DOJ sued California to block state laws requiring federal agents to visibly identify themselves and barring masks

On November 17, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit in the Central District of California against the State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom, and Attorney General Rob Bonta, challenging two state laws enacted that September. The No Vigilantes Act (S.B. 805) requires non-uniformed federal law enforcement officers operating in California to visibly display identification -- a name or badge number -- while performing enforcement duties, with violations punishable as a state misdemeanor. The companion No Secret Police Act (S.B. 627) separately bars law enforcement officers, including federal agents, from wearing facial coverings that conceal their identity while on duty. DOJ's complaint argued both laws unconstitutionally regulate federal officers under the Supremacy Clause and endanger agents by exposing them to doxxing, harassment, and violence amid the administration's Southern California immigration enforcement campaign.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said the California laws "discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents." The suit was the latest in a Civil Division campaign, led by Bondi since her first day in office, against state and local laws found to impede federal law enforcement -- including earlier DOJ suits over similar identification requirements in New York and Philadelphia.

Updates

2026-02-19 — Ninth Circuit panel granted temporary administrative injunction pending review [4, 5]

A Ninth Circuit panel granted DOJ's request for a temporary administrative injunction, enjoining California, Gov. Newsom, and AG Bonta from applying the No Vigilantes Act's identification-display requirement while the court reviewed DOJ's separate emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal. The order followed U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder's February 9, 2026 refusal to enjoin the identification requirement during litigation; that same day, Snyder had separately blocked the companion No Secret Police Act's mask-ban provision on different grounds. The panel set oral argument on DOJ's injunction-pending-appeal motion for March 3, 2026.

2026-04-22 — Ninth Circuit enjoined California's identification-display law pending DOJ's appeal [2, 3]

A unanimous three-judge Ninth Circuit panel -- Judges Mark Bennett, Daniel Collins, and Jacqueline Nguyen -- granted the government's motion for an injunction pending appeal, blocking enforcement of the No Vigilantes Act's identification-display requirement. The panel found DOJ likely to succeed on its Supremacy Clause claim, writing that a state law directly regulating federal operations "is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions." The ruling followed a district judge's earlier refusal, in February 2026, to enjoin the identification requirement during litigation; that same district judge separately had blocked enforcement of the No Secret Police Act's mask-ban provision after finding it discriminatory because its exemptions did not apply uniformly to all law enforcement agencies.