At times, it appears that the courts across the nation are consistently ruling against Donald Trump and his agenda. However, on Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the president by granting his administration’s request for an injunction pending appeal regarding a section of California’s No Vigilantes Act. This act requires that non-uniformed law enforcement officers clearly display their identification, including their name or badge number and the name of their agency.
There’s a little section of the U.S. Constitution known as the “Supremacy Clause,” which means, in a nutshell, federal law trumps state law(s). First Assistant United States Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli called the ruling “huge”:
Huge legal victory this morning in the Ninth Circuit, where the court permanently enjoined California’s unconstitutional mask law targeting federal agents.
“We conclude that § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of… pic.twitter.com/fZNjG9QepO
— F.A. United States Attorney Bill Essayli (@USAttyEssayli) April 22, 2026
Huge legal victory this morning in the Ninth Circuit, where the court permanently enjoined California’s unconstitutional mask law targeting federal agents.
“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. Thus, we grant the motion for an injunction pending appeal.”
Here’s how the appeals panel described the California law:
It comes in mens and womens and lets your friends know you're happy to express your views and don't care what anyone thinks! Cheers!
Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act requires any nonuniformed “federal law enforcement officer” operating in California, with narrow exceptions, to “visibly display identification” while performing federal law enforcement duties, and officers who violate the law face criminal prosecution by the State.
That pesky Supremacy Clause is the problem for Gavin Newsom and his Democrat supermajority:
The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, establishes that federal law outranks state law whenever the two conflict. It declares the Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties to be the “supreme Law of the Land,” and it requires every state judge to follow federal law even when their own state’s constitution or statutes say something different. The clause is the reason a single federal regulation can override dozens of conflicting state laws at once, and understanding how it works explains many of the biggest legal battles between Washington and state capitals.
Newsom and his lunatic band of Democrats have pushed the envelope many times during the Trump administration, ignoring federal supremacy in a way that would leave the greasy-haired governor livid if he were sitting in the White House (God forbid).
To clarify, Wednesday’s ruling pertains to the identification requirements outlined in the No Vigilantes Act, not the use of masks. The district court had previously granted the federal government’s request for a preliminary injunction against the facial covering prohibition in the No Secret Police Act back in February, so that issue is not part of this appeal.
Let’s hope to see more actions like this, as the Democrats continue to challenge the law and pursue their own agenda. That’s not how it works, folks.
