In a recent ruling, following an appeal by the US Department of Justice, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a California law requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to wear identification.
A federal appeals court has dealt another setback to state efforts to restrict how federal immigration officers conduct enforcement operations, permanently blocking a California law requiring officers, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, to visibly display identification while on duty. The October 14 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit follows an earlier decision by a federal judge blocking California’s ban on law enforcement officers wearing face coverings.
The appeals court concluded that California’s identification requirement improperly regulated the federal government’s operations, violating principles of federal supremacy, and doing so without approval from Congress. The decisions underscore the legal challenges states face when attempting to impose new transparency and accountability requirements on federal immigration officers.
The California decision follows a similar ruling in New York, where U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino issued a preliminary injunction on August 3 blocking enforcement of provisions banning federal immigration officers from wearing masks and requiring them to display identification. As previously reported on Conduit Street, the judge found that the federal government was likely to succeed in arguing that the requirements improperly interfered with federal authority. Together, the California and New York cases provide significant legal precedent for the federal government’s challenges to similar state policies.
In Maryland, the state’s 2026 law, enacted through Senate Bill 1, restricts face coverings for law enforcement officers and establishes identification requirements, including provisions affecting federal immigration officers. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on October 1 challenging Maryland’s law, arguing that state and local governments cannot directly regulate federal officers carrying out their official duties. The California and New York rulings strengthen the federal government’s legal arguments and raise questions about whether Maryland’s requirements for ICE officers would withstand judicial review. However, the precise effect will depend on the Maryland litigation and the scope of any court order. The dispute also highlights an important distinction for county governments that challenges to requirements imposed on federal officers do not invalidate rules governing state, county, and local law enforcement.
