California enacted the No Vigilantes Act (S.B. 805) in response to federal immigration enforcement efforts. Section 10 of this Act requires any non-uniformed law enforcement officer operating in the state, including federal agents, to visibly display identification containing their agency and name or badge number while performing enforcement duties. Violation of this requirement is a misdemeanor punishable by the state. The United States sued, arguing that the statute facially violates the Supremacy Clause by attempting to directly regulate federal operations. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, concluding that the United States had not shown that the identification requirement would interfere with or take control of federal law enforcement operations. The United States then appealed, seeking an injunction pending appeal to prevent enforcement of the statute while the merits are litigated.
The panel granted the motion for an injunction pending appeal, finding that the United States is likely to succeed on its Supremacy Clause claim. The court explained that under the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, states may not directly regulate the Federal Government's operations. A direct regulation is one that 'lays hold of' federal officers 'in their specific attempt to obey orders and requires qualifications in addition to those that the [federal] Government has pronounced sufficient.' Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act expressly applies to federal officers and seeks to control their conduct in performing law enforcement operations, thereby regulating the manner and conditions under which federal agents enforce federal law. The court rejected the district court's analysis, which focused on the degree of interference with federal activities. Instead, the Ninth Circuit clarified that if a state law directly regulates the conduct of the United States, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or the degree of interference. The court distinguished this case from regulations affecting federal contractors, noting that private contractors do not stand on the same footing as the federal government. Because the Act directly regulates the federal government qua government, it is barred by intergovernmental immunity. Furthermore, the court held that the deprivation of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable harm, and preventing a violation of the Supremacy Clause serves the public interest, tipping the balance of equities decisively in favor of the injunction.
California officials are temporarily barred from applying or prosecuting federal agents under the identification requirement of Penal Code § 13654 while the appeal proceeds. The injunction remains in effect pending a further order of the court. The decision clarifies that states cannot impose identification requirements on federal officers that directly regulate their performance of governmental duties, regardless of whether the requirement is less restrictive than federal law. The underlying constitutional challenge to the statute will continue in the district court.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download