A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on October 14, 2026, that California cannot enforce the identification requirement in its No Vigilantes Act against federal officers, according to the court's opinion, reported by the Los Angeles Times and other outlets. The panel reversed a lower court and ordered it to issue a preliminary injunction barring the state from enforcing Section 10 of the law against the United States, federal agencies and federal officers.

The law, Senate Bill 805, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2025 and in effect from January 1, generally required a non-uniformed officer operating in California — a rule aimed at federal immigration agents — to visibly display the officer's agency and either a name or badge number during arrests, detentions and crowd-control operations, with exemptions including undercover work and SWAT operations. An officer who wilfully violated the rule could face misdemeanor prosecution by the state.

Writing for the panel, Judge Mark J. Bennett, joined by Judges Daniel Collins and Jacqueline Nguyen, said the United States is certain to succeed on its claim that the measure violates the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. "If 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 operations," Bennett wrote. The panel had already paused the identification requirement earlier in the case while the appeal moved forward.

The ruling reversed U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder, who had blocked a companion California measure restricting masks for federal officers but had allowed the identification requirement to proceed, reasoning that it functioned more like a highway speed limit than a direct regulation of the federal government. The Justice Department sued California last year over both laws.

Justice Department officials welcomed the decision. Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate wrote that the Ninth Circuit agrees California cannot regulate federal law enforcement, and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli called it a huge win for the Supremacy Clause. California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office responded that transparency and accountability are the foundation of good law enforcement, and accused the Trump administration of deploying masked and unidentified agents for immigration enforcement despite risks to public safety and civil liberties. The injunction stops enforcement for now while the case returns to the district court; it is not a final ruling on the law's future.

Sources: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit opinion (October 14, 2026); Los Angeles Times reporting, October 14, 2026; statements from the U.S. Department of Justice and the California Attorney General's office.