It’s not unexpected that a unanimous three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit has halted what many see as an unconstitutional effort by California—often referred to as the “No-Longer-So-Golden State”—to place restrictions on federal agents, like those from ICE, in enforcing immigration laws. This ruling aligns with the fundamental role of federal courts to uphold the Constitution.
On October 14, in the case of U.S. v. California, the court rejected the so-called “No Vigilantes Act” (NVA), which reflected California’s ongoing efforts to hinder federal immigration enforcement. This has been characterized by public denouncements from the governor and state officials targeting federal agents simply doing their jobs. For instance, there were comparisons made by Newsom that likened these agents to the brutish “secret police” found in authoritarian regimes.
The NVA laid out requirements for non-uniformed federal law enforcement officers in California, insisting they visibly display identification during their duties. If an agent failed to comply, the state could pursue criminal charges against them.
The Ninth Circuit emphasized the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, which establishes that “the Constitution, and the Laws of the United States…are the Supreme Law of the Land.” This means that federal law supersedes state law and mandates what is known as “intergovernmental immunity.” This principle indicates that states cannot directly regulate the operations or property of the federal government. Citing the 1996 Ninth Circuit case Blackburn v. U.S., the panel highlighted that the basis for this legal tenet goes back to the landmark Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). In that case, the Court stated that the essence of Supremacy is to eliminate any barriers to its actions within its jurisdiction, ultimately freeing its own operations from state influence. Thus, “States have no power…to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress.”
California attempted to defend the NVA by arguing it didn’t significantly burden federal law enforcement. However, the Ninth Circuit countered this claim, asserting that any state law trying to regulate “the conduct of the United States…is void regardless of the extent of interference with federal functions.”
The criminal prosecution threat against federal agents was particularly troubling. This situation is especially ironic; California is attempting to do what the Supreme Court explicitly prohibited 136 years ago in another pivotal case, In re Neagle (1890), which was also cited by the Ninth Circuit. That case is quite an interesting story, highlighting the bizarre actions of California officials throughout history, not just in contemporary political discussions.
In re Neagle dealt with California’s attempt to prosecute a U.S. Marshal for murder. Marshal David Neagle was assigned to protect Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field. He ended up shooting and killing former California Supreme Court Chief Justice David Terry at a railway station after Terry threatened Field. This incident was rooted in Terry’s known violent outbursts and his grudge against Field due to a past court ruling regarding Terry’s divorce.
The Ninth Circuit referred to the Supreme Court opinion in Neagle, stating that even the most universally applicable state laws, like those about murder, cannot control a U.S. marshal acting under U.S. laws. Just as California couldn’t prosecute a U.S. Marshal back then for fulfilling his responsibilities, it cannot now criminally prosecute federal agents acting under federal immigration laws. This lays the matter to rest; the state law is unconstitutional.
Additionally, another troublesome piece of legislation—the “No Secret Police Act”—which made it illegal for federal agents to wear masks obscuring their identity, was already halted by a lower court for similar reasons. This law seemed especially misguided, considering that federal agents have been targeted, doxxed, and even attacked while performing their duties.
The Ninth Circuit’s recognition of the lawlessness in California isn’t solely about violence; perhaps some basic constitutional education may benefit Governor Newsom and the state legislature.
