Thursday, April 23, 2026
Page 3
Ninth Circuit Maintains Bar on Enforcing Police-ID Law
Panel Issues Injunction Pending Appeal From Denial of Preliminary Injunction in U.S.’s Challenge to Portion of ‘No Vigantes Act’ So Far as It Would Require Nonuniformed Federal Officers to Display Identification
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday issued an injunction pending appeal barring the State of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom, and Attorney General Rob Bonta from enfocing a provision of the “No Vigilantes Act” which would require virtually any federal law enforcement officer who is not in uniform to “visibly display identification” while carrying out duties in the state.
Last Feb. 19, the Ninth Circuit put in place a temporary administrative injunction pending the U.S.’s appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction by District Court Judge Christina A. Snyderof the Central District of California.
Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Mark J. Bennett said in yesterday’s decision:
“We conclude that § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions. The Supremacy Clause forbids the State from enforcing such legislation. The United States is therefore likely to succeed on the merits of its Supremacy Clause claim, and the other preliminary injunction factors also weigh in its favor.”
The legislation was enacted last year. It adds §13654 to the Penal Code.
Subd. (a) provides:
“A law enforcement officer operating in California that is not uniformed, and therefore is not required to clearly display identification pursuant to Section 830.10, shall visibly display identification that includes their agency and either a name or badge number or both name and badge number when performing their enforcement duties, unless expressly exempt under subdivision (b).”
Those exempt arte enumerated in six paragraphs in Subd. (b). Para. (2) lists several state agencies and adds, “or the federal equivalents of these state agencies.”
Where an exemption does not apply, “[a] willful and knowing violation of this section is punishable as a misdemeanor.”
The term “law enforcement officer” is defined as including :any federal law enforcement officer.”
Bennett said of §10:
“It purports to override the federal government’s power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers….And in so doing, it aims to regulate the manner and conditions under which federal agents can enforce federal law.
:…. Section 10. in short, directly regulates the federal government.”
The jurist added:
“Here, irreparable harm necessarily results from allowing California to enforce a law invalid under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity….
“California nonetheless contends that even if we determined that § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act likely violates the Supremacy Clause, we would still need to balance the equities. California specifically urges us to consider the public safety concerns which spurred the Act’s enactment. We decline to do so. Because the United States has shown a likelihood that the Act violates the Supremacy Clause, it has also shown that both the public interest and balance of the equities tip ‘decisively in...favor’ of a preliminary injunction.”
Bennett was joined by Circuit Judges Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Daniel P. Collins. All members of the panel were appointed by President Donald Trump.
The case is U.S. v. State of California, 26-926.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company