Governor Gavin Newsom wanted California to dictate how federal officers identify themselves while enforcing federal law. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit delivered an unmistakable answer: the governor’s authority stops well short of directing federal law enforcement operations. Three appellate judges ordered a lower court to block the key identification requirement in Newsom’s No Vigilantes Act.
The October 14 decision goes beyond an ordinary finding that the Justice Department might eventually win. Writing for the panel, Judge Mark Bennett said the federal government was “certain to succeed” on its constitutional claim. California had tried to regulate officers working under federal authority, and the Supremacy Clause stood in its way.
Newsom signed Senate Bill 805 in September 2025 as part of his fight against President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement policies. Section 10 required officers working without uniforms to display their agency and either a name or badge number while performing specified enforcement duties. The provision expressly included federal officers.
A willful, knowing violation could bring a misdemeanor prosecution under California law.
Recommended: Trump’s DOJ Takes a Texas Gun-Rights Ruling Nationwide
The law contained exceptions for undercover work, tactical operations, protective assignments, and emergencies. It also gave agencies a way around penalties by allowing them to post identification policies that meet California’s standards. Yet both routes left the same problem: Sacramento was asserting control over the rules federal agencies use to carry out federal responsibilities.
California defended the measure as a public-safety safeguard meant to help people recognize legitimate officers and prevent impersonation. Newsom’s administration presented its immigration-law package as protection against aggressive enforcement tactics. But a governor’s preference for different federal procedures doesn’t give him authority to make those procedures state law.
The Justice Department sued California, Newsom, and Attorney General Rob Bonta in November 2025. A district judge initially refused to block this identification provision. The Ninth Circuit temporarily stopped enforcement in February, continued that protection in April, and has now reversed the lower court with instructions to issue a preliminary injunction.
The distinction is important because Wednesday’s ruling isn’t the first time California was stopped. The new decision gives the earlier protection a full appellate explanation and precedential force. It also concerns identification under the No Vigilantes Act, not the separate ban on officers wearing masks that a district court blocked in February.
The judges traced the constitutional boundary back to Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court’s 1819 decision in McCulloch v. Maryland. States cannot control federal functions without congressional authorization. More than two centuries later, Newsom tested the same principle and found it still has teeth.
California argued that its requirement posed no substantial burden on federal operations. The appellate judges rejected the premise. Federal supremacy doesn’t depend on proving a state rule creates a severe inconvenience. Without congressional authorization, a state cannot directly regulate federal officers carrying out federal government functions, even if the state believes its demands are modest.
Newsom’s government also argued that officers could raise constitutional defenses if California ever prosecuted them. The panel explained why forcing individual agents to defend themselves later couldn’t cure the underlying problem. The federal government itself has constitutional protection from this kind of direct state supervision.
An elected governor can criticize the president, challenge federal actions in court, and demand accountability for misconduct. Newsom has every opportunity to do those things. His mistake was invoking criminal law to impose California’s operating instructions on federal officers enforcing federal law.
The injunction is preliminary, and litigation can continue. Still, the judges’ message is hard to misread. Newsom’s political objections to Trump’s immigration agenda do not expand California’s constitutional powers. Federal officers answer to federal law, and no governor gets to rewrite that chain of authority simply because he dislikes who’s in the White House.