· 140 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Apr 22, 2026 at 9:37 PM

Federal appeals court blocks California law requiring federal agents to wear identification

Posted by blankvoidoid

Federal appeals court blocks California law requiring federal agents to wear identification
AP News
Federal appeals court blocks California law requiring federal agents to wear identification
An appeals court has blocked a California law passed in 2025 requiring federal immigration agents to wear a badge or some form of identification.
🚩 Report this post

140 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
XIII_THIRTEEN Apr 22, 2026 +2866
The courts had already stopped this law from taking effect back when it was passed. Meanwhile, we all paid the obviously illegal tariffs for like a year before the courts ever intervened, and of course we'll never get that money back.
2866
PerfectZeong Apr 22, 2026 +1019
The best part was the government's argument was "No harm is being done we can easily undo it." And then when the court found against them "we can't undo it, too hard."
1019
Current-Bag-786 Apr 23, 2026 +106
Clearly what they meant was “no harm is being done (to us), but if we have to give the money back then that is too hard (for us)”
106
Antique_Limit_5083 Apr 23, 2026 +195
Just like they stopped bidens student loan plans immediately meanwhile trumo just goes ahead with everything no matter what the courts say. Just like the DOD shutting down the union despite it still being challenged and litigated. Democrats better just ignore court rullings going forward. They've shown their selective weakness.
195
shagieIsMe Apr 23, 2026 +138
From the NYT last week : [The Inside Story of Five Days That Remade the Supreme Court](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/18/us/politics/supreme-court-shadow-docket.html?unlocked_article_code=1.cFA.Z-s1.Zei_Zphdv8Oo&smid=url-share) > Just after 6 p.m. on a February evening in 2016, the Supreme Court issued a cryptic, one paragraph ruling that sent both climate policy and the court itself spinning in new directions. > For two centuries, the court had generally handled major cases at a stately pace that encouraged care and deliberation, relying on written briefs, oral arguments and in-person discussions. The justices composed detailed opinions that explained their thinking to the public and rendered judgment only after other courts had weighed in. > But this time, the justices were sprinting to block a major presidential initiative. By a 5-to-4 vote along partisan lines, the order halted President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, his signature environmental policy. They acted before any other court had addressed the plan’s lawfulness. The decision consisted of only legal boilerplate, without a word of reasoning. It gets into the origins of the Shadow Docket and how its been used in the past decade.
138
Professional-Rub152 Apr 23, 2026 +23
Judges are the bad guys in this country. They have been since the beginning of time.
23
starmartyr Apr 24, 2026 +7
The problem is that Democrats hold other Democrats accountable. Republicans protect the party at all costs. A Democrat doing what Trump has done would be impeached with Democratic support.
7
GetsBetterAfterAFew Apr 22, 2026 +256
Youre right, corporations and Lutnicks sons will get that money, as it turns out tariffs were only a fancy wealth transfer scam. Yet here we sit letting them steal from us.
256
forceblast Apr 22, 2026 +80
Hell! Some of us are even cheering them on! (Well, not *US*, but you know who I mean.)
80
Dicky_Penisburg Apr 22, 2026 +71
The common clay of the new west.
71
Clarissa_poncissa Apr 22, 2026 +72
You know…. Morons.
72
Tarantio Apr 23, 2026 +11
>Meanwhile, we all paid the obviously illegal tariffs for like a year before the courts ever intervened Oh no, it's worse than that. The courts intervened, then the Supreme Court stepped in and used the shadow docket to stop the lower courts without justifying the ruling, and then the same Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional when actually forced to weigh the arguments.
11
Echelion77 Apr 23, 2026 +35
F*** em, lets all sue the government. The united states people vs the united states federal government. Ill be the first plaintiff, who's with me.
35
Dull_Bird3340 Apr 23, 2026 +17
Who do you think will decide the suit? SCOTUS decides everything in the end. Better to work to elect as many democratic Senators as possible so we can impeach them. It takes over 60 to have the power w out concern
17
Echelion77 Apr 23, 2026
Italian scrotus?
0
SqueezyCheez85 Apr 23, 2026 +5
The government decides who gets to sue them.
