The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should reject the Trump administration’s efforts to block enforcement of the visible identification requirement in California’s No Vigilantes Act, according to an amicus brief filed by CREW.

Following immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles, California enacted the No Vigilantes Act—which requires law enforcement officers, including federal agents,  operating in California to display visible identification—and the No Secret Police Act—which prohibits officers from wearing facial coverings (with some exceptions). In November 2025, the Trump administration challenged the laws, arguing that the laws are preempted and endanger officers who are facing harassment, doxxing and violence. In February, a federal district court preliminarily blocked the law restricting facial coverings from going into effect, but allowed the law requiring officers to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number to go into effect. The administration has appealed that ruling, seeking to halt enforcement of the visible identification requirement in the No Vigilantes Act.  

The identification requirement is a common-sense safeguard that promotes transparency, deters impersonation of law enforcement officers and ensures oversight and accountability during and after enforcement actions, the amicus brief argues. The public deserves to feel safe interacting with law enforcement and to know whether the individuals exercising government authority are legitimate officers acting within the law. The district court correctly rejected claims that “peace officers have legitimate concerns relating to annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, as well as physical threats to themselves and their families, that outweigh any public interest in disclosure” of their identities. DHS regulations already require immigration officers making an arrest to identify themselves when it is practical and safe to do so.  

Allowing ICE and CBP agents to conceal their identities makes it far more difficult to investigate misconduct, pursue civil remedies or impose internal discipline and far easier for them to commit harassing and violent acts, such as their use of lethal force in Minneapolis. Concealment also chills free speech and lawful protest by creating fear and uncertainty among community members and impeding the ability of the press to report on enforcement actions.

The No Vigilantes Act’s legislative history reflects well-founded concerns that unidentified federal agents have enabled criminal impersonation schemes, further supporting the district court’s conclusion that enforcing the identification requirement serves the public interest. 

For these reasons, CREW’s brief urges the Ninth Circuit to affirm the lower court’s decision and allow enforcement of California’s No Vigilantes Act visible identification requirement to proceed.

Read the amicus here.

Read More in Amicus Briefs