• court blocks California law requiring federal agents to wear identification

    From a425couple@a425couple@hotmail.com to ca.politics,or.politics,seattle.politics,alt.law-enforcement,fl.politics on Thu Apr 23 07:32:46 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.law-enforcement

    Hey Liberal jerks, Don't you remember the Civil War?
    That was when Republican President Lincoln proved that
    Democratic states can not defy the Federal Government
    and block enforcing it's laws.
    There is such a thing as Federal Supremacy.

    from https://mynorthwest.com/mynorthwest-politics/federal-agent-mask-ban/4230889

    Federal appeals court blocks California law requiring federal agents to
    wear identification
    Apr 22, 2026, 11:41 AM | Updated: 11:45 am

    federal agents mask ban...
    Law enforcement respond to protesters after federal immigration
    authorities conducted operations, June 7, 2025, in Paramount, Calif.
    (Photo: Eric Thayer, AP)

    BY JAIMIE DING, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    An appeals court has blocked a California law passed in 2025 requiring
    federal immigration agents to wear a badge or some form of identification.

    The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in November challenging the
    law, arguing that it would threaten the safety of officers who are
    facing harassment, doxing, and violence, and that it violated the
    Constitution because the state is directly regulating the federal
    government.

    A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction pending appeal on Wednesday. It had already granted a
    temporary administrative injunction to block the implementation of the law.

    At a hearing on March 3, Justice Department lawyers argued that the
    California law sought to regulate the federal government, violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

    The appeals court agreed, saying the law rCLattempts to directly regulate
    the United States in its performance of governmental functions,rCY in an opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett.

    California lawyers argued that the law applied equally to all law
    enforcement officers without discriminating against the U.S. government,
    and that states could apply rCLgenerally applicablerCY laws to federal
    agents. They also argued that the law was important to address public
    safety concerns.

    The initial lawsuit also addressed another California measure signed
    into law last year that would have banned most law enforcement officers
    from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings. It was
    blocked by a federal judge in February.

    The legislation did not apply to state law enforcement and made
    exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95
    respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a
    mask would jeopardize the operation.



    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2