Ninth Circuit ruling clouds path for Vermont bill requiring officers to identify themselves; witnesses urge policy approach

The House Judiciary Committee recessed its review of S.208 on April 23 after learning that a three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an interim ruling that undercuts the part of California’s law requiring plainclothes federal officers to visibly display identification.

"The Ninth Circuit found that section 10 attempts to directly regulate the United States and the performance of governmental functions," said Sophie Sadatney of the Office of Legislative Council, summarizing the opinion for the committee. She said the panel concluded there is no de minimis exception to the intergovernmental‑immunity doctrine: a state law that directly controls federal officers is void regardless of how small or how little it interferes with federal functions.

The ruling shifts the committee’s decision point on S.208, which contains two related components: an identification requirement for law‑enforcement officers and limits on facial coverings. "That changes the decision points that we have in this committee on this particular bill," the chair said at the start of the hearing.

Sadatney told members that California’s district court had distinguished the visible‑identification requirement from ordinary regulations…