Ninth Circuit Nixes California 'No Vigilantes Act' as Unconstitutional
The Ninth Circuit struck down California's law regulating federal agents without Congress's consent.
Why it matters: This ruling clarifies constitutional limits on state laws that attempt to control federal operations, shaping federalism debates and legal strategies nationwide.
- The Ninth Circuit ruled on October 14, 2026, that California's 'No Vigilantes Act' is unconstitutional for regulating federal law enforcement without congressional approval.
- The law required federal agents in California to show visible identification while performing duties, enacted in September 2025 after concerns about ICE agents working undercover.
- The ruling was unanimous by a panel including Judges Mark J. Bennett, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and Daniel P. Collins, reversing a lower court's denial of a preliminary injunction.
- The court emphasized the Supremacy Clause prohibits states from directly regulating federal operations, regardless of whether activities are integral to federal functions.
On October 14, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously invalidated California's 'No Vigilantes Act' for conflicting with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Act, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2025, required non-uniformed federal law enforcement officers to visibly display their identification while carrying out duties in California. This legislation followed public outcry over ICE agents reportedly conducting operations without proper identification.
The appellate panel of Judges Mark J. Bennett, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and Daniel P. Collins reversed a lower court's ruling that had denied a preliminary injunction against this law. Judge Bennett highlighted, "The supremacy clause prohibits states from directly regulating federal operations even when regulating state operations in the same manner." He also noted, "If a state law directly regulates the conduct of the United States, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations."
Alongside this law, California enacted the 'No Secret Police Act' to prohibit federal agents from wearing face masks, which a federal court blocked in February 2026 for similarly violating the Supremacy Clause. These legal developments underline the ongoing tensions between state efforts to oversee federal enforcement practices and constitutional protections for federal authority.
The court's decision delineates the constitutional boundary that states cannot impose regulations on federal officers without congressional consent, a critical precedent for state-federal relations. Legal professionals should anticipate the impact on litigation involving federal agency operations within state boundaries and the enforcement of state laws aimed at federal actors.
By the numbers:
- October 14, 2026 — Date Ninth Circuit struck down the 'No Vigilantes Act'
- September 2025 — When California signed the 'No Vigilantes Act' into law
- February 2026 — Federal court blocked enforcement of the related 'No Secret Police Act'
Yes, but: While the ruling invalidates California's direct regulation of federal agents, it leaves open broader debates about permissible state roles in federal law enforcement oversight.
What's next: California may consider appealing the Ninth Circuit's ruling or revisiting legislation with congressional approval to regulate federal officers.