On April 22, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order blocking California from enforcing the identification requirements of the “No Vigilantes Act” (Penal Code section 13654) against federal law enforcement officers. Agencies were already prohibited from enforcing the ban on face coverings under the “No Secret Police Act” by the ruling of the lower court. As a result, state and local law enforcement agencies may not apply or enforce this identification requirement against federal officers at this time.
Local agencies may not detain or arrest federal law enforcement officers for alleged violations of these laws. Local agency officers must continue to comply with the face covering restrictions and identification requirements in their own duties.
This ruling arises from a lawsuit filed by the United States challenging both the “No Vigilantes Act” and “No Secret Police Act.” The No Vigilantes Act requires non-uniformed law enforcement officers, including federal officers, such as ICE officers, to visibly display identification while performing enforcement duties, subject to limited exceptions. A willful violation of this provision is punishable as a misdemeanor under California law.
On February 9, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California enjoined enforcement of the mask prohibition of the “No Secret Police Act” on the grounds that it discriminated against the federal government because it was inapplicable to state agencies like CHP. That trial court decision left the remainder of the two state statutes intact, holding that the identification requirement did not sufficiently interfere with federal operations to warrant an injunction.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling as to the identification requirement and determined that the federal government is likely to succeed in its claim that the identification requirement is unconstitutional as applied to federal agencies and officers because it violates the Supremacy Clause, which provides that states generally may not impose requirements on federal officers acting within the scope of their authority. Based on that determination, the court issued an injunction preventing California from enforcing the law against federal personnel while the case continues.
The court also found that the remaining legal requirements for issuing an injunction were satisfied. In particular, the court concluded that allowing enforcement of a likely unconstitutional law would cause harm and that preventing such enforcement is in the public interest.
As a result of the Ninth Circuit’s order, California is currently prohibited from applying or enforcing Penal Code section 13654 against federal agencies and officers. This injunction is temporary and will remain in effect pending further proceedings in the case. The litigation is ongoing, and a final decision on the law’s validity has not yet been issued.
Authored by: Paul A. Knothe & Bryce Bakewell