A federal appeals court unanimously blocked California’s law requiring federal immigration agents to wear a badge or visible identification, handing the Trump administration a clean constitutional win over Sacramento’s latest effort to micromanage federal law enforcement.
The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the California law “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” which violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The opinion was written by Judge Mark J. Bennett, and the panel, which included two Trump appointees and an Obama appointee, was unanimous. Even the Obama judge had to admit California overstepped. That’s saying something.
California had passed the identification requirement in 2025 after a sweeping immigration crackdown in Southern California, and state lawyers argued the law applied equally to everyone and was necessary for public safety. Their argument was basically that people might confuse unidentified federal agents for criminals, which is a fun thing to argue when your state’s policies have made it a sanctuary for actual criminals. The state also cited a 2025 FBI report warning that criminal actors were impersonating ICE agents to commit violent crimes. The appeals court said it didn’t even need to weigh those public safety factors, because once a constitutional violation is on the table, “all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution.” Game over, Sacramento.
The Trump administration had sued in November, arguing the law endangered officers who were already facing harassment, doxing, and violence. California federal agent ID law ruling That argument clearly landed, and a temporary administrative injunction had already been blocking the law while the appeal played out. Now it’s blocked pending the full appeal, meaning California’s little power play goes nowhere fast.
This wasn’t even California’s only swing at federal immigration agents. A separate law banning most officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings was already killed by a federal judge back in February, who found it discriminated against the federal government because state troopers were exempt. Two swings, two misses. California lawyers really earned their taxpayer-funded paychecks on this one.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli called it a “huge legal victory” on X, which is about as understated as you can get. California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, meanwhile, said it is “reviewing the order” and insisted that “transparency and accountability are the foundation of good law enforcement,” adding that the Trump administration has “stepped well outside the boundaries of normal practice.” Translation: they lost in court and need a statement that sounds like they didn’t.
The case heads back through the appeals process, but California is now zero-for-two on its big immigration enforcement laws. At this rate, Bonta’s office is going to need a bigger reviewing table.
