Federal Court Blocks California Law Requiring ID Display by Federal Officers

A federal appeals court has blocked California from enforcing a state law that requires non-uniformed federal law enforcement officers to visibly display identification while performing duties in the state. The decision, issued on February 26, 2024, by a three-judge panel—Judge Mark Bennett, joined by Judge Jacqueline Nguyen and Judge Daniel Collins—found that the law violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling stems from the case U.S. v. California, where the federal government sought an injunction to prevent enforcement of § 10 of the California No Vigilantes Act against federal agencies and officers. Section 10 mandates that any non-uniformed federal law enforcement officer operating in California, with limited exceptions, must display identification while performing federal duties. Violations could result in criminal prosecution by the state.

Court Rules State Law Interferes with Federal Authority

The panel concluded that § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the federal government in the performance of its governmental functions. The Supremacy Clause, the court emphasized, prohibits states from enforcing legislation that interferes with federal operations.

"When the Framers split the atom of sovereignty," the court wrote, "they put the federal government under the control of the people without collateral interference by the States, which have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere."

The court cited Supreme Court precedent, noting that the Supremacy Clause renders "the activities of the Federal Government … free from regulation by any state." It further explained:

"It is of the very essence of supremacy to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power vested in subordinate governments, as to exempt its own operations from their own influence."

Direct Regulation of Federal Functions Prohibited

The court distinguished between permissible state regulations and those that directly regulate the federal government. A direct regulation, the judges ruled, is one that:

• Imposes conditions on federal officers beyond those set by the federal government;
• Controls how the government conducts specifically governmental functions; or
• Regulates the manner and conditions under which federal agents enforce federal law.

Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act, the court found, meets these criteria. It:

• Expressly applies to federal officers;
• Seeks to control their conduct during law enforcement operations;
• Purports to override the federal government’s power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers; and
• Aims to regulate the performance of governmental actions carried out by the United States itself.

The judges concluded that § 10 "directly regulates the federal government" by attempting to impose additional requirements on federal officers beyond those established by the federal government.

Supreme Court Precedent Supports Ruling

The court relied on Supreme Court rulings that prohibit states from regulating or discriminating against the federal government or its operations. It noted that states cannot impose regulations that "lay hold of" federal officers in their attempts to obey federal orders or impose qualifications beyond those deemed sufficient by the federal government.

The panel’s decision underscores the constitutional principle that federal operations must remain free from state interference, particularly when such interference seeks to regulate core governmental functions.