Court Blocks California's ID Rule for Federal Agents
A federal appeals court ordered a preliminary injunction stopping California from enforcing, against federal officers, its law requiring plain-clothes officers to show a name or badge number, holding that a state cannot directly regulate how the federal government enforces its laws; the case goes on.
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that California cannot enforce, against federal officers, a 2025 state law requiring non-uniformed officers to visibly display their agency and a name or badge number during arrests, detentions and crowd control. The law, part of the No Vigilantes Act, was passed in response to federal immigration enforcement, and breaking it could be charged as a misdemeanor. The three-judge panel told a lower court to enter a preliminary injunction blocking it as applied to federal agencies and officers.
Why it matters: Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote that under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause a state may not directly regulate the federal government's own work unless Congress allows it, and Congress has not. The panel said the United States was "certain to succeed." The court had already paused the law in April, so the practical effect is to keep that pause in place. The Los Angeles Times has counted more than a dozen other states pursuing similar statutes.
The hopeful detail: The ruling covers only federal officers, so California can still require its own plain-clothes officers to show a name or badge number.
PASADENA, Calif. — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday, October 14, ruled that California may not enforce against federal officers a state law requiring non-uniformed law enforcement officers to visibly display identification, and instructed a lower court to enter a preliminary injunction blocking it.
The opinion, written by Judge Mark J. Bennett and joined by Judges Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Daniel P. Collins, reverses a Los Angeles federal judge who had refused to block that part of the law. The panel heard argument in Pasadena in August.
What California's law says
California enacted the No Vigilantes Act on September 20, 2025, in response to what it called the federal government's "broad immigration enforcement efforts." Section 10 of the act, now California Penal Code §13654, says any law enforcement officer operating in the state who is not in uniform "shall visibly display identification that includes their agency and either a name or badge number or both" when carrying out "enforcement duties" — defined as arrests, detentions or deployment for crowd control. The law expressly covers "any federal law enforcement officer." A willful and knowing violation is a misdemeanor.
The law has exceptions, including for undercover work, SWAT teams, protective details, protective equipment that blocks display, and emergencies. Officers are also exempt if their agency posts a written identification policy meeting the state's requirements.
The ruling
The Justice Department sued California, Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta on November 17, 2025. In the district court, Judge Christina A. Snyder blocked a companion law banning face coverings for officers, finding that it discriminated against the federal government, but declined to block the identification rule. The Ninth Circuit put the identification rule on hold on February 19 and granted an injunction pending appeal on April 22.
Wednesday's opinion turns on a doctrine called intergovernmental immunity, which comes from the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. It means states may not directly regulate the federal government's own operations unless Congress authorizes it. The panel held that the identification rule "explicitly overrides the federal government's power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers," and so regulates "inherently sovereign functions." Because Congress has not authorized it, the rule is barred.
California argued that the law imposes only a small burden, comparable to ordinary rules any officer must follow. The court rejected that. "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," Bennett wrote, "and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations." Unlike a traffic rule that applies to everyone, the court said, this law applies only to law enforcement officers performing law enforcement.
The panel said the United States was likely, "indeed, certain," to win on its claim. It also found that the government would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction and that the public interest favored one.
What it means in practice
The ruling covers federal agencies and federal officers only. It does not stop California from requiring identification of its own state and local officers. Federal agents working in California in plain clothes, including immigration officers, do not have to follow the state's identification rule; their agencies decide whether and how they identify themselves.
Because the appeals court had already paused the law in April, Wednesday's ruling keeps the current situation in place rather than changing it. But it is a published, precedential decision that binds federal courts across the Ninth Circuit's nine western states. The Los Angeles Times has counted more than a dozen other states pursuing similar statutes; courts weighing them now have a detailed appellate opinion to consider.
What happens next
The case returns to the district court, which must now enter the preliminary injunction. That is not a final judgment; the lawsuit continues. California could ask the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the case or seek review at the Supreme Court.