Court Blocks California Law on Federal Agents’ Identification

The Trump administration achieved a significant legal win when a liberal-leaning appeals court temporarily blocked a part of a California law. This law required federal law enforcement agents in plain clothes to display badges and identification while performing their duties.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California would likely succeed. The court stated that the requirement under the No Vigilantes Act breaches the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which prioritizes federal over state laws if they conflict.

“Section 10 explicitly overrides the federal government’s power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers,” the panel wrote.

This preliminary injunction is from a federal appeals court that has frequently opposed Trump’s policies. It has previously blocked efforts to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities in 2018, limited asylum eligibility restrictions the same year, and refused to reinstate Trump’s 2017 travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries.

The decision deals a potentially significant setback to California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom. Newsom is known as a critical opponent of Trump’s immigration policies, signing several laws to protect immigrant communities, limit federal immigration enforcement, and enhance oversight of federal agents in the state.

The Trump administration filed a lawsuit against sections of the No Vigilantes Act and No Secret Police Act in November 2025. These acts limit law enforcement officers from wearing face masks. While Judge Christina Snyder, appointed by Clinton, initially blocked the mask restriction for federal officers, she did not block the identification requirement.

Following this, the Trump administration challenged Snyder’s decision regarding identification. The 9th Circuit blocked its enforcement temporarily in February and granted an injunction pending appeal in April.

In defense, California argued the identification requirement did not impose unconstitutional federal government regulation. They claimed it would only be unconstitutional if it posed substantial burdens on federal operations. However, the appeals court stated the state never had the authority to direct federal officials.

“The burden of the regulation on federal operations, whether substantial or otherwise, is irrelevant,” the court noted.

This ruling received commendation from Trump administration officials, including Brett Shumate from the Justice Department’s Civil Division.

“The Ninth Circuit agrees that California cannot regulate federal law enforcement,” Schumate commented.

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr. commented on the decision’s significance, emphasizing the protection it offers to law enforcement officers and reinforcing the commitment to immigration law enforcement.

Fox News Digital sought comments from Newsom’s office following the ruling.

Elaine Mallon contributes to Fox News Digital and Fox Business, specializing in national politics coverage.