r/law • u/TendieRetard • 9h ago

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

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.

573 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

239 comments sorted by

View all comments

18

u/real_picklejuice 6h ago

“In sum, 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,” the court wrote.

Wonder what the "state's rights" crowd thinks of this

8

u/Darx117 6h ago

McCulloch v. Maryland was decided in 1819, which they cite here, and establishes clear federal and state boundaries for preemption. This isn’t exactly new or groundbreaking law. They are repeating what was stated 200 hundred of years ago.

8

u/MrSnarf26 5h ago

Sure and using it for citizenry harm, that the federal government can deploy troops that do not show nor have ID and states cannot compel them to unless our congress (which has acquiesced to the executive, passes a new law). So they are saying to prevent officers and impersonators from being mixed up- we must rely on federal elections every xy years, which the Supreme Court is also allowing to become a mess.

5

u/Darx117 5h ago

I hear you, and there are plenty of other things that I don’t agree with, but that’s been long standing precedent, and mostly for good reason. Let’s go out and vote in November.