Court puts the brakes on California’s ‘No Vigilantes Act’
Edvard Pettersson
PASADENA, Calif. (CN) — The Ninth Circuit on Wednesday prohibited California from enforcing its “No Vigilantes Act,” which requires federal law enforcement agents to wear visible identification while on duty, until the court has ruled on the Trump administration’s appeal in its challenge to the law.
In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel said the administration was likely to prevail on its claim that the statute — passed by California lawmakers last year in the wake of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown on people suspected of being in the country without proper authorization — violates the constitutional restriction on states making laws that seek to regulate the federal government in the performance of its functions.
“The supremacy clause prohibits states from enacting a law that directly regulates federal operations even if the law regulates state operations in the same manner,” U.S. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote. “If a state law directly regulates the conduct of the United States, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations.”
The other two judges on the panel were U.S. Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, a Barack Obama appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Collins, a Trump appointee.
Representatives of California Attorney General Rob Bonta didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the court’s decision.
The Trump administration sought an injunction pending appeal after a federal judge in February declined to enjoin enforcement of the law during the litigation over its legality.
Governor Gavin Newsom signed the No Vigilantes Act and the No Secret Police Act, which prohibits federal law enforcement agents from wearing face masks while performing their duty, in September 2025 as part of a package of legislation that was intended to push back at President Trump’s “secret police” tactics in California.
“For Trump and Miller, the only metric is mass arrests, detentions and removals — even at the expense of Americans’ constitutional rights,” Newsom said at the time, referring to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. “ICE agents have wrongfully arrested citizens, concealed their identities and undermined transparency.”
The Trump administration unleashed its immigration crackdown in Southern California last June. Roving patrols of ICE agents, typically wearing face masks, no identification and driving unmarked cars, rounded up people who looked like working-class Latinos at Home Depot parking lots, car washes, bus stops and towing yards.
The public outcry and protests over the unprecedented raids on local residents prompted Trump to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles to protect federal buildings where the detainees were kept.
Senior U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder in Los Angeles blocked enforcement of the provision of the No Secret Police Act that prohibits federal agents from wearing face masks because the provision doesn’t apply to some state law enforcement agents and, as such, was discriminatory.
The judge, a Bill Clinton appointee, wasn’t persuaded, however, by the government’s argument that “discretionary” masking and identification policies were essential to safety of its law enforcement agents in the current, tense political climate.
“Security concerns exist for federal law enforcement officers with or without masks,” the judge said. “If anything, the court finds that the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”
In addition, Snyder said, the government’s argument that face masks are needed to protect its agents is belied by the fact that there are no requirements for the agents to wear them.
The two laws were initially supposed to go into effect on Jan. 1, but California agreed to stall enforcement until the judge had had an opportunity to review their legality. Homeland Security, which includes ICE, has indicated it doesn’t intend to comply with California’s requirements.