From a recent rally in Pasadena (File Photo – Staff)
A federal appeals court in Pasadena has temporarily blocked California from enforcing a state law that restricts when federal agents can wear masks during operations.
By News Desk
The ruling came from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found that the state law likely violates the Constitution by attempting to regulate federal law enforcement activity. The decision halts enforcement of the measure while the case continues through the courts.
The law at issue, known as the No Vigilantes Act, was passed by the state Legislature and signed by Gavin Newsom last year. It requires most non-uniformed federal officers operating in California to display visible identification while carrying out official duties, with limited exceptions. Officers who fail to comply could face criminal prosecution under state law.
The legislation was introduced following immigration enforcement actions in Southern California tied to policies of Donald Trump. During those operations, masked federal agents conducted detentions as part of a broader deportation effort, raising concerns among state lawmakers about transparency and accountability.
In its decision, the appeals court determined that the federal government is likely to prevail in its argument that the law conflicts with the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law. As a result, the panel granted an injunction preventing California from enforcing the measure while the appeal is pending.
The case follows earlier legal challenges in Los Angeles, where a federal judge rejected arguments from the Trump administration that agents needed to wear masks to avoid doxing, a practice involving the online release of personal information. In that same ruling, the judge raised concerns about a separate state law, the No Secret Police Act, suggesting it may improperly single out federal agencies because it does not apply to state or local law enforcement.
However, that judge upheld the No Vigilantes Act, finding that it broadly applies to most law enforcement personnel, including local and state officers, by requiring them to display identifying information such as a name or badge number while on duty.
Responding to the Ninth Circuit’s action, Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena) criticized the injunction while emphasizing that the case is ongoing.
“Today’s injunction ruling is disappointing, but it is not the final word on SB 805 as the court’s full analysis is still pending,” Pérez said in a statement. “The No Vigilantes Act was carefully crafted to ensure that all law enforcement operating in California, whether local, state, or federal, display clear identification. Requiring officers to show identification has been a longstanding and widely accepted practice in law enforcement. California has both the authority and the responsibility, under its police powers, to maintain order and protect the safety and wellbeing of everyone within its jurisdiction.”
She added that concerns about impersonation have grown amid heightened immigration enforcement. “Since the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown began, there has been an increase in individuals impersonating law enforcement to target and exploit vulnerable community members. People have a right to know whether someone claiming to be law enforcement is, in fact, a legitimate officer or a criminal. Protecting Californians from that uncertainty and harm is the core purpose of SB 805.”
Both laws took effect on January 1 but have not been enforced as their legality continues to be contested in court.
Leave a Reply