Federal appeals court blocks California law requiring federal agents to wear identification
Advertisement
Read this article for free:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
We need your support!
Local journalism needs your support!
As we navigate through unprecedented times, our journalists are working harder than ever to bring you the latest local updates to keep you safe and informed.
Now, more than ever, we need your support.
Starting at $15.99 plus taxes every four weeks you can access your Brandon Sun online and full access to all content as it appears on our website.
Subscribe Nowor call circulation directly at (204) 727-0527.
Your pledge helps to ensure we provide the news that matters most to your community!
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Add Brandon Sun access to your Free Press subscription for only an additional
$1 for the first 4 weeks*
*Your next subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $20.00 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $24.00 plus GST every four weeks.
Read unlimited articles for free today:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
LOS ANGELES (AP) — An appeals court has blocked a California law passed in 2025 requiring federal immigration agents to wear a badge or some form of identification.
The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in November challenging the law, arguing that it would threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing, and violence and that they violated the constitution because the state is directly regulating the federal government.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction pending appeal Wednesday. It had already granted a temporary administrative injunction to block the implementation of the law.
At a hearing March 3, Justice Department lawyers argued that the California law sought to regulate the federal government, violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
The appeals court agreed, saying the law “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” in an opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett.
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 “generally applicable” laws to federal agents. They also argued that the law was important to address public safety concerns.
The initial lawsuit also addressed another California measure signed into law last year that would have banned most law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings. It was blocked by a federal judge in February.
The legislation did not apply to state law enforcement and 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.