The Trump administration recently achieved a legal victory in a liberal-leaning appeals court. A section of a California law requiring plainclothes federal law enforcement officers to display their identification was temporarily blocked. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Trump administration would likely succeed in its lawsuit against California. The court found that the law’s identification requirement violated the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which prioritizes federal law over conflicting state law.
A panel from the court stated that the regulation directly interfered with the federal government’s authority. The preliminary injunction was notable given the court’s history of challenging some of the Trump administration’s key immigration policies. These included blocking federal funding for sanctuary cities in 2018, restricting asylum eligibility the same year, and refusing to reinstate a travel ban targeting several predominantly Muslim countries in 2017.
The ruling was a significant setback for California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom. Newsom is seen as a potential 2028 presidential candidate and has positioned himself against Trump’s immigration policies, enacting laws to protect immigrant communities and limit federal immigration enforcement in the state.
In November 2025, the Trump administration filed a lawsuit against California concerning the No Vigilantes Act and No Secret Police Act. These laws restricted law enforcement officers from obscuring their identities. Judge Christina Snyder, appointed by President Clinton, blocked the mask restriction for federal officers but did not block the identification requirement.
The Trump administration appealed Snyder’s decision, leading to the 9th Circuit temporarily blocking its enforcement in February. The court then granted an injunction pending appeal in April. California defended its law, arguing that the requirement did not unconstitutionally regulate the federal government. The state asserted that a law crosses constitutional boundaries only when it imposes substantial burdens on federal operations.
However, the appeals court disagreed, ruling that the state had no authority to regulate federal officials directly, irrespective of the regulation’s burden. The decision received praise from Trump administration officials. Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Division, noted that the Ninth Circuit affirmed that California could not regulate federal law enforcement.
Stanley Woodward Jr., Associate Attorney General, echoed similar sentiments, emphasizing the importance of the ruling in protecting law enforcement officers and ensuring federal immigration laws are enforced. The court’s decision was seen as a significant win for the administration.
Fox News Digital reached out to Governor Newsom’s office for comments but received no response.