LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court issued a ruling Wednesday that blocks a California law passed in 2025 that would require federal immigration agents to wear a badge or some form of identification.
The Trump administration filed a lawsuit challenging the law in November, arguing that it threatened the safety of officers facing harassment, doxing and violence and that it violated the Constitution because states were seeking to directly regulate the federal government.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the injunction pending an appeal. A temporary administrative order has been issued to stop the implementation of the law pending appeal.
The measure was one of two major laws introduced last fall aimed at reining in federal immigration agents after a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration in Southern California in June. Advocates have raised concerns about masked agents raiding workplaces or arresting people on the street, often without showing identification.
Another law banned most law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters and other face coverings. It was blocked in February by a federal judge, who said it discriminated against the federal government because it did not apply to state troopers. The law makes exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment such as N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a mask would jeopardize an operation.
At a March 3 hearing, Justice Department attorneys argued that the California identification requirement law violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and seeks to regulate the federal government.
The appeals court unanimously agreed in an opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett, saying the law “attempts to directly regulate the United States in the performance of governmental functions.” The panel included two Trump appointees, Bennett and Daniel P. Collins and Obama appointee Jacqueline H. was composed of Nguyen.
California lawyers argued that the law applied equally to all law enforcement officers without discrimination against the U.S. government, and that states could enforce “generally applicable” laws against federal agents. They also argued that the law was important to address public safety concerns.
California lawyers have argued in a brief opposing the ban that people are more likely to attack officers in self-defense if the public has no visible identification that they are law enforcement.
“This confusion has led to federal law enforcement officers being mistaken for criminals and, conversely, creating a serious risk of harm to peace officers and members of the public,” they wrote.
In October 2025, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a report that an increase in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity had “prompted criminal actors impersonating ICE agents to commit violent crimes,” California attorneys noted.
The appeals court judges said they did not consider public safety factors because the federal government had demonstrated that their constitutional rights would be infringed by the law, and “all citizens have a duty to uphold the Constitution,” it ruled, citing previous case law.
The decision could have nationwide ramifications for other states that have pursued their own measures to ban immigration agents.
When a lower court struck down California’s mask ban, it opened another way to achieve the same goal. The justices in that case indicated they would be more open to legislation banning masks for all law enforcement officers, not just federal ones. A new California bill attempts to revive mask bans by applying them to state troopers as well.
But the appeals court’s opinion indicates a tougher view on state governments’ ability to regulate federal officials.
“The Supremacy Clause prohibits states from enacting a law directly regulating federal operations if the law similarly regulates state operations,” the justices wrote.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Esaily called it a “huge legal victory” in a post on X.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said it is reviewing the order.
“Transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of good law enforcement,” the office said in a statement. “The Trump administration has stepped well outside the bounds of normal practice, deploying masked and anonymous agents to enforce immigration, despite the risks these tactics pose to public safety and basic civil liberties.”
