A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked California from enforcing a law that would require non-uniformed federal officers to display identification during arrests, detentions and crowd-control operations, ruling that the measure violates the Supremacy Clause by directly regulating how the United States conducts its own law enforcement. The Ninth Circuit’s analysis is binding within the circuit, which covers Washington.
In a unanimous opinion, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed a lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and ordered the district court to bar the State of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta from applying or enforcing Section 10 of the “No Vigilantes Act” (S.B. 805, codified at Cal. Penal Code § 13654) against the United States, federal agencies and federal officers.
Judge Mark J. Bennett, writing for the panel that also included Judges Daniel P. Collins and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, concluded the United States is “certain to succeed” on its facial challenge, according to the opinion.
The law, enacted in September 2025 amid the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts, requires non-uniformed officers operating in California—including any federal law enforcement officer—to “visibly display identification that includes their agency and either a name or badge number” while performing enforcement duties. Willful violations are misdemeanors. Narrow exceptions cover undercover work, certain plainclothes assignments, protective equipment, exigent circumstances, SWAT operations and protective details.
California paired it with a separate “No Secret Police Act” restricting face coverings; a district judge had already enjoined the mask provision as applied to federal officers on discrimination grounds, but left the identification rule intact.
The Ninth Circuit held that Section 10 “explicitly overrides the federal government’s power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers” and therefore regulates “the manner and conditions under which federal agents can enforce federal law.” Because it targets inherently sovereign functions without congressional authorization, it is barred by the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.
The panel rejected the argument that a state law is only invalid if it imposes “substantial burdens” or interferes with “essential” federal practices.
“If a state law directly regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional authorization, it 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 such functions or operations,” Bennett wrote.
The Supremacy Clause prohibits such regulation “even when regulating state operations in the same manner.” Other preliminary-injunction factors also favored the United States, the court said, because a constitutional violation constitutes irreparable harm and the public interest favors preventing it.
Wednesday’s ruling arrives as Washington state and other jurisdictions in the Ninth Circuit maintain similar efforts aimed at federal immigration officers.
Washington’s Senate Bill 5855, signed by Gov. Bob Ferguson in March 2026 and effective immediately, prohibits all law enforcement officers—state, local and federal, including ICE and CBP agents—from wearing opaque facial coverings such as balaclavas, tactical masks, gaiters or ski masks while interacting with the public in the performance of their duties. Exceptions exist for undercover operations, SWAT protective gear, required personal protective equipment and religious coverings. The statute is codified at RCW 10.116.052. Unlike California’s criminal penalties for identification failures, Washington’s law relies primarily on a civil remedy: a person detained by an unlawfully masked officer may sue that officer in an official capacity for compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief, provided the officer was not already “reasonably identifiable” under existing state rules.
The Justice Department has not yet filed a suit against Washington’s mask law, even as it has challenged comparable measures in California, Denver, Milwaukee, Maryland and other places. However, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling stated direct regulation of federal governmental functions is invalid regardless of equal treatment of state officers, the degree of interference, or whether the regulated activity is “essential” undercuts the main arguments advanced for the Washington statute’s constitutionality.
A mask ban that controls the equipment and appearance federal officers may use while performing enforcement duties is, under the Ninth Circuit panel’s reasoning, a regulation of the manner and conditions of federal law enforcement operations. The fact that Washington imposes civil rather than criminal liability may reduce immediate operational friction, but does not change the character of the regulation itself.
Separately, the United States has sued Washington over its refusal to issue confidential undercover license plates to DHS-affiliated entities while continuing to issue them to other agencies, alleging both discrimination and direct regulation under the Supremacy Clause.
Author: Mario Lotmore
