dailyloe.com – A federal appeals court blocked a California law requiring immigration agents to show identification. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued the ruling on Wednesday. It represents a legal victory for the Trump administration over Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom. The court found California overstepped its authority by trying to regulate federal agents.
A three-judge panel made the decision. The panel comprised two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee. They found the state’s No Vigilantes Act violated the Constitution’s supremacy clause. That clause says federal law prevails over conflicting state law.
The panel concluded the law attempted to directly regulate the United States. It was regulating the government in its performance of official functions. The Supremacy Clause forbids a state from enforcing such legislation. The judges wrote this in their order.
The decision followed Governor Newsom signing two bills last fall. The laws were designed to address reports of unidentified federal agents. Agents were sometimes wearing masks and other gear during operations. They were carrying out arrests and detaining immigrants in California.
The No Vigilantes Act required ICE agents to display identification. The No Secret Police Act banned them from wearing masks. Governor Newsom defended the laws in a statement in March. He said Trump’s ICE agents need to be reined in.
Newsom said they must be held to the same standards as other law enforcement. He stated federal accountability and clear identification should not be optional. The Trump administration sued over the two bills. It sought injunctions to block them.
The administration argued a state law regulating federal operations is invalid. It said this was true no matter the size of the burden imposed. ICE has defended the practice of agents concealing identities. The agency cited operational security needs.
This defense came last summer amid an intensifying immigration crackdown. That crackdown prompted anti-ICE protests across the country. The court’s ruling is the latest flashpoint in a broader fight. It is a conflict between blue states and the federal government over immigration enforcement.