5
Echelion77 Apr 23, 2026 +5
Not if we start showing them the benefits of Italian plumbing.
5
Salamok Apr 23, 2026 +4
I have a family member who's entire manufacturing supply chain was eliminated by the tariffs. They did not pay the tariffs they instead suspended operations of their business for 6 months while sourcing new manufacturers. This cost them millions.
4
kinglouie493 Apr 22, 2026 +8
That money went to those in on the grift, nothing more, nothing less.
8
lostroadrunner22 Apr 23, 2026 +1
If you want better proof we exist only for the profit of others. It’s hard to argue
1
Wayward_Whines Apr 22, 2026 +1134
Without id and a badge all visible Youre just a dude in an Amazon tactical vest and a mask. If I’m a federal agent id want all the shit that makes me legit out front and visible.
1134
ActualSpiders Apr 22, 2026 +582
Yeah, but you're thinking like a decent human being, doing legal things within your legitimate authority. That's not the kind of cop that made this law necessary.
582
zidave0 Apr 22, 2026 +119
I hate how f****** true that statement is
119
ActualSpiders Apr 22, 2026 +26
Me too, pal. Me too.
26
Empty_Occasion_963 Apr 22, 2026 +15
Cops nowadays only care about the paycheck
15
siggydude Apr 22, 2026 +44
Hey be fair, they care about other things. Like having power over people
44
woolfonmynoggin Apr 23, 2026 +2
They really care about there not being a law to prevent them from “having sex” with people under arrest. Which the person under arrest can’t consent to because they’re UNDER ARREST
2
xxx_poonslayer69 Apr 22, 2026 +95
If you're a federal agent that is abducting people and sending them to concentration camps, then you'd probably not want to be identifiable.
95
st-shenanigans Apr 22, 2026 +69
Except that means there is absolutely no distinction between you and any other trafficker, so anyone in their right mind, along with everyone nearby, would resist with the most force possible.
69
wolfgang784 Apr 23, 2026 +13
Unfortunately, defending yourself against an unmarked, unidentified, masked assailant who could be a trafficker and in the end turns out to be a cop or federal agent means you get to enjoy **exactly** the same charges as if you had attacked an unmasked, marked, name-badge wearing cop or federal agent unprovoked. Its happened.
13
TheIrishJackel Apr 23, 2026 +28
Yes, but "the most force possible" has not yet harmed any of them, so they are justifiably more concerned with facing consequences *after* the fact than *during*.
28
Zardif Apr 23, 2026 +12
yeah but they love the idea of killing people
12
ComradeJohnS Apr 23, 2026 +11
that’s what this Admin wants, justification to declare martial law and cancel elections. if masked strangers keep breaking into homes kidnapping people, someone’s gonna shoot back eventually, and then bam, manufactured issue to further their plans. it’s sick watching and being unable to do anything while people carry around like this admin is like every other admin.
11
Wayward_Whines Apr 23, 2026 +10
Huh. It’s odd living in the one and only country sliding towards dictatorship where they are looking for an excuse to clamp down. Odd that’s never happened before. Ever.
10
[deleted] Apr 23, 2026
[removed]
0
nooneyouknow13 Apr 23, 2026 +2
This admin doesn't need justification to do anything they want to, they will just make something up after the fact. They've done it several times already. They aren't waiting for a "gotcha moment" at all.
2
NeonArlecchino Apr 22, 2026 +4
They're so stupid that they think their paychecks, phone records, and other passive tracking won't expose their identities.
4
towishimp Apr 23, 2026 +19
I'm a social worker and I have to wear ID when I'm doing my job. It's the most basic level of government accountability; if I'm going to get involved in people's lives, the least I can do is tell them my name. They deserve to know who I am. It's ridiculous that ICE doesn't have to do the same.
