On April 22, 2026, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California cannot force federal immigration agents to identify themselves during field operations. Judges on the panel found that the state legislation, known as the No Vigilantes Act, attempted to directly regulate the federal government in violation of the Supremacy Clause. This legal decision invalidates core portions of Governor Gavin Newsom and his administration’s effort to impose transparency requirements on ICE officers working within state borders.
Newsom signed the No Vigilantes Act and the No Secret Police Act last fall to address reports of masked federal agents conducting arrests without visible identification. State officials argued that unidentified officers created public confusion and safety risks for local residents. Legal challenges from the federal government argued that a state law regulating federal operations is inherently invalid. The court agreed with the federal position, asserting that the state overstepped its constitutional boundaries by trying to control how federal agents perform their duties.
Supremacy Clause provisions dictate that federal law takes precedence over state law when the two conflict. Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act specifically required agents to display identification during enforcement actions. The court order stated that such requirements interfere with the internal operations of the United States. Two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee joined the opinion, which emphasized that the State could not enforce legislation that hampers federal functions. Federal immunity from state interference defines the core of this legal dispute.
Federal Court Rejects California No Vigilantes Act
Attorneys for the state of California contended that the identification rules were necessary to protect citizens from what they described as rogue enforcement tactics. They presented evidence of agents wearing masks and tactical gear while detaining individuals in public spaces. Supporters of the state law noted that police officers are typically required to show badges or names, making the exemption for federal agents a point of contention. The Ninth Circuit, however, focused on the structural relationship between the state and federal governments rather than the specifics of the tactical gear.
Intergovernmental immunity protects federal agencies from state mandates that would dictate the manner of their work. The ruling follows a series of lawsuits between blue states and the federal government regarding immigration enforcement. In Chicago, a similar appeal court recently blocked an order that would have limited the use of force by immigration agents. Legal experts suggest these rulings establish a pattern of judicial skepticism toward state-level oversight of DHS personnel. The California Attorney General’s office has not yet announced if it will seek an en banc review of the decision.
Masking policies and the lack of identification have become standard practice for certain ICE units involved in high-risk arrests. Federal officials maintain that anonymity protects agents from retaliation and harassment by activists. They argue that identifying information can be used to track agents back to their homes or endanger their families. The ruling ensures these agents can continue their operations without the threat of state-level prosecution for failing to disclose their identities. Local law enforcement agencies in sanctuary cities now face increased pressure to decide how they will interact with these unidentified federal teams.
Senator Slotkin Compares ICE Tactics to British Occupation
Senate floor debates took a sharp turn on Wednesday when Senator Elissa Slotkin compared federal immigration enforcement to the British forces during the Revolutionary War. Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, spoke during a budget resolution session as Democrats attempted to reopen the Department of Homeland Security. Her remarks linked the behavior of federal forces to historical narratives of government oppression. She specifically highlighted incidents where masked agents allegedly used force against civilians during clashes in Minneapolis earlier this year.
"Imagine someone in a mask breaking your car window and pulling you and your 2-year-old daughter out of that car," Slotkin said during the budget debate.
Republican senators quickly condemned the comparison, describing it as an insult to federal law enforcement officers. They argued that ICE agents are fulfilling their legal mandate to enforce immigration statutes passed by Congress. The debate comes as the federal government enters day 67 of a partial shutdown that has left thousands of DHS employees working without pay. Financial records show that the $11 billion funding gap has strained resources, yet enforcement operations in states like California and Michigan continue at a high tempo.
Political rhetoric in the Senate has now moved from policy disagreement to historical comparison. Slotkin referenced the American forefathers and their rebellion against an oppressive government to frame her opposition to current ICE tactics. She cited examples of rubber bullets being used at protests and masked men detaining children on their way home from preschool. These anecdotes have become central to the Democratic push for federal police reform. Critics of the senator argue that her rhetoric encourages resistance to lawful federal authority and endangers agents on the ground.
