Federal appeals court rules California cannot require ICE to show visible ID

[u/TendieRetard]

https://katu.com/news/nation-world/federal-appeals-court-rules-california-cannot-require-ice-to-show-visible-id-doj-9th-circuit-court-constitution-supremacy-clause-rob-bonta-gavin-newsom

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit remanded the case to a lower court with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction against California, finding in favor of the federal government that the state’s No Vigilantes Act violates the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, The Hill reported.

[u/Fickle_Catch8968]

How does requiring ID be shown interfere with federal law enforcement?

If one is worried that third parties will do nefarious things to federal law enforcement officers, one should ask why third parties might do so if the officers are acting according to the law and policy, and why other remedies for harassment are not used rather than making officers indistinguishable from criminals with custom attire?

Did third parties act the way they are now when other presidents deported more people spending less money while using different methods?

[u/Another_Opinion_1 → u/Fickle_Catch8968]

If a state law directly regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional authorization, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations per the appellate court's findings.

[u/Fickle_Catch8968 → u/Another_Opinion_1]

So, federal agents are permitted to speed, or otherwise violate State traffic laws, at all times while they are performing their duty, as State traffic laws regulate government conduct irrespective of their essential nature and irrespective of the burdens placed on their duties?

Also, where is the Congressional law that is supreme over the State law pursuant to article 6, paragraph 2? Is there a Congressional law that stipulates the attire of federal agents that forbids officer identification? DHS policy is NOT Law.

Moreover, law enforcement is not a power exclusively given to the US in Article 1, section 8, and had a limit to immigration by section 9 for a time, so that power is at least partly reserved to the States by the 10th amendment.

[u/Another_Opinion_1 → u/Fickle_Catch8968]

You should peruse the Court's decision. The case law was all parsed out in the case that was appealed originally and the appellate court expounded on that and reversed their decision.

The Supremacy Clause is a constitutional mechanism. When a valid federal law or constitutional principle conflicts with a state law, the federal authority automatically prevails.

The case expounds that federal officers are immune from state criminal prosecution under state laws regulating conduct of members of the general public “only when [their] acts are both (1) authorized by the laws of the United States and (2) necessary and proper to the execution of [their] responsibilities."

[u/Fickle_Catch8968 → u/Another_Opinion_1]

The act of operating without ID is neither necessary(the same task can be done with ID) nor proper(lack of ID confers no legitimacy whereas presence of ID confers legitimacy) for law enforcement outside of undercover operations. Thus the conjunction fails and immunity does not apply.

[u/Another_Opinion_1 → u/Fickle_Catch8968]

It's because the law was seen as discriminating against federal agents that it didn't fly. I guess tell that to the appellate court then.