San Jose’s fight against immigration enforcement remains unimpeded as federal rulings try to hamper city and state efforts.
California’s requirement for law enforcement to wear identification through the “No Vigilantes Act” has been temporarily paused due to a Thursday ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges are set to review the case March 3.
Despite that, a similar San Jose policy appears to be intact because it applies to all law enforcement, not just federal agents, according to District 5 Councilmember Peter Ortiz. He said the city attorney confirmed to him that the court ruling has no impact on San Jose’s policy. City Attorney Susan Alcala Wood did not respond to a request for comment.
“We are grateful that the decision upheld the requirement that all law enforcement present visible ID,” Ortiz told San José Spotlight. “That is also the law in place in San Jose and works to ensure that our community is safeguarded.”
The “No Vigilantes Act” was part of a package of laws Gov. Gavin Newsom signed in September to hold U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accountable. Another law — the “No Secret Police Act,” which aimed to ban federal agents from wearing masks — was temporarily suspended earlier this month for only applying to federal agents.
State Sen. Scott Weiner, who proposed the “No Secret Police Act” and co-authored the “No Vigilantes Act,” has introduced an amendment to include state police in the anti-masking law.
Mariam Arif, spokesperson for Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network (SIREN), said the recent federal court decisions are concerning for immigrant communities across California. SIREN is a nonprofit that advocates for immigrants and part of the Santa Clara County Rapid Response Network, which documents ICE activity and provides emergency legal services for immigrants.
“Clear identification of officers is an important safeguard that helps prevent impersonation, protects due process and supports overall community safety,” Arif told San José Spotlight. “These developments also contribute to increased fear and confusion among immigrant families who are already navigating an uncertain enforcement environment.”
The San Jose City Council passed its own policy requiring law enforcement officers to identify themselves, along with its anti-mask measure, last fall. Ortiz introduced both policies. San Jose leaders have also banned ICE from using city properties for immigration enforcement activities. The San Jose Police Department is required to inform the city manager when officers respond to incidents involving ICE agents, and require ICE to notify the department before conducting any operations.
“This administration has shown little tolerance for accountability and has too often resorted to fear and intimidation in our communities,” Ortiz said. “I am proud of the decisive steps we have taken to make San Jose one of the strongest cities in California when it comes to regulating ICE operations.”
Liz Gonzalez, an organizer with justice advocacy group Silicon Valley De-Bug, said the court rulings are legitimizing ICE as a law enforcement agency. She questions whether policies like anti-masking and wearing badges will ultimately change how ICE is operating with impunity.
“We can’t legitimize them as law enforcement,” Gonzalez told San José Spotlight.
The federal government is in the throes of a partial shutdown as congressional lawmakers are gridlocked over funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE.
Democrats want more accountability and limits to be placed on federal immigration operations. Though funding for the department has lapsed, President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” passed last summer gave ICE about $75 billion across four years, and allows it to continue operations through the shutdown.
“I don’t understand why there isn’t the urgency or the political will to do that, to stand up for human rights, when they could move to abolish this entity that hasn’t existed very long,” Gonzalez said. “Because those we know where we’re sending people — we’re sending people to death, to torture to inhumane conditions (in detention centers). Nobody deserves that.”
Contact Joyce Chu at [email protected] or @joyce_speaks on X.