California's 'No Vigilantes Act' Violates the Supremacy Clause and Intergovernmental Immunity
Source: "A federal court just told Newsom: California does not outrank the Constitution | Fox News." October 21, 2026. www.foxnews.com
The Gist
The author says the Constitution puts federal law above state law, so California can't tell federal immigration agents how to dress or identify themselves, or threaten them with state prosecution for doing their jobs. Old Supreme Court cases and the Ninth Circuit's ruling back this up, so the state law was struck down. He adds that California officials ought to relearn basic constitutional law.
Conclusion
California's 'No Vigilantes Act', which requires non-uniformed federal agents to display identification and threatens them with state criminal prosecution, is unconstitutional because states cannot regulate or prosecute federal officers carrying out federal law, and the Ninth Circuit rightly enjoined it.
Premises
- The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) makes the Constitution and federal laws the supreme law of the land, and its intergovernmental immunity component bars states from directly regulating the federal government's operations.
- McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) established that states have no power to retard, impede, burden, or control the operations of constitutional federal laws.
- The Ninth Circuit held that a state law directly regulating the conduct of the United States is void regardless of whether it burdens federal functions substantially, which defeats California's argument that the NVA imposed no substantial burden.
- In re Neagle (1890) held that even generally applicable state laws, such as murder statutes, cannot be used to prosecute a federal officer acting under federal law in the course of his duties.
- The NVA directly regulates federal immigration agents' conduct by requiring visible identification and exposing violators to state criminal prosecution, so it falls within what these precedents prohibit.
Assumptions
- Federal immigration enforcement is a valid exercise of constitutional federal authority, so agents performing it are covered by intergovernmental immunity.
- A state identification requirement on federal agents counts as direct regulation of the federal government rather than a neutral law of general applicability.
- The Neagle principle, which concerned a murder prosecution, extends to prosecuting agents for violating an identification rule.
- The Ninth Circuit's reading of precedent is correct and will not be overturned or narrowed on further review.
- California's motives (obstructing federal immigration enforcement) are relevant context, though the legal conclusion rests on structural constitutional doctrine.