Supremacy Clause Limits State Control Over Federal Agencies
Constitutional scholars point to the McCulloch v. Maryland precedent when discussing the limits of state power over federal entities. The Ninth Circuit relied on the principle that the power to regulate is the power to destroy. By allowing California to mandate identification, the court feared other states might impose even more restrictive rules on federal agencies. This could lead to a patchwork of regulations that would make it impossible for federal agents to operate consistently across the country. The decision reinforces the idea that federal agencies are accountable to Congress and the executive branch, not state governors.
Newsom expressed disappointment with the ruling, stating that accountability should not be optional for any law enforcement agency. His administration had viewed the No Vigilantes Act as an essential tool for civil rights protection in a state with a large undocumented population. State lawyers argued that the law did not prevent federal agents from doing their jobs but merely required transparency. The court found this distinction insufficient to overcome the immunity granted to the federal government. Legal challenges to the No Secret Police Act, which bans masks, are expected to follow a similar trajectory.
Operational secrecy persists as a primary defense for DHS in court filings. They claim that state-level mandates would provide a plan for those seeking to evade capture or obstruct justice. The use of tactical gear and masks is, according to the agency, a matter of officer safety during unpredictable encounters. While the Ninth Circuit ruling applies only to the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, it sets a persuasive precedent for other federal courts handling similar disputes in Washington and Oregon. The conflict between state sovereignty and federal supremacy shows no signs of resolution in the near term.
Immigration Enforcement Conflicts Intensify During DHS Shutdown
Budgetary constraints have not slowed the pace of arrests in sanctuary jurisdictions. Despite the 67 days of the partial DHS shutdown, field offices remain active in high-priority zones. This continued activity has fueled the fire of political opposition in Washington D.C., where Slotkin and her colleagues are leveraging the shutdown to demand policy changes. Projections show that without a budget resolution, the strain on federal personnel will continue to mount. Republican leaders have tied DHS funding to stricter border security measures, creating a legislative stalemate.
Enforcement actions in Minneapolis and other major cities have resulted in multiple injuries among both agents and protesters. These violent interactions serve as the primary evidence for those claiming that federal tactics have become too aggressive. Senator Slotkin’s speech emphasized the psychological impact of seeing masked men operating in American neighborhoods. She argued that such visuals are more common in authoritarian regimes than in a democratic republic. These statements reflect a growing divide in how different political factions perceive the role of federal law enforcement in domestic settings.
Records indicate that ICE continues to prioritize individuals with criminal records, though the definition of who constitute a priority remains a subject of intense debate. The Ninth Circuit decision provides a clear legal path for these operations to proceed without state interference. California officials must now decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court or seek legislative remedies through their congressional delegation. For now, the ruling is a meaningful limit on the ability of sanctuary states to monitor or regulate the activities of federal immigration agents within their borders.
The Elite Tribune Strategic Analysis
Did the Ninth Circuit just kill the sanctuary state movement’s most effective weapon? By invoking the Supremacy Clause to shield ICE from basic transparency, the court has effectively declared that federal agents are a protected class, immune from the public accountability standards that govern every other police force in the country. It is not just a legal victory for the Trump administration; it is a total decapitation of state-level oversight. California attempted to use the law to pull back the mask, literally and figuratively, and the judiciary slammed the door.
Political actors like Slotkin are performing a dangerous dance by comparing federal agents to colonial oppressors. While her rhetoric is designed to energize a base weary of the DHS shutdown, it ignores the structural reality of the American legal system. You cannot have a functioning federal government if every state legislature can rewrite the operational manuals of the FBI or ICE. Newsom’s error was thinking he could use state law to perform a surgical strike on federal authority. The court saw through the framing and reminded the country that when the federal government acts, states are relegated to the sidelines.
We are entering a period when the federal government and the states are not just in disagreement but in open legal and rhetorical warfare. The Ninth Circuit ruling provides the legal cover for an expansion of clandestine domestic enforcement. If agents can hide their faces and names, the line between law enforcement and a paramilitary force becomes dangerously thin. The decision guarantees that the streets of California will remain a battlefield of conflicting jurisdictions. The rule of law has spoken, but it has spoken in favor of shadows.