The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has permanently barred California from enforcing a state law that required federal immigration agents to display identification while on duty.
Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote for the three-judge panel that the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions, and that no set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.
The appellate ruling overturned a lower federal judge who had allowed the ID requirement to remain in place while blocking a separate state law that sought to ban masks for law enforcement.
That district judge had ruled the mask ban unfairly carved out an exception for state peace officers but had described the ID requirement as more akin to a speed limit on the highway than direct regulation of the federal government.
Context And Implications
The Justice Department had sued to block California’s ID requirement alongside the mask prohibition, arguing the state lacked authority to regulate federal agents. The 9th Circuit agreed with that view and held the state law void for attempting to directly regulate federal conduct without congressional authorization.
The litigation unfolded as federal immigration enforcement drew public scrutiny after operations in public spaces and the shootings of civilians Renee Good and Alex Pretti by ICE agents. More than a dozen other states had pursued similar statutes aimed at curbing federal immigration actions.
The decision arrives amid reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is reducing the number of recent hires it brought on. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed more than 40 percent of Americans strongly disapprove of the president’s handling of immigration, while concern about unauthorized immigration tracked closely with worries about the spread of measles, according to the same reporting.
Court officials concluded that when a state law directly regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional authorization, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or the degree of interference.
