Reported / Citable
Background
California enacted the No Vigilantes Act (S.B. 805) on September 20, 2025, in response to federal immigration enforcement efforts. Section 10, codified at California Penal Code § 13654, requires any non-uniformed law enforcement officer operating in California—including any federal law enforcement officer—to visibly display identification showing agency and name or badge number while performing enforcement duties, subject to narrow exceptions. A willful violation is a misdemeanor. The same day, California enacted the No Secret Police Act (S.B. 627), restricting facial coverings by officers.
On November 17, 2025, the United States sued California, Governor Gavin Newsom, and Attorney General Rob Bonta, facially challenging §§ 2 and 10 of the No Vigilantes Act and §§ 2 and 3 of the No Secret Police Act under the Supremacy Clause. The district court denied preliminary relief as to § 10, finding the United States had not shown its identification practices were essential to federal operations, but it enjoined § 3 of the No Secret Police Act; no party appealed that ruling. The United States appealed only the § 10 denial.
While the appeal was pending, the Ninth Circuit entered a temporary administrative injunction on February 19, 2026, and granted an injunction pending appeal on April 22, 2026. The same panel, assigned under General Order 6.4(d), then decided the merits and adopted its prior analysis for precedential purposes.
The Court’s Holding
Writing for the panel, Judge Bennett held the United States was certain to succeed on its facial Supremacy Clause challenge. Because the challenge was facial and brought before any enforcement, the United States had to show that no set of circumstances exists under which § 10 would be valid. The court concluded § 10 directly regulates the United States in performing governmental functions: it overrides the federal government's power to decide whether, how, and when to identify its officers and regulates how federal agents enforce federal law—an inherently sovereign function. Congress has not authorized such regulation, so the statute is barred by intergovernmental immunity.
The panel rejected California's argument, accepted by the district court, that direct regulation is impermissible only when it imposes substantial burdens on federal operations. That standard governs state regulation of federal contractors and third-party employers, not the United States's own governmental activities, and there is no de minimis exception to intergovernmental immunity. The court also distinguished the case-specific Supremacy Clause defense available to individual officers from the United States's own immunity from direct regulation.
Under the Winter framework, the remaining factors favored the United States: likely success on a constitutional claim establishes irreparable harm, and the merged balance-of-equities and public-interest factors tip decisively in its favor. The court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction enjoining California, its Governor, and its Attorney General from applying or enforcing § 10 against the United States, federal agencies, and federal officers.
Key Takeaways
- A state law that directly regulates the federal government's inherently sovereign functions, such as law enforcement, violates the Supremacy Clause unless Congress clearly authorizes the regulation.
- There is no de minimis exception to intergovernmental immunity: once direct regulation of federal governmental conduct is shown, the degree of burden on federal operations is irrelevant.
- The substantial-burden standard for state regulation of federal contractors and third-party employers does not govern direct regulation of the United States's own activities.
- An individual federal officer's case-specific Supremacy Clause defense to state prosecution is distinct from, and no substitute for, the United States's own intergovernmental immunity.
- A plaintiff likely to succeed on a constitutional challenge generally establishes irreparable harm and a favorable balance of equities and public interest for preliminary injunction purposes.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit's robust reading of intergovernmental immunity: states may not impose identification requirements on federal officers performing federal law enforcement duties, even where the law applies equally to state and local officers and the burden seems modest. It confirms that the standard governing state regulation of federal contractors does not carry over to direct regulation of the federal government's own functions.
Practically, the ruling blocks California from criminally enforcing § 10 against non-uniformed federal officers while the litigation proceeds, amid ongoing federal-state tensions over immigration enforcement. The panel expressly left open whether generally applicable laws that incidentally affect federal operations fall outside intergovernmental immunity, but held § 10 would not qualify in any event because it targets law enforcement exclusively.