Friday, April 24, 2026

Senator Pérez Reacts to Court Ruling Blocking Enforcement of No Vigilantes Act

Federal appeals panel halts the No Vigilantes Act, ruling California cannot require federal officers to show identification; senator says the fight isn’t over

On Wednesday, April 22, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked enforcement of the identification requirement at the center of that law — SB 805, the No Vigilantes Act — ruling that California cannot require federal law enforcement officers to display visible identification during enforcement operations. The court held that doing so likely violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“Today’s injunction ruling is disappointing, but it is not the final word on SB 805 as the court’s full analysis is still pending,” Senator Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena) said Thursday in a statement issued by her office.

SB 805 requires any non-uniformed law enforcement officer operating in California — including federal agents — to visibly display identification showing their agency and either a name or badge number during arrests, detentions, and crowd control operations. Willful violation of the law is punishable as a misdemeanor under California law. The law also bans bounty hunters from conducting any immigration enforcement.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed the measure on September 20, 2025, as part of a package of California laws responding to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations.

The Ninth Circuit panel — Circuit Judges Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Mark J. Bennett, and Daniel P. Collins — found that Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions.” The Supremacy Clause, the panel wrote in its opinion authored by Judge Bennett, “forbids the State from enforcing such legislation.” The panel found that all preliminary injunction factors favored the federal government.

The ruling is a formal injunction pending appeal — not a final determination on whether the law is constitutional. Senator Pérez noted that the court’s “full analysis is still pending.”

Pérez said the law was crafted specifically to address a documented public safety problem. “Since the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown began, there has been an increase in individuals impersonating law enforcement to target and exploit vulnerable community members,” she said in the statement issued by her Senate office. In October 2025, the FBI warned that increased Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity had spurred “criminal actors impersonating ICE agents to commit violent crime,” according to the Associated Press. A CNN analysis found at least 24 incidents of ICE impersonation documented in 2025 — more than during the previous four presidential administrations combined.

“People have a right to know whether someone claiming to be law enforcement is, in fact, a legitimate officer or a criminal,” Pérez said. “Protecting Californians from that uncertainty and harm is the core purpose of SB 805.”

The Trump administration filed suit against California, Governor Newsom, and Attorney General Rob Bonta on November 17, 2025, arguing the law threatened officer safety by exposing agents to harassment, doxing, and violence, and that it violated the Constitution by seeking to directly regulate the federal government. U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder initially declined to block the law in February 2026, finding it applied equally to all law enforcement. The Ninth Circuit issued a temporary administrative injunction the same day — February 19 — and heard oral argument on March 3 at the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals courthouse in Pasadena before issuing Wednesday’s formal ruling.

Senator Pérez’s 25th Senate District includes Pasadena, Altadena, Glendale, and communities across the San Gabriel Valley and into San Bernardino County. She assumed office in December 2024.

The No Vigilantes Act contains several exceptions to its identification requirement, including for officers engaged in active undercover operations, SWAT and tactical team members, and those in dignitary protection details where displaying identification would compromise safety.

Pérez said she remains undeterred. “The No Vigilantes Act was carefully crafted to ensure that all law enforcement operating in California, whether local, state, or federal, display clear identification,” she said. “Requiring officers to show identification has been a longstanding and widely accepted practice in law enforcement. California has both the authority and the responsibility, under its police powers, to maintain order and protect the safety and wellbeing of everyone within its jurisdiction.”

The appeal in United States v. State of California is ongoing before the Ninth Circuit. Until it is resolved, the identification requirement Pérez wrote to protect Pasadena, Altadena, and the rest of her district from an uncertainty no one should have to live with — not knowing if the person at the door is a federal officer or a criminal — remains on hold.

Senator Pérez’s statement was issued by her Senate office on April 23, 2026. The Ninth Circuit opinion in United States v. State of California (Case No. 26-926) was filed April 22, 2026