Federal appeals court blocks California law requiring federal agents to wear identification
LOS ANGELES (AP) — An appeals court has blocked a California law passed in 2025 that would require federal immigration officers to wear badges or some form of identification.
Trump administration filed a lawsuit He challenged the law in November, arguing it would threaten the safety of officers who are subjected to harassment, doxxing and violence and that it violated the constitution because the state directly regulates the federal government.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday issued a preliminary injunction pending appeal. It had already issued a temporary administrative injunction to prevent the implementation of the law.
At the March 3 hearing, Justice Department lawyers argued that the California law seeks to regulate the federal government in violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
The appeals court unanimously agreed, saying the law “seeks to directly regulate the United States’ exercise of governmental functions,” according to the opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett. The panel consisted of Bennett and Daniel P. Collins, a Trump appointee, and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, an Obama appointee.
California lawyers argued that the law applied equally to all law enforcement officers without discrimination against the U.S. government and that states could enforce “generally applicable” laws by 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 they don’t have visible identification identifying them as law enforcement, California attorneys said in a brief opposing the injunction.
“This confusion resulted in federal law enforcement officers being confused with criminals and vice versa, creating a risk of serious harm to peace officers and the public,” they wrote.
The appeals court justices disregarded public safety factors because they showed the federal government’s constitutional rights were violated by the legislation and cited prior case law, stating that “all citizens have an interest in protecting the Constitution.”
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli called it a “major legal victory” in a post on X.
The California Attorney General’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The first case was also a law that was signed into law last year and that most law enforcement agencies are considering. wearing a mask, neck gaiter, and other face coverings. Blocked by a federal judge in february.
The legislation did not apply to state law enforcement and made exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment such as N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where failure to wear a mask would jeopardize the operation.
