(filed November 17, 2025)
U.S. v. State of California - The Trump Administration sued the state of California over two state laws passed in 2025, the No Secret Police Act (SB627) prohibiting law enforcement from wearing a mask, and the No Vigilantes Act (SB805) requiring law enforcement not uniformed to visibly display identification that includes the agency name and either a badge number or name of the officer. On February 9, 2025, the federal court held the No Secret Police Act (SB627) violated the Supremacy Clause because it does not apply equally to all law enforcement officers in the state and therefore unlawfully discriminates against federal officers. However, the federal court did hold that federal officers can perform their duties without a mask. Additionally, the federal court upheld the No Vigilantes Act (SB805), finding the Act does not discriminate against the federal government and does not regulate the federal government. The government requested a stay of the order, and the court stayed the order until February 19, 2026. The government filed an emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal and a request for temporary administrative injunction while they deliberate on the emergency motion for an injunction of the No Vigilantes Act (SB805) with the Ninth Circuit (No. 26-926). On February 19, 2026, the Ninth Circuit granted a temporary administrative injunction meaning that California could not apply or enforce the No Vigilantes Act (SB805) against federal officers until the Ninth Circuit ruled on the emergency motion for an injunction. On April 22, 2026, the Ninth Circuit granted a preliminary injunction pending appeal in favor of the government because section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act (SB805) “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions. The Supremacy Clause forbids the State from enforcing such legislation.” Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act (SB805) required any non-uniformed federal law enforcement officer operating in California, with narrow exceptions, to visibly display identification while performing federal law enforcement duties, and officers who violated the law would have faced criminal prosecution by California (misdemeanor offense). Note that section 2, which requires law enforcement agencies to adopt and post a policy on the visible identification of officers is not enjoined because the lower federal court held the government lacked standing on this particular issue and the government did not contest that ruling in its motion for a preliminary injunction. The federal case is ongoing.