Gavin Newsom’s legislative minions just got a lesson in constitutional supremacy

Ninth Circuit Blocks California’s “No Vigilantes Act,” Shielding Federal Immigration Officers

Boston, MA—October 16, 2024 – A unanimous decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday reaffirmed the supremacy of federal law, striking down a California statute that would have made it a state crime for federal immigration agents to operate without visible identification. The ruling, delivered in U.S. v. California, is a rare judicial rebuke of a state law that sought to constrain the activities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on California soil.

The case centers on the “No Vigilantes Act” (NVA), a law enacted by California lawmakers in 2023 as part of a broader effort to limit federal immigration enforcement within the state. Under the NVA, any federal law‑enforcement officer who is not wearing a uniform would have to carry a badge or other form of identification that is visible to the public. If a federal officer were found to be in violation, the state could prosecute the officer criminally. The statute was challenged by the federal government, arguing that it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.

Supremacy and Intergovernmental Immunity

In its 6‑page opinion, the Ninth Circuit noted that the Supremacy Clause makes “the Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land.” The court reiterated that under this principle, states cannot “directly regulate the federal government’s operations or property.” The judges cited the 1996 Blackburn v. United States decision, which established that a state law that directly regulates federal conduct is invalid, regardless of the degree of interference.

The panel also drew upon McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the landmark case in which the Supreme Court articulated that “the very essence of supremacy … is to remove all obstacles to the action of the federal government.” In its own words, the Ninth Circuit explained that “States have no power … to retard, impede, burden, or otherwise control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress.”

A Historic Precedent

The court’s reasoning was further bolstered by In re Neagle (1890), in which the Supreme Court held that a California law could not criminally prosecute a U.S. marshal for performing his duty. The Ninth Circuit quoted the Court’s opinion: “Even the most unquestionable and universally applicable of state laws, such as those concerning murder, will not be allowed to control the conduct of a marshal of the United States acting under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States.” The judges applied the same logic to the NVA, concluding that the statute could not criminally target federal agents carrying out federal immigration enforcement.

The California Context

California’s legislative push to curb federal immigration enforcement has been a point of contention for months. Governor Gavin Newsom and state officials have been vocally critical of federal agents, with Newsom labeling them “secret police” and “thuggish” in public statements. Critics argue that such rhetoric encourages hostility toward federal officers, while supporters claim it is a necessary check on what they see as overreach.

In addition to the NVA, California had passed the “No Secret Police Act,” which criminalized the use of facial coverings by federal agents. A federal district court had already enjoined that law earlier this year on similar constitutional grounds. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling confirms that California cannot impose criminal sanctions on federal officers simply for wearing a mask or for their lack of visible identification.

Decision and Its Impact

The panel’s 5‑to‑0 ruling declares that the NVA is void as a matter of federal law. The state is barred from prosecuting federal agents under the act, and any attempt to enforce it would be illegal. The decision also signals that any future California statutes that attempt to regulate the conduct of federal officers will face swift judicial review and likely defeat.

The Ninth Circuit did not address the underlying policy debate over state versus federal authority in immigration enforcement; its focus was strictly on constitutional grounds. The ruling does not affect the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law in California, nor does it change the authority of ICE agents to conduct operations in the state.

Reactions

California officials have not yet responded publicly to the decision. The U.S. Department of Justice praised the ruling as a “clear affirmation of the Constitution’s federal supremacy,” though the DOJ spokesperson declined to comment on policy implications.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a statement expressing relief that the court had protected federal agents from state harassment, saying the decision preserves the safety and legal status of federal officers and protects the rule of law.

What This Means for the Future

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling reinforces a long-standing line of authority that federal law overrides conflicting state law. It also underscores the principle that states cannot criminally prosecute federal officials for carrying out federal duties. The decision may serve as a precedent for other states attempting to enact similar restrictions on federal law enforcement agencies.

For now, the NVA remains unenforced, and federal immigration agents continue to operate in California without the fear of state criminal prosecution for their identification practices. The case reminds all parties that the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause remains a powerful check on state power.