19
Osiris32 Apr 22, 2026 +10
And this is something that needs to be seriously worried about. It's not just shitty airsoft gear. You can go to various places like Blumenthals or Galls or 5.11 and purchase actual tactical gear, the stuff that cops and military personnel wear. And I know this because I personally have some. From back when I fought wildfires for the feds, I bought an equipment vest covered in MOLLE so that I could have something that would carry water/first aid/radio gear when I was not actually fighting fires and was just out doing fire patrols or fuels mitigation. Cost me all of about $150 for the vest and another $100 or so in the various MOLLE pouches that I got to hold things. I could go out and get an ICE patch or even just a generic POLICE patch and some black clothing and damn if I don't look really, really close to being an actual cop. And there are some people who would absolutely do this for nefarious reasons. And we know from more than a few criminal cases that they have done so. Without proper ID, and not just a badge but actual issued licensure ID from a state agency, it's just way too easy for someone to fake it.
10
turikk Apr 23, 2026 +2
You can do the same with a badge, though...
2
Bagellord Apr 23, 2026 +1
The badge usually isn't the ID part of it, they should have something akin to a driver's license that has their name, an ID number, and some security features to make it harder to fake.
1
My_alias_is_too_lon Apr 23, 2026 +3
Which is why I say that if someone in a mask and tactical gear tries to "arrest" you, you should fight like hell, because your life may depend on it.
3
Lonely_Noyaaa Apr 22, 2026 +461
The same court also blocked California's mask ban for federal agents last year. So ICE can show up in your neighborhood with their faces covered and no badges.
461
Designer-CBRN Apr 22, 2026 +161
Funny how they do this in predominately gun free areas.
161
Wide_Replacement2345 Apr 22, 2026 +71
That’s bullshit. All those folks in “gun country” don’t do shit when it happens there.
71
NorthernerWuwu Apr 23, 2026 +22
Yes, but the folks in "gun urban" might well and they sure stay the f*** out of there.
22
clintontg Apr 22, 2026 +19
I would honestly be surprised if the folks who insist on carrying everywhere aren't already vehemently in support of mass deportations and concentration camps so I don't think anything would happen in places with ten times as many guns 
19
bufordt Apr 23, 2026 +8
As someone with multiple guns in the house, let me tell you that you're only 70% correct.
8
Betterthanbeer Apr 22, 2026 +9
So can any other bunch of armed thugs
9
1850ChoochGator Apr 23, 2026 +4
It is 100% legal to call 911 to verify if someone you’re dealing with is a legitimate law officer. The officers don’t have to identify themselves to you but they will have to for other agencies, especially if you believe they are impersonating an officer.
4
BurnerAccount-LOL Apr 23, 2026 +30
Ice won’t wait patiently for us to phone another agency. They’ll claim our phone is a weapon and shoot us or assault us
30
sebastianqu Apr 23, 2026 -18
I mean, the courts are correct. The Supremacy Clause is clear in these cases. Every court in the country would come to the same conclusion
-18
DisappointedSpectre Apr 23, 2026 +29
The Supremacy Clause would require a law passed at the federal level that is at odds with this law, meaning one that explicitly allows federal agents to be anonymous while performing their assigned duties. No such law exists, so there's no supremacy to override state law on these requirements. Also remember that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government (in the form of constitutional amendments or laws passed by congress) is automatically ceded to the states. This is part of the reason the Interstate Commerce clause has been abused so heavily to justify federal action on a number of different subjects that are... questionably relevant to that clause.
29
Possible_Top4855 Apr 23, 2026 +19
The supremacy clause doesn’t mean the Feds can violate any state laws they wish.
19
Dancing_Decker Apr 22, 2026 +111
I trust the food court more than the federal court at the moment
111
blankvoidoid Apr 23, 2026 +8
Do food courts still have "Hot Dog on a Sticks"? I always took a pause there to watch them make lemonade 🥴
8
willstr1 Apr 22, 2026 +78
So if armed gunmen claiming to be federal ~~terrorists~~ agents walked up to the judge's house, the judge would just get into the unmarked van without asking for identification? Because that is what they are telling everyone else to do
78
JustHereForCookies17 Apr 23, 2026 +12
Of course.  Because if you haven't done anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about! /s
12
lurpeli Apr 22, 2026 +213
To the shock of no one. Not like out courts aren't just as culpable in this mess
213
MoltenMate07 Apr 22, 2026 +40
Doing this while they ruled in favour of the Texas Ten Commandments in public school. We are cooked.
40
Only--East Apr 23, 2026 +5
Same court?
5
MoltenMate07 Apr 23, 2026 +7
No. I think that actually makes it worse though.
