Federal Appeals Court Halts California’s Anti-Vigilante Act
A Federal Court of Appeals has temporarily blocked California laws aimed at federal immigration enforcement, citing potential unconstitutionality.
Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, had signed the Anti-Vigilante Act, which mandates that non-uniformed federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies must wear visible identification. This act was part of a broader effort to challenge federal immigration tactics in the state.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the law infringed upon the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Mark Bennett stated in the unanimous decision, “This is exactly what the Anti-Vigilante Act provides.” Notably, two judges on the panel were appointed by former President Donald Trump and one by Barack Obama.
Bennett emphasized that the law pertains solely to law enforcement agencies and their personnel, saying, “This law does not regulate actions that members of the public may engage in. Rather, it applies specifically to law enforcement.”
The law will remain suspended while the Court of Appeals reviews it more thoroughly, though California officials might consider presenting an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta has not confirmed whether the state will escalate the matter to the Supreme Court. His office commented, “Transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of good law enforcement.” They criticized the Trump administration for using masked agents in immigration enforcement, claiming such practices endanger public safety and civil liberties.
Critics argue that the law endangers federal workers and their families, while others maintain that unidentified agents present a risk to the community. Newsom, addressing supporters in September 2025, proclaimed, “I’m going to be the first in the nation to sign a bill that says enough is enough! To ICE: Take off your mask. What are you afraid of?”
Newsom has carved out a position as a prominent adversary of Trump’s policies, with many suggesting this anti-Trump stance aligns with potential ambitions for a future gubernatorial run.
