in February<\/a>, ruling that it discriminated against the federal government because it did not apply to state troopers. The law made exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a mask would jeopardize the operation. That judge let the ID law stand.<\/p>\nAt an appeal hearing March 3, Justice Department lawyers argued that the California identification requirement law sought to regulate the federal government, violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
The appeals court agreed unanimously, saying the law \u201cattempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,\u201d in an opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett. The panel was composed of two Trump appointees, Bennett and Daniel P. Collins, and Obama appointee Jacqueline H. Nguyen. <\/p>\n
California lawyers argued that the law applied equally to all law enforcement officers without discriminating against the U.S. government, and that states could apply \u201cgenerally applicable\u201d laws federal agents. They also argued that the law was important to address public safety concerns.<\/p>\n
People are more likely to attack officers in self-defense if there\u2019s no visible identification letting the public know they are law enforcement, California lawyers said in a brief.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis confusion has resulted in federal law enforcement officials being mistaken for criminals and vice versa, creating serious risk of harm to peace officers and members of the public,\u201d they wrote.<\/p>\n
In October 2025, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a report warning that the increase in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity had spurred \u201ccriminal actors impersonating ICE agents to commit violent crime,\u201d California attorneys noted.<\/p>\n
The appeals court judges said they did not consider the public safety factors because the federal government has demonstrated its constitutional rights would be violated by the legislation, and \u201call citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n
When a lower court struck down California\u2019s mask ban, it left open another way of achieving the same goal. The judges in that case had indicated they would be more open to a law that banned masks for all law enforcement officers, not just federal ones. A new California bill attempts to revive the mask restrictions by also applying them to state troopers.<\/p>\n
But the appeals court\u2019s opinion signals a stricter view on the state government\u2019s ability to regulate federal officers.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Supremacy Clause prohibits States from enacting a law that directly regulates federal operations even if the law regulates state operations in the same manner,\u201d the judges wrote.<\/p>\n
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli called it a \u201chuge legal victory\u201d in a post on X.<\/p>\n
California Attorney General Rob Bonta\u2019s office said they are reviewing the order.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Trump Administration has stepped well outside the boundaries of normal practice, deploying masked and unidentified agents to carry out immigration enforcement, despite the risks these tactics pose to public safety and basic civil liberties,\u201d Bonta\u2019s office said in a statement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"LOS ANGELES (AP) \u2014 A federal appeals court issued an order Wednesday blocking a California law requiring federal…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":281407,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[4932,5781,7,9,8,12876,1312,121005,18,14,121006,734,1016,121004,13,2794,575,17,435,538,16220],"class_list":{"0":"post-281406","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-california","8":"tag-barack-obama","9":"tag-bill-essayli","10":"tag-california","11":"tag-california-headlines","12":"tag-california-news","13":"tag-constitutional-law","14":"tag-courts","15":"tag-daniel-p-collins","16":"tag-general-news","17":"tag-immigration","18":"tag-jacqueline-h-nguyen","19":"tag-law-enforcement","20":"tag-lawsuits","21":"tag-mark-j-bennett","22":"tag-politics","23":"tag-rob-bonta","24":"tag-u-s-immigration-and-customs-enforcement","25":"tag-u-s-news","26":"tag-united-states","27":"tag-united-states-government","28":"tag-violence"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281406","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=281406"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281406\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/281407"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=281406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=281406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=281406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}