On October 14, 2026, a federal appeals court issued an order halting California's requirement that immigration agents identify themselves to residents during enforcement operations, striking down a state-level disclosure rule that lawmakers had enacted for that purpose.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned a lower court's refusal to grant a preliminary injunction, finding that Section 10 of California's 2025 No Vigilantes Act conflicts with the Supremacy Clause — the constitutional principle establishing federal law as the overriding authority when it comes into tension with state-level statutes.

Writing for the panel, Judge Bennett — appointed to the bench by President Trump — held that the statute "explicitly overrides the federal government's power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers." The court further found that Section 10 operates solely within the domain of law enforcement officials and the conduct of their law enforcement activities.

Under the No Vigilantes Act, any officer operating in California without a uniform — federal agents included — was required to wear visible identification showing both their agency affiliation and either a name or badge number at the point of enforcement. The law took effect in California in September 2025, following a period during which enforcement personnel in concealed vehicles conducted operations at Home Depot locations, car washes, and bus stops, with officers whose identities were not visibly displayed.

Separate from the appeal, the No Secret Police Act — a linked measure targeting face coverings — had already encountered a partial court block at the district level in February 2026.

The three-judge panel determined that the government's legal position was strong enough to warrant relief, returning the matter to District Judge Christina Snyder with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction. A prior ruling by Snyder had left the law in place, and the 9th Circuit determined that the legal standard applied in that decision was incorrect.

Alongside Bennett, the panel included Judge Daniel Collins, appointed under President Trump, and Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, who was placed on the bench during the Obama administration.

Absent any display of agency name, officer identifier, or badge number, the particular accountability mechanism California intended to put in place goes unmet, even if other means of verifying an officer's identity are not entirely foreclosed. Those who monitor civil-liberties issues have raised concerns that accountability mechanisms stand to be reduced under the ruling.

California Attorney General Bonta has argued that law enforcement agencies depend on transparency and accountability to function properly, and that officers who conceal their identities while on duty pose risks to both public safety and civil liberties. The American Immigration Council has put forward a policy platform centred on oversight and transparency in immigration enforcement, including a requirement that agents carry and display identification.

Across multiple states, law enforcement has documented instances of individuals impersonating immigration authorities to extort or steal from residents, with households in Latino communities among those frequently targeted. Twenty-one state attorneys general jointly submitted a notice to Congress in 2025 raising the issue of individuals posing as immigration enforcement personnel.

The Department of Homeland Security — the parent agency of Immigration and Customs Enforcement — has stated that its personnel wear face coverings to keep their personal details off public platforms, pointing to a documented rise in assaults against agents. The department has indicated it does not plan to comply with California's masking disclosure rules.

The injunction places enforcement of the identification requirement against federal officers on hold for the duration of the underlying legal proceedings. Among the options available, the state may bring the matter before the full 9th Circuit for a rehearing or carry its appeal to the Supreme Court.