, civil-liberties advocates, and federal law enforcement, the practical consequence is immediate: federal officers cannot be criminally prosecuted by California for failing to display agency ID. The legal contest will continue on appeal, and the panel’s reasoning could be revisited in a final merits decision. Other states considering similar legislation, including Oregon and Washington, will be watching this case closely.
The decision also reinforces a long line of Supreme Court intergovernmental-immunity cases (such as McCulloch v. Maryland, Mayo v. United States, and North Dakota v. United States) that limit how states can directly regulate federal operations. Expect heavy citation in future federal-state preemption disputes.