United States v. State of California

── United States v. State of California ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 26-926 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:25-cv-10999- CAS-AJR v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; GAVIN OPINION NEWSOM, Governor of California, in his Official Capacity; ROB BONTA, Attorney General of California, in his Official Capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 3, 2026 Pasadena, California Filed April 22, 2026 Before: Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Mark J. Bennett, and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Bennett 2 USA V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY* Injunction Pending Appeal The panel granted the United States’s motion for an injunction pending appeal enjoining the State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom, and Attorney General Rob Bonta from applying or enforcing § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act, codified at California Penal Code § 13654, against federal agencies and officers. Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act requires 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 violate the law face criminal prosecution by the State. The panel held that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act violates the Supremacy Clause because § 10 attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions. The panel held that the other preliminary injunction factors also weigh in the United States’s favor. Accordingly, the State of California, the Governor, and the Attorney General remain enjoined, pending further order of the court, from applying or enforcing § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act against federal agencies and officers. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  USA V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 COUNSEL Brett A. Shumate (argued), Assistant Attorney General; Daniel Tenny, Andrew M. Bernie, and Mark R. Freeman, Attorneys; Eric D. McArthur, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Mica L. Moore (argued), Deputy Solicitor General; Zachary W. Sorenson, Associate Deputy Solicitor General; Kristi A. Hughes, Zelda R. Vassar, Asha Albuquerque, Alyssa Zhang, and Cameron A. Bell, Deputy Attorneys General; Lee I. Sherman and Anna Ferrari, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General; Joshua A. Klein, Supervising Deputy Solicitor General; Michael L. Newman and Thomas S. Patterson, Senior Assistant Attorneys General; Samuel T. Harbourt, Solicitor General; Rob Bonta, California Attorney General; Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, California; for Defendants-Appellees. OPINION BENNETT, Circuit Judge: The United States brings a facial challenge to provisions of two laws recently enacted by California: S.B. 805 (also known as the “No Vigilantes Act”) and S.B. 627 (also known as the “No Secret Police Act”). At this preliminary stage, the United States seeks an injunction pending appeal that enjoins Defendants the State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom, and Attorney General Rob Bonta from applying or enforcing § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act, codified at California Penal Code § 13654, against fede