Staff Reports
The Ninth Circuit just stepped into a long-running California vs. federal government dust-up and sided with the feds. In a written opinion issued on October 14, 2026, a three-judge panel blocked California from enforcing the part of its No Vigilantes Act that tried to force federal agents to visibly display agency ID and names while doing federal work. The court did more than pause the law — it said the United States is “certain to succeed” on the constitutional question. That’s not legal hedging; that’s a slam dunk in judicial robes.
What the Ninth Circuit actually decided
The appeals court ruled Section 10 of SB 805 violates the Supremacy Clause because it “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions.” Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote the opinion for the panel that included Judges Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Daniel P. Collins. The court reversed a lower court and told the district court to enter a preliminary injunction forbidding California, Governor Gavin Newsom, and Attorney General Rob Bonta from applying Section 10 to federal agencies and officers while they act under federal authority.
What Section 10 tried to do — and why it failed
Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act required non-uniformed officers, including federal agents, to visibly display their agency and either a name or badge number when operating in California, with misdemeanor penalties for willful refusal. The law was sold as a public-safety fix after high-profile immigration sweeps. But the court made the plain-point constitutional play: a state cannot tell the federal government how to run core federal functions unless Congress says so. Even a small intrusion is off-limits when a state is trying to regulate federal conduct.
Politics, posture, and practical fallout
Let’s call this what it is: political theater. Sacramento wrote SB 805 to score points and cue the applause, and then it landed in court where constitutional boundaries actually matter. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling doesn’t touch other parts of California’s law aimed at face coverings, but it does sharply narrow the state’s options. California can seek a rehearing en banc or try the Supreme Court. In the meantime, federal agents operating under federal authority are not going to be criminally prosecuted under Section 10 for failing to display that state-mandated ID.
Why conservatives — and anyone who cares about federalism — should pay attention
This case is a clear win for constitutional limits on state power. If states could regulate how federal officers identify themselves while performing federal duties, you’d have chaos — and a patchwork of rules that would make federal operations impossible to coordinate. That matters for immigration enforcement, counterterrorism, drug interdiction and any national function that crosses state lines. California’s impulse to micromanage federal agents is predictable; the Ninth Circuit’s reminder of the Supremacy Clause is necessary. The state can keep grandstanding, but when courts step in to enforce the Constitution, politics loses and the rule of law wins — whether the governors like it or not.
