Court Blocks California ID Law for Federal Agents

A federal appeals court has blocked a California law passed in 2025 that required federal immigration agents to wear visible identification badges or other forms of ID. The ruling came from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued an injunction pending appeal.

The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in November challenging the law, arguing it would threaten officer safety and violate the Constitution by allowing states to regulate federal operations. According to PBS, Justice Department lawyers contended that the California law sought to regulate the federal government, violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The appeals court agreed unanimously, stating in an opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett that the law 'attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions.' The panel included two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee. California lawyers argued that the law applied equally to all law enforcement officers without discriminating against federal agents, emphasizing public safety concerns.

According to The Guardian, the initial lawsuit also addressed another California measure signed into law last year that would have banned most law enforcement officers from wearing masks or facial coverings. This measure was blocked by a federal judge in February. The legislation did not apply to state law enforcement and included exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators, and other situations where not wearing a mask could jeopardize operations.

In a related development, an appeals court on Friday blocked Donald Trump’s executive order suspending asylum access, a key pillar of the US president’s original plan to crack down on immigration at the southern border after he retook the White House. A three-judge panel from the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit found that immigration laws give people the right to apply for asylum at the border, and the president cannot circumvent that.

The panel concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not authorize the president to remove plaintiffs under 'procedures of his own making,' allow him to suspend plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating their anti-torture claims. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.