Ninth Circuit Rebuke: Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down California ‘No Vigilantes Act’ as Unconstitutional

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a package of 21 bills in September claiming they will increase state oversight of federal immigration enforcement, illegal immigrant detention facilities, and related law-enforcement practices inside California. You can almost hear Governor Newsom saying, “but California is the 4th largest economy in the world…”

Sacramento Democrats cannot regulate, harass, or endanger federal officers carrying out lawful duties. Illegal immigrants are subject to deportation, and it is the federal government’s legal responsibility.

Ostensibly, the new legislation was written to address the February 2026 Ninth Circuit ruling. The DOJ has said that California’s illicit laws discriminate against U.S. citizens and undermine federal law. They are correct.

In February of this year, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder, a Bill Clinton appointee, issued a preliminary injunction against the discriminatory mask ban, but split the difference allowing the name and badge number requirement to take effect. Wednesday’s ruling overruled her.

Gov. Newsom and the state’s Democrats have been trying to impose state oversight and regulations over federal immigration enforcement. They passed a similar law in 2025, but federal judge in February 2026 struck down California’s 2025 “No Secret Police Act” mask ban because it targeted federal agents while exempting state and local officers, finding it unlawfully discriminated against federal officers.

It would be laughable except Newsom and Democrats know what they are doing is unlawful.

Newsom called Trump administration immigration policies “Orwellian” and “totalitarian,” for focusing on strict enforcement and removal of illegal immigrants, resulting in historically low border crossings and a significant increase in deportations. (Pot, meet kettle). The Department of Homeland Security has emphasized the importance of border security and has implemented measures to prevent illegal immigration effectively, and for that, everyone in America is safer. 

U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli warned Gov. Newsom in September that he was over his skis, after the governor signed the unconstitutional bills:

Governor, we’ve been through this already. If you want to regulate federal agents, you have to win a federal election. Until then, you have no jurisdiction. Accordingly, I have advised DHS to disregard your bill attempting to ban safe and effective less-lethal tools that agents need to escalate dangerous situations.

Governor, we’ve been through this already. If you want to regulate federal agents, you have to win a federal election. Until then, you have no jurisdiction.

Accordingly, I have advised DHS to disregard your bill attempting to ban safe and effective less-lethal tools that agents need to escalate dangerous situations.

— F.A. United States Attorney Bill Essayli (@USAttyEssayli) September 29, 2026

In an unmistakable reprimand, Ninth Circuit Judges Mark J. Bennett, Judges Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Daniel P. Collins said, “As before, we conclude that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits of its Supremacy Clause claim because §10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions, and Congress has not authorized such regulation,” the unanimous 21-page opinion reads. “Indeed, we conclude that the United States is certain to succeed.”

Law&Crime explains:

The 9th Circuit ultimately found the law runs afoul of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, which bars state or local rules that regulate the federal government or discriminate against it.

“In sum, if a state law directly regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional authorization, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations,” the opinion goes on. “[The No Vigilantes Act] thus directly regulates inherently sovereign functions. Because Congress has not authorized such legislation, it is barred by intergovernmental immunity.”