The Trump administration achieved a legal victory against a liberal-leaning appeals court. This court temporarily blocked part of a California law. The law required plainclothes federal law enforcement agents to show identification during operations.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals supported the Trump administration’s argument. The court deemed that the administration was ‘certain to succeed’ in its lawsuit against California. The court highlighted that the No Vigilantes Act’s identification requirement violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause. This clause gives federal law priority over conflicting state laws.
The court stated, “Section 10 explicitly overrides the federal government’s power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers.”
This ruling marks another encounter between the federal appeals court and the Trump administration. The court previously opposed Trump’s immigration policies, blocking efforts to cut funding to sanctuary cities in 2018 and restricting asylum eligibility that same year. It also refused to reinstate Trump’s travel ban on several predominantly Muslim countries in 2017.
The decision presents a setback for California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom. Newsom, considered a potential 2028 presidential candidate, has opposed Trump’s immigration agenda. He has enacted laws to protect immigrant communities, limit federal immigration enforcement, and increase oversight of federal agents.
The Trump administration contested California through provisions in the No Vigilantes Act and the No Secret Police Act. These laws limit law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings. Judge Christina Snyder initially blocked the mask restriction but upheld the identification requirement. The Trump administration appealed this, and the 9th Circuit temporarily blocked the enforcement of the identification requirement, eventually granting an injunction.
California’s argument that the identification requirement didn’t amount to unconstitutional regulation of the federal government was rejected. The appeals court ruled the state had no authority to regulate federal officials. The court wrote, “The burden of the regulation on federal operations, whether substantial or otherwise, is irrelevant.”
Trump administration officials praised the ruling. Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Division, and Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr. expressed support. They emphasized California cannot regulate federal law enforcement.
Fox News Digital contacted Newsom’s office for comment.
Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business, covering national politics.