A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked California from enforcing a law that requires federal immigration agents to display identification while on duty, the Los Angeles Times and Fox News reported.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the identification requirement in California's No Vigilantes Act likely violates the Constitution's supremacy clause, which gives federal law priority over conflicting state law. The panel reversed a trial judge's refusal to block the rule and told the lower court to enter a preliminary injunction against it, according to the court's opinion. A preliminary injunction blocks a law while a case goes on, and it is not a final ruling.

"As before, we conclude ... the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions," Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote for the panel, the Times reported. Fox News quoted the panel saying the section "explicitly overrides the federal government's power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers."

The Justice Department sued California in November 2025 over the ID law and a related law banning masks for law enforcement, Fox News reported. U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder blocked the mask ban for federal officers but let the ID requirement go forward, the outlets said. The 9th Circuit temporarily blocked the ID rule in February and granted an injunction pending appeal in April, Fox News reported.

"California is proud to fight for the safety of our communities against the federal government's campaign of terror and weaponized incompetence," a spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom said, according to Fox News.

The Times said more than a dozen other states had pursued similar laws. A Reuters/Ipsos poll in September found more than 40% of Americans strongly disapprove of President Donald Trump's handling of immigration, the Times reported.

What we know: The 9th Circuit told a lower court to enter a preliminary injunction blocking the ID requirement.
What we don't: Whether California will seek further review of the ruling.