7
TheReddestOrange Apr 22, 2026 +41
Some courts more than others
41
mythandros0 Apr 23, 2026 +17
I guess that if federal agents can’t be identified on sight, they’ll have to be detained until they can be positively identified. Until such time, they’ll be considered “impersonating law enforcement” and held with the other arrestees.
17
Cheese0089 Apr 22, 2026 +135
What prevents any crazed maga dude from gearing up, putting a mask on, and going out kidnapping anyone who looks hispanic?
135
FifteenthPen Apr 22, 2026 +193
Nothing. It's already been happening: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/04/us/ice-impersonators-on-the-rise-arrests-made-as-authorities-issue-national-warning
193
dcoats69 Apr 22, 2026 +34
And this is just the ones that got caught
34
Consistent-Throat130 Apr 22, 2026 +40
Nothing, that's the point.
40
skarekroh Apr 22, 2026 +23
What prevents the rest of us from getting geared up, putting on masks, and kidnapping supposed ICE agents?
23
Slypenslyde Apr 22, 2026 +5
Not Americans, that's for sure. We ran out of those a few decades ago.
5
chubby_pink_donut Apr 22, 2026 +138
Registered cops and guns? No. Registered trans or pregnant women? Yes
138
PerfectZeong Apr 22, 2026 +28
Only one of those is a threat to my ego.
28
zidave0 Apr 22, 2026 +10
You mean the trans person, right? HEAVY /s
10
HLOFRND Apr 22, 2026 +31
So we have to ban trans people bc of this make believe nonsense about predators dressing up like women to sneak into bathrooms…. But anyone can throw on whatever GI Joe cosplay bullshit they have lying around and say they are ICE. Please make it make sense.
31
DangerousBill Apr 23, 2026 +9
So now a white van can pull up to a schoolyard, the guy inside shouts "Federal agents", tosses a few kids in the van, and drives off, and its all legal?
9
phaedronn Apr 22, 2026 +19
Guess judge shopping pays off?
19
ShotnTheDark_TN Apr 22, 2026 +31
Trump administration says the USA needs a secret police force. All of the great countries have them. /s
31
saturnleaf69 Apr 23, 2026 +7
Then I shouldn’t be at fault for ignoring someone that claims they are a cop without actually showing proof
7
Aggressive-Will-4500 Apr 23, 2026 +20
>The appeals court agreed unanimously, saying the law “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” in an opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett. The panel was composed of two Trump appointees, Bennett and Daniel P. Collins, and Obama appointee Jacqueline H. Nguyen. The USA is going to be cleaning up the Trump mess for the next few decades. It's deep and wide.
20
TheCoelacanth Apr 23, 2026 +3
That bullshit, though, because how do state law enforcement know that people claiming to be federal law enforcement genuinely are if they aren't wearing identification.
3
washag Apr 23, 2026 +5
While what you're saying is true, State governments obviously don't have the power to issue binding directives to federal agents. This is clearly a correct interpretation of the law. The really interesting thing would be if Californian police actually arrested ICE agents for a crime along the lines of menacing (not sure what that would be in American law, but here it's basically brandishing a weapon in a way likely to cause fear in a reasonable person), and put them on trial. Compel a defence, rather than writing laws that you can't enforce. 
5
ThisIsWorthles Apr 22, 2026 +22
This is wild, half of the ICE guys I see just look like a LARPer. I would not assume any of them at a glance are actual federal authorities. They have no standard uniforms, colors or gear. For all I know they look like some rando with too much money and time spent on Ferro Concepts or Spiritus's website.
22
Harley2280 Apr 22, 2026 +1
They're getting ready to help Caesars Legion fight the NCR.
1
ThisIsWorthles Apr 22, 2026 +2
Yea they kinda look like Caesars legion with access to crye precision and the like instead of football pads.
2
contude327 Apr 22, 2026 +22
In case anyone is paying attention, our courts are f****** useless.
22
Chit569 Apr 23, 2026 +6
Worse than useless. They are compromised and are being weaponized via the appeal process. It's all been a part of the GOPs plan since the 80s, stack all the courts to kill any liberal laws or policies. This isn't a new concept, it's been the back bone of their plan since Regan. 
