{"id":590796,"date":"2026-04-23T13:05:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T13:05:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/?p=590796"},"modified":"2026-04-23T13:05:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T13:05:00","slug":"9th-circuit-kills-californias-ice-unmasking-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/?p=590796","title":{"rendered":"9th Circuit Kills California’s ICE Unmasking Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

9th Circuit Kills California’s ICE Unmasking Law<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Trump administration a significant legal victory Wednesday, issuing a formal injunction blocking California’s No Vigilantes Act from being enforced against federal law enforcement officers. <\/strong>The court ruled that the state law – which required non-uniformed federal agents to visibly display identification while performing their duties – likely violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"
Carlin Stiehl\/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

<\/p>\n

The No Vigilantes Act, part of a two-bill package signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, was California’s legislative response to immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Trump administration had filed suit in November, contending the law created real and immediate dangers for ICE officers already facing what it described as harassment, doxing, and threats of physical violence. The Department of Justice argued that federal agents must retain discretion over their own safety protocols. “Denying federal agencies and officers that choice would chill federal law enforcement and deter applicants for law enforcement positions,” the Justice Department wrote<\/u><\/a> in its lawsuit.<\/p>\n

The law’s companion piece, the No Secret Police Act, had previously been blocked by a federal district court in February on the grounds that it discriminated against federal interests by applying the mask ban exclusively to federal officers.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0“The No Vigilantes Act responds to troubling immigration enforcement activities in which masked agents have seized people off the street without showing an agency name, personal identification, or badge number, alongside a rise in law enforcement impersonation cases and efforts in other states to recruit bounty hunters for immigration enforcement,” State Sen. Sasha Ren\u00e9e P\u00e9rez (D-Pasadena), who authored the legislation said<\/u><\/a> back in September, adding that the measure would “help rebuild the community’s trust.”<\/p>\n

The court clearly didn\u2019t see it that way.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The 9th Circuit’s three-judge panel found that \u201cThe United States is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that \u00a7 10 of the No Vigilantes Act violates the Supremacy Clause because \u00a7 10 attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court further determined that all other preliminary injunction factors favored the federal government, clearing the way for the injunction to take effect pending further court order.<\/p>\n

\n

BREAKING: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an injunction blocking enforcement of California\u2019s new law that requires ICE agents to unmask and wear visible ID, arguing it violates the Supremacy Clause because it \u201cattempts to directly regulate the United States in its\u2026 pic.twitter.com\/jedIEO0z2N<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) April 22, 2026<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The outcome was not unexpected. During oral arguments in early March, 9th Circuit judges were openly skeptical of California\u2019s position<\/u><\/a> that the identification requirement was analogous to generally applicable laws such as speed limits. The state argued the law treated all law enforcement equally, but the panel clearly didn\u2019t buy the argument that such framing could justify states directly regulating federal operations.<\/p>\n

Bill Essayli, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, did not understate what the ruling meant in a post on X. “Huge legal victory this morning in the Ninth Circuit, where the court permanently enjoined California’s unconstitutional mask law targeting federal agents<\/strong>,” he wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The use of “permanently” may be premature \u2014 the injunction technically remains pending further court order \u2014 but the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is quite clear, and there\u2019s little reason to believe the No Vigilantes Act will survive.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Tyler Durden<\/a><\/span>
\nThu, 04\/23\/2026 – 09:05<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

9th Circuit Kills California’s ICE Unmasking Law The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Trump administration a significant legal victory Wednesday, issuing a formal injunction blocking California’s No Vigilantes Act from being enforced against federal law enforcement officers. The court ruled that the state law – which required non-uniformed federal agents to visibly display… Continue reading 9th Circuit Kills California’s ICE Unmasking Law<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":590797,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rop_custom_images_group":[],"rop_custom_messages_group":[],"rop_publish_now":"initial","rop_publish_now_accounts":[],"rop_publish_now_history":[],"rop_publish_now_status":"pending","footnotes":""},"categories":[17,22,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-590796","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-border-security","category-immigration","category-immigration-reform","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/590796","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=590796"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/590796\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/590797"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=590796"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=590796"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/buglecall.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=590796"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}