Political leadership in California is up-in-arms over federal immigration enforcement efforts under the Trump Administration. Due to anti-law enforcement violence and efforts by pro-immigrant radicals doxxing federal agents (disclosing their identity) many federal agents, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE agents, started wearing masks or face coverings. Politicians in California responded by passing laws criminalizing wearing masks or face coverings by federal agents and requiring federal agents to display identification. California’s effort did not turn out very well.
CA Passed Two Laws Directed at Federal Law Enforcement
In September 2025, the California Legislature passed S.B. 627, known as the No Secret Police Act which mandated a law enforcement officer, including federal law enforcement, “shall not wear a facial covering in the performance of their duties.” Violations of the law are crimes.
Also in September 2025, California enacted S.B. 805, which it titled the No Vigilantes Act. Section 10 of the Act works like this:
First, any law enforcement officer in California who is not in uniform, expressly including “any federal law enforcement officer,” must “visibly display identification” showing his agency and a name or badge number.
Second, the rule applies during “enforcement duties,” defined as arrests, detentions, and crowd control.
Third, a “willful and knowing” violation is a state misdemeanor.
The United States sued in November 2025 and asked for a preliminary injunction, which is a court order freezing a law while the lawsuit continues. The United States brought a facial challenge, arguing the law is invalid in every application. That is the hardest kind of challenge to win.
To get a preliminary injunction, a party must show it is likely to win, will suffer irreparable harm without the order, and that fairness and the public interest favor it. The trial court blocked the mask law from taking effect, but refused to block section 10 (the ID law). The Ninth Circuit put the law on hold during the appeal of the decision by the district court refusing to block the ID law. Now, the Ninth Circuit ruled on the appeal.
Federal Supremacy Knocks Out the California Law
The principle at stake is more than 200 years old and dates literally to this Country’s founding. The principle is that of the “Supremacy” of federal law over state law. This Supremacy is enshrined in the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2:
The Constitution, therefore, makes federal law "the supreme Law of the Land." The rule goes all the way back to the Supreme Court’s decision McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) (holding that Maryland could not tax the Bank of the United States). The Ninth Circuit, in the recent decision at issue, quoted directly from McCulloch v. Maryland in its opinion:
As a corollary to the Supremacy Clause, the United States Supreme Court long ago recognized “intergovernmental immunity” for the federal government and federal agents in the exercise of federal power or operations. This immunity prohibits state laws that “directly regulate” or “discriminate” against the federal government or its agents or representatives.
This immunity in favor of federal agents from state law prosecutions has been recognized in our law for a long time as well.
For instance, in 1889, a deputy U.S. marshal guarding a Supreme Court justice in California shot and killed the justice’s attacker. California charged the marshal with murder. In In Re Neagle (1890), the Supreme Court essentially proclaimed a state may not prosecute a federal officer for doing his federal job, based on the Supremacy Clause, and ordered the U.S. marshal’s release.
California ignored these clearly established legal principles and passed laws intruding on the federal government and the execution and enforcement of federal law by federal law enforcement agents.
On October 14, 2026, unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which covers California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands) ordered that California be barred from enforcing its new identification mandate against federal officers. The plain question was: can a state make it a crime for a federal agent to carry out federal law the way the federal government directs? The court answered No:
The narrative versus the record
California argued that its law should stand unless it placed a “substantial” burden on federal operations and the trial court agree. The problem is this “substantial burden” standard is the standard applied to federal contractors as opposed to the federal government itself. The Court of Appeal corrected the district court. The Ninth Circuit stated:
So, the burden of the regulation on federal operations, whether substantial or otherwise, is irrelevant because, as discussed, there is no de minimis exception to the United State’s immunity from direct regulation.
In other words, there is no “small burden” exception to the Supremacy Clause.
What Happens Now?
Nothing changes, since the Ninth Circuit had already barred enforcement against federal officers while the court considered the appeal of the decision denying the government’s requested injunction. The case now returns to the trial court, which must enter the injunction prohibiting the California law from being enforced.
California can ask the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc (which means, under the special rules of the Ninth Circuit, a larger panel of 11 judges decides the case), or it can ask the Supreme Court to review it. The injunction protects federal agencies and officers. It does not stop California from applying its ID rules to its own state and local police.
Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit got it right. Federalism is not a one-way street. The same Constitution that keeps the federal government from commandeering California’s police also keeps California from dictating to the federal government how federal agents may carry out federal law. If Americans want new identification rules for federal officers, Congress must change federal law. It is not up to California.
Since the principles at issue in this litigation have been well established since the founding of this Country, the United States Supreme Court is unlikely to take this case up in the unlikely event the State of California asked it to. California is likely facing a dead end.