Sacramento Flunks Civics Again

On Oct. 14, the Ninth Circuit reminded Sacramento of a lesson most of us got in eighth-grade civics: a state doesn’t write the dress code for the federal government. A unanimous panel ruled that Section 10 of California’s No Vigilantes Act violates the Supremacy Clause and sent the case back with instructions to enter an injunction. Judge Mark Bennett, a Trump appointee, wrote that “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, an Obama appointee, signed on.

Sacramento had a sincere worry and a losing legal theory, and the fix lives in Washington. Lawmakers said they feared impostors and wanted transparency. Fair enough. The Constitution offers a road to that goal, and Sacramento skipped it for a bill signing. I’ve spent a lot of my life around badges. I worked private security and as a bodyguard for several years while paying my way through college. Today I’m a husband, a father of three sons, a small business owner, and a coach who has logged more than a decade on football fields, rugby pitches and track ovals. I like accountability. I like it better when it’s legal.

Here’s the record. Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez’s SB 805 required law enforcement operating in California to clearly display an agency and a name or badge number, and California meant it to cover federal agents. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it on Sept. 20, 2025, in response to ICE raids in the state that year. The Assembly passed it 60-15 and the Senate concurred 30-10, and all 18 listed sponsors were Democrats. The Justice Department sued on Nov. 17. A district judge declined to block the ID provision in February. The Ninth Circuit blocked it pending appeal in April, and the October ruling sent it back with orders to keep it blocked.

The legal question wasn’t close. Chief Justice John Marshall settled the principle in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819: the states have no power “to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control” federal operations. Jonathan Turley warned in February that a looser, functional test would let states dictate federal uniforms, vehicles and verbal commands. The panel rejected that test, holding that a state law directly regulating federal conduct without congressional authorization is void whether or not the regulated activity is essential. The AP counted bills in more than 30 states on officers’ face coverings, and a federal agent chasing a case from Reno to Redding to Portland shouldn’t change costumes at every border. As a small business owner, I’ve watched what happens when different regulators write different rules for the same job.

California knows this doctrine when it helps. In 2019 the Ninth Circuit upheld the state’s sanctuary law, SB 54, citing California’s Tenth Amendment prerogatives and the anti-commandeering rule. That rule comes from Printz v. United States, a case brought by local law enforcement officers who challenged a federal mandate to run background checks on handgun buyers. Justice Antonin Scalia, reversing the Ninth Circuit, held that Congress cannot circumvent the prohibition “by conscripting the States’ officers directly.” Sacramento wants a wall around the state and a window into Washington. The Constitution recognizes two sovereigns, and each gets to say no to the other’s commands. The rule cuts both ways. A Republican statehouse that tried to dictate how federal agents dress would earn the same ruling.

The companion mask ban, SB 627, was blocked in February on a different ground. Senior U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder found it discriminatory because it exempted some state officers. California’s own officers got a pass, which makes it hard to call the rule a safety measure. Wile E. Coyote got better results from ACME.

Supporters make two arguments that deserve an answer. Impostors exist: Fresno police arrested two men in February 2025 who allegedly dressed as ICE agents and visited 11 businesses posing as officers. And California’s attorney general’s office says, “Transparency and accountability are the foundation of good law enforcement.” I don’t disagree. Opponents have a safety case too. The Justice Department says federal officers have faced harassment, doxxing and violence. Ruling on the mask ban, Judge Snyder wasn’t persuaded, writing that “Security concerns exist for federal law enforcement officers with or without masks.”

Neither point rescues the statute. Fresno police cited that pair for misdemeanor impersonation, and the law already covers it: California Penal Code § 538d for police and 18 U.S.C. § 912 for federal officers. The injunction reaches only Section 10, so California can keep prosecuting impostors. The transparency goal has a constitutional route as well. Congress can regulate federal officers, and states can’t without its blessing. California’s own U.S. senator, Alex Padilla, introduced the VISIBLE Act in July 2025 with Cory Booker and other Democratic senators. It would require ICE and CBP agents to display an agency and a last name or badge number. Axios called it a long shot, which says more about Capitol Hill than the Constitution.

I’d write that bill with a sharper pencil. Require agency and badge number, which lets a citizen, a court or an inspector general trace any agent without handing a home address to a doxxer. Add body cameras. As an expert witness who has been deposed more than once, I can tell you video beats memory. Fund a verification line so a frightened shopkeeper can confirm the person at the counter is real. The VISIBLE Act already requires annual reports to Congress on noncompliance and discipline, which gives voters a scoreboard. Then let California spend its energy prosecuting the fakes.

Sacramento can’t control how Washington dresses its officers. It controls its own statute book, its own prosecutors and its own congressional delegation. Voters who want accountable policing can ask why a legislative session went to a bill the Supremacy Clause had already answered, and ask Washington to pass the version the Constitution allows.

Every coach I know teaches the same first lesson: play your position. Sacramento wandered out of its zone, and the referee noticed.