When the Legislature advanced the No Vigilantes Act, the Peace Officers
Research Association of California warned that the measure was constitutionally
defective and would not survive judicial review. On October 14, 2026, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirmed that assessment.
In a published opinion in United States v. State of California, No.
26-926 (9th Cir. Oct. 14, 2026), the panel reversed the district court and
ordered entry of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Section 10 of
the No Vigilantes Act, S.B. 805, holding that the statute cannot be applied to
the United States, its agencies, or its officers. The warning delivered in
committee has now become the law of the circuit.
The unanimous panel, speaking through Judge Bennett, concluded that the
United States is certain to succeed on the merits of its Supremacy Clause
claim. After the district court declined to enjoin Section 10, the Ninth
Circuit first entered a temporary administrative injunction on February 19,
2026, and then granted an injunction pending appeal on April 22, 2026, reported
at United States v. California, 173 F.4th 1060 (9th Cir. 2026). The
same panel has now resolved the merits, explaining that the United States was
not merely likely to prevail but was in fact certain to succeed because Section
10 attempts to directly regulate the federal government in the performance of
its governmental functions without authorization from Congress. Because the
United States brought a facial challenge, it was required to show that no set
of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid, and the panel found
that burden satisfied. The opinion fully adopts, for precedential purposes, the
analysis from the earlier injunction pending appeal discussed in our prior
post, Ninth Circuit Ruling Confirms Constitutional Limits on State Regulation of Federal Law Enforcement Operations, converting that temporary relief into a
firm directive that the district court enter the preliminary injunction.
California enacted Senate Bill 805, known as the No Vigilantes Act, on
September 20, 2025, in direct response to the United States’ expanded
immigration enforcement efforts. The statute requires any law enforcement
officer operating in California who is not in uniform to visibly display
identification that includes the officer’s agency and either a name or badge
number, or both, when performing enforcement duties. Willful and knowing
violations are punishable as a misdemeanor. Senator Scott Wiener authored the
companion measure, Senate Bill 627, known as the No Secret Police Act. While
the concerns that prompted these bills are understandable, the Ninth Circuit’s
decision is a timely reminder that performative politics cannot replace a
deliberative legislative process that takes the United States Constitution and
the concerns of stakeholders seriously in crafting balanced, enforceable
legislation.
On September 11, 2025, David E. Mastagni testified before the Senate Public
Safety Committee on behalf of PORAC in opposition to the related restrictions.
The Legislature was warned that the measures would be struck down as applied to
federal officers under the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of
intergovernmental immunity, yet the severability provisions would leave
California officers who do not enforce immigration laws to bear the full weight
of the poorly drafted requirements. The Ninth Circuit has confirmed the
accuracy of those concerns.
The panel’s analysis rests on the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.
The court explained that under the intergovernmental immunity component of the
Supremacy Clause, states may not directly regulate the Federal Government’s
operations or property, quoting Blackburn v. United States, 100 F.3d
1426, 1435 (9th Cir. 1996). Section 10 explicitly overrides the federal
government’s power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its
officers and therefore regulates the manner and conditions under which federal
agents can enforce federal law. The opinion holds that if a state law directly
regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional
authorization, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are
essential to federal functions or operations and irrespective of the degree to
which the state law interferes with such functions or operations. There is no
de minimis exception. Because the Act exclusively regulates law enforcement,
the United States showed that no set of circumstances exists under which the
Act would be valid as applied to federal officers.
As a result of this ruling, the identification requirements of the No
Vigilantes Act will have no practical impact on federal immigration officers.
The injunction prevents California from imposing these operational mandates on
federal agencies and officers. The severability clauses ensure that the
identification requirements continue to apply to California’s state and local
peace officers. These officers already confront difficult conditions in severe
weather, hazardous materials incidents, and tactical situations. The additional
mandates make their jobs harder without enhancing accountability for federal
operations. As PORAC warned, poorly drafted reactionary legislation once again
missed its mark, granted the federal administration an easy victory, and saddled
California officers with more bad law. Public safety unions and their members
deserve legislation that accounts for their concerns rather than inflicting
collateral damage on local officers who are not involved in immigration
enforcement.
The lesson of United States v. State of California is that good intentions do not save unconstitutional statutes. The surest way to protect both accountability and officer safety is to legislate with discipline, to respect the constitutional limits on state power, and to listen to the professionals who will have to carry the law into the field. California’s public safety officers deserve better. Mastagni Holstedt, APC remains committed to advancing sound policies on behalf of California’s public safety professionals.
