The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has permanently overturned a recent California law that mandated federal immigration agents to display their identification during operations.
Opponents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) argue that agents who operate without visible identification present dangers not just to undocumented immigrants but to the larger community as well.
‘No set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.’
A panel of three judges at the appeals court concluded that the state lacked the authority to impose such restrictions on federal operations without consent from Congress.
“We conclude… the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” wrote Judge Mark J. Bennett. “No set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.”
The court’s ruling emphasized that the law violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Department of Justice had previously sued to block this identification requirement as well as another law that prohibited federal agents from wearing masks in the field.
Earlier this year, the same court had invalidated a similar restriction set by California.
“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,” Bennett had noted previously.
More than a dozen other states have also enacted laws aimed at countering federal immigration enforcement.
No response was received from the governor’s office before publication.
Bill Essayli, the First Assistant United States Attorney for the Central District of California, has mocked Governor Gavin Newsom’s (D) previous attempts to curb ICE activities.
“If you want to regulate federal agents, you have to win a federal election,” Essayli quipped in response to Newsom’s new restrictions last month.
“Until then, you have no jurisdiction,” he added, further advising the Department of Homeland Security to ignore Newsom’s effort to prohibit “safe and effective less-lethal tools” that agents deem necessary in high-risk situations.
Newsom appears to be positioning himself against the current presidential administration, likely aiming to boost his public profile for a possible presidential run.
Recent polling indicates that he trails Kamala Harris significantly in favorability for the Democratic nomination, receiving support from only 15% of voters compared to Harris’s 30%.
Newsom has also mentioned that if Harris opts to run again after her 2024 defeat to Donald Trump, he would refrain from entering the presidential race.
