Federal appeals court blocks California law requiring federal agents to wear identification

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction pending appeal. It had already granted a temporary administrative injunction to block the implementation of the law while the appeal took place.

The measure was one of two major pieces of legislation enacted last fall aimed at reining in federal immigration agents after a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration in Southern California in June. Advocates have raised concerns about masked agents conducting workplace raids or arresting people on the street, often without showing identification.

The other law would have banned most law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings. It was blocked by a federal judge in February, who said that it discriminated against the federal government because it did not apply to state troopers. The law made exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a mask would jeopardize the operation.

At a hearing March 3, Justice Department lawyers argued that the California identification requirement law sought to regulate the federal government, violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The appeals court agreed unanimously, saying the law "attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions," in an opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett. The panel was composed of two Trump appointees, Bennett and Daniel P. Collins, and Obama appointee Jacqueline H. Nguyen.

California lawyers argued that the law applied equally to all law enforcement officers without discriminating against the U.S. government, and that states could apply "generally applicable" laws federal agents. They also argued that the law was important to address public safety concerns.

People are more likely to attack officers in self-defense if there's no visible identification letting the public know they are law enforcement, California lawyers said in a brief opposing the injunction.

"This confusion has resulted in federal law enforcement officials being mistaken for criminals and vice versa, creating serious risk of harm to peace officers and members of the public," they wrote.

In October 2025, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a report warning that the increase in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity had spurred "criminal actors impersonating ICE agents to commit violent crime," California attorneys noted.

The appeals court judges said they did not consider the public safety factors because the federal government has demonstrate its constitutional rights would be violated by the legislation, and "all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution," it ruled, quoting previous case law.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli called it a "huge legal victory" in a post on X.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office said they are reviewing the order.

"Transparency and accountability are the foundation of good law enforcement," the office said in a statement. "The Trump Administration has stepped well outside the boundaries of normal practice, deploying masked and unidentified agents to carry out immigration enforcement, despite the risks these tactics pose to public safety and basic civil liberties."