6
napleonblwnaprt Apr 22, 2026 +41
But what about states' rights?
41
WallyMcBeetus Apr 22, 2026 +23
"Family Values" "Fiscal Conservatism" "Jesus" "Small Government" etc.
23
Harley2280 Apr 22, 2026 +12
"Jesus" ain't here. We tossed him in the van.
12
winpickles4life Apr 22, 2026 +6
Let he who is without sin lock the kids in a cage?
6
BlitzNeko Apr 22, 2026 +1
Pretty sure not locking kids in cages is a commandment
1
Consistent-Throat130 Apr 22, 2026 +10
Oh the government is small, alright.  Oh, you thought they meant the government's power? No no, they mean the number of people wielding it.
10
6point3cylinder Apr 22, 2026 +12
To regulate federal officers?
12
willstr1 Apr 22, 2026 +5
To regulate people who are claiming to be federal officers. If they can't prove they are federal officers, they should be treated as impersonators
5
TimothyMimeslayer Apr 22, 2026 +38
Next step, california passes a law saying they will 100% cover legal fees of anyone who shoots a federal officer trying to arrest them without identifying themselves.
38
Dauvis Apr 23, 2026 +6
Or base something off of what Texas did... a person can sue a person who works for ICE and conceals their identity. IIRC it's no longer the state enforcing it.
6
willstr1 Apr 22, 2026 +32
Protecting yourself against being kidnapped by an unidentified gang member isn't a crime
32
howardbrandon11 Apr 22, 2026 +10
While true, that want stop the current admin from treating it like one.
10
dcoats69 Apr 22, 2026 +11
No, just say that it's legal to shoot someone kidnapping you that hasn't identified themselves. When they try to say its unconstitutional, blast that ruling far and wide that the supreme court thinks self defense from kidnappers is illegal
11
ObeseObedience Apr 23, 2026 +2
Would be great, but legal fees don't help you when you're dead.  So don't do it alone DA needs to encourage the public and (especially) members of gun clubs to defend neighborhoods en masse from roving masked assailants. Or, just have the state police arrest groups of assailants attempting to kidnap anyone.
2
BlitzNeko Apr 22, 2026 +14
ICE looks and acts like the Cartels, so who know where the masked armed gunman disappearing people into death camps are really from!?
14
Admirable_Nothing Apr 22, 2026 +10
The Secret Police don't need identification. /S
10
wowlock_taylan Apr 23, 2026 +8
Without identification, you can literally be anyone. And people have the right to defend themselves from strangers in tactical gear coming to take them away.
8
Highman_89_ Apr 23, 2026 +4
What if ice trying to arrest/kidnap you and you tell them that you are a federal agent as well? You dont have to identify yourself as one.
4
robexib Apr 23, 2026 +12
Then every single federal agent not wearing identification should be treated no differently from some random psychopath when they invade your home or ambush you in the streets.
12
thelordxl Apr 23, 2026 +6
So the public must have any and all papers asked of them, but public servants can by anonymous?
6
Indigoh Apr 22, 2026 +7
In other words, all anyone needs to demand obedience from anyone else is an ICE outfit. You have no means of confirming whether or not the ICE agent shoving your children into the back of that unmarked van are actually federal agents. If they are, and you don't comply, they'll shoot you dead. We have no choice but to call 9/11 and have the police identify them.
7
MoeSzyslakMonobrow Apr 22, 2026 +17
California should go ahead and arrest any federal agents not wearing identification.
17
TheCoelacanth Apr 23, 2026 +3
Absolutely. Cops have a saying "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride". It's about time that applied to law enforcement instead of just us suckers who pay their salaries.
3
WittyUsername816 Apr 22, 2026 +15
Oh no. Anyway, be sure to defend anyone you see being abducted by random thugs.
15
CrimsonHeretic Apr 22, 2026 +6
This is why when I see people say "the courts are holding" I think they're full of shit.
6
SgtKeeneye Apr 23, 2026 +6
I think its time california takes a stand. Enforce it anyway the federal courts no longer represent us.
