Appeals court rules California can’t require ICE to show visible ID A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled against a California law requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to show visible identification, a final ruling after the law was previously put on hold.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit remanded with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction on the state of California, stating that the federal government has shown that the Golden State’s No Vigilantes Act violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The appeals court ruled that the Supremacy Clause “prohibits States from directly regulating federal operations even when regulating state operations in the same manner,” according to the ruling.

“In sum, 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, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations,” the court wrote.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s (D) office told The Hill that it was “disappointed” by the ruling.

“Transparency and accountability are the foundation of good law enforcement — law enforcement refusing to identify themselves undermines our collective safety,” Bonta’s office said in a statement. “We’re disappointed in today’s decision and reviewing the court’s opinion.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued California and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) last November after he signed the No Vigilantes Act, which demands that plainclothes law enforcement officers operating in California “shall visibly display identification.”Along with the No Secret Police Act, which banned federal law enforcement officers from wearing masks while carrying out operations in the state, the law took effect on Jan. 1 and required officers to show identification while performing their duties.

The federal appeals court in April sided with the Trump administration in extending its pause on the law until the case was resolved.

Bonta’s office previously told The Hill that good law enforcement requires “transparency and accountability” and accused the Trump administration of stepping “well outside the boundaries of normal practice” with federal law enforcement.

State officials ushered in the law in response to ICE raids throughout the state last year, prompting President Trump to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles amid protests against ICE operations in June 2025. A federal judge ordered Trump to end the deployment in December.

This ramp-up spilled over to the courts, where the DOJ and California officials have been embroiled in litigation over different aspects of Trump’s crackdown on immigration in the state.

Last month, Newsom signed another law passed in response to ICE being awarded a nearly $17 million contract for 6,000 pairs of electric shock gloves to be worn during immigration operations. The reveal of the gloves in August sparked controversy, with the Democratic governor calling their introduction and use “Orwellian.”

“California is taking action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and oversight around immigration enforcement in our state,” he said in a statement at the time. “This is about stepping up where the federal government has failed our communities.”