Opinion: Hans von Spakovsky Says the Ninth Circuit Just Taught California a Lesson in the Supremacy Clause

This is a summary of an opinion column. The views belong to Hans A. von Spakovsky, not to RightNewsRightNow.

Von Spakovsky says the Ninth Circuit did what federal courts are supposed to do when it blocked part of California's "No Vigilantes Act." We reported the ruling itself earlier, in "9th Circuit Blocks California Law Forcing Federal Agents to Show ID." This column is his argument for why the outcome was never in doubt.

The law. He says the act required non-uniformed federal officers working in California to "visibly display identification," and that a federal agent who failed to could be prosecuted by the state. He calls it part of California's "continuing effort to obstruct federal immigration enforcement," and says Gov. Gavin Newsom and state officials have attacked agents in public, including by comparing them to the "secret police" of an authoritarian state.

His reading of the ruling. He writes that the unanimous panel relied on the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity: states may not directly regulate the federal government's operations. He says the court rejected California's argument that the law did not "substantially burden" federal work, quoting the panel that a state law directly regulating federal conduct "is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions."

The history. He cites McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and In re Neagle (1890). In Neagle, he writes, California tried to prosecute a U.S. Marshal who had shot a man attacking a Supreme Court justice, and the Supreme Court said even a state's murder laws cannot control a marshal acting under federal law. His point is that the state cannot criminally prosecute federal agents for doing their jobs.

The second law. He notes a companion measure, the "No Secret Police Act," which made it a crime for federal agents to wear face coverings, was already blocked by a lower court on the same grounds. He says agents have been "villainized, doxxed, followed home, harassed, run down by cars, and shot at," and suggests Newsom and the legislature may need "remedial courses on the Constitution."

Note for readers: the legal citations and descriptions of the cases are the author's. The ruling is a preliminary injunction, not a final judgment, as noted in our news report. The attacks on agents are claims in the column and are not sourced to specific incidents.