6
hotlavatube Apr 23, 2026 +5
I wonder if they could pass a law requiring police to ID purported federal agents. It'd also be nice if there were a law requiring the police to "e*****" them to ensure they follow the state law and, for example, prevent them ramming other vehicles.
5
blueshirtsteve Apr 23, 2026 +1
Not to mention, stop said ‘feds’ from just shooting individuals.
1
Thu66 Apr 23, 2026 +8
Yeah because of federal supremacy this is a very long established thing
8
WobblyFrisbee Apr 23, 2026 +7
Stand your ground. If unidentified thugs try to abduct you, you should be within your rights to defend yourself. 2nd Amendment style, like they say.
7
USDXBS Apr 23, 2026 +9
Cops refusing to identify should be an automatic year in prison for every refusal. So you can just stand behind a cop and say "Name and badge number" 20 times in a row, and if they refuse 20 times that is 20 years in prison.
9
whydontyousuckmyball Apr 22, 2026 +7
How about no more federal protection and no more federal taxes??
7
flint_tower Apr 23, 2026 +5
So now random armed guys can say “trust me, I’m federal” and that’s supposed to be enough. At minimum, cities should push for clear, public protocols on how these raids are conducted.
5
Wimpy14 Apr 23, 2026 +3
Everyone in a mask is a federal agent.
3
Remarkable_Spite_209 Apr 22, 2026 +7
Sorry, laws only apply to Democrats.
7
hackingdreams Apr 23, 2026 +5
Yeah, I hope California tells the Feds to go straight to hell, collecting zero dollars. It's a state law, f***'em. The Supremacy clause doesn't work like this.
5
ARazorbacks Apr 23, 2026 +3
Shit’s gonna get real scary when CA finally says “No.”  I think that day is coming. 
3
Independent-Reader Apr 23, 2026 +6
If I can't identify, why should I comply?
6
Independent-Pin-6614 Apr 23, 2026 -3
Brother because they will kill you. Please be safe
-3
willstr1 Apr 23, 2026 +1
So just like any other criminal organization
1
Independent-Pin-6614 Apr 23, 2026 +1
Sadly yes.
1
tinkermosista Apr 23, 2026 +2
Oh my…. I am so surprised
2
furrysalesman69 Apr 23, 2026 +2
They do realize that that law was for the protection of federal agents, right? Have they seen California during Fourth of July and New Years?! There’s no way to identify whether the person pulling up to you is kidnapping you or arresting you.
2
dingleberrysquid Apr 23, 2026 +2
Kidnappers and r@pists love this one trick…
2
Zolo49 Apr 23, 2026 +1
Seems obvious to me that states shouldn’t have the right to impose policy on federal employees. Seems equally obvious to me that there should absolutely be a federal law requiring agents to wear ID (assuming one doesn’t already exist and Trump is just ignoring it).
1
RKAID-e Apr 22, 2026 +1
Only foreign terrorists operate like this we live in a civilized 1st world country where there is rules.
1
LionIcy2632 Apr 22, 2026 -1
I am not mad about this ruling constitutionally. I am happy that democrats are sending a message that they will at least try stuff like this. This is unlike a lot of centrists who would have never even tried.
-1
dcoats69 Apr 22, 2026 +2
I mean... I still am. Having to just trust that the people kidnapping you are federal officers seems like an unreasonable seizure of my entire person to me
2
Bunch_of_Shit Apr 23, 2026 +1
So they’re gonna be like the guys who pull up if you get too close to Area 51? Zero identifiable markings on their uniforms?
1
6point3cylinder Apr 22, 2026 -17
Well yeah, states can’t regulate federal officers like that.
-17
Initial_Hedgehog_631 Apr 23, 2026 -6
Huh...it's like states can't regulate the federal government or something...
-6
PlaygroundBully Apr 22, 2026 -16
“A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction pending appeal.” California based judges blocked California law. Never thought I’d see the day.
-16
Daddict Apr 22, 2026 +11
The 9th circuit benches 29 judges, 10 of whom are Trump-appointees, and covers a lot more than Cali. The reputation of the court being the more liberal of the appeals courts is a little outdated at this point.
11
FailureX Apr 22, 2026 +4
This makes me wonder if California will ask for an en banc hearing.
4
← Back to Board