Gavin Newsom’s legislative minions just got a lesson in constitutional supremacy

California's "No Vigilantes Act," signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in October 2023, attempted to impose strict liability on federal immigration agents who entered schools, hospitals, courthouses, and sensitive locations without explicit consent from local authorities. The law created a private right of action allowing any California resident—not just those directly harmed—to sue ICE agents for $5,000 per violation, plus attorney fees. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, typically viewed as liberal-leaning, unanimously rejected the statute on Friday, ruling that federal immigration enforcement authority cannot be subordinated to state permission slips. The court found that the Supremacy Clause, which establishes federal law as supreme when it conflicts with state law, prevented California from imposing operational constraints on federal agents executing their statutory duties under immigration law.

The practical stakes are enormous for California's sanctuary state infrastructure. The law was designed as a deterrent—making enforcement in protected spaces so legally risky that ICE would simply avoid them. Instead, the ruling means ICE can operate in California schools and hospitals with the same authority as anywhere else in the nation, effectively neutering one of the state's core immigration enforcement restrictions. For undocumented immigrants, this erases a meaningful layer of protection that had made certain locations theoretically safer. For local law enforcement agencies that have refused to cooperate with ICE detainers, it removes one legal tool they'd hoped would reinforce that stance by making federal intrusions costly.

This follows a familiar constitutional pattern: states attempting to regulate federal agents through tort liability consistently lose. The Supremacy Clause doesn't permit states to tax, fine, or sue federal officers for performing federal functions, even when those functions occur in state territory. California's legislature bet that framing ICE violations as private wrongs rather than direct regulatory commands might survive scrutiny—a legally creative move that the court swiftly dismantled. The reasoning here mirrors precedent stretching back decades: states cannot use their sovereign power over torts and contracts to accomplish what they cannot accomplish through direct regulation of federal activity.

From the conservative angle, this is straightforward: a state tried to use lawsuit mechanics to defang federal immigration law, and the Constitution didn't allow it. Newsom's administration attempted an end-run around immigration enforcement by making it financially ruinous, effectively transforming California into an enforcement-free zone. The Supremacy Clause exists precisely to prevent states from nullifying federal law through creative legal structures. ICE's authority to investigate immigration violations comes from Congress, not from Newsom's goodwill. California can decline to help, but it cannot erect a financial booby trap to stop federal agents from doing their job. The court's unanimity signals this wasn't a close call—even judges typically sympathetic to immigrant protections recognized that state law simply cannot supersede federal authority in this domain.

What matters now is whether California attempts a legislative fix or pivots strategy. Newsom could pursue a narrower approach that doesn't explicitly restrict federal agents but instead increases scrutiny, reporting requirements, or transparency around ICE operations in protected spaces—measures that don't directly conflict with federal authority. Alternatively, the state might accept this ruling and double down on non-cooperation agreements with local police, the one tool the courts have consistently upheld. The real test comes if ICE actually increases enforcement actions in California schools and hospitals over the next six months. Watch whether sanctuary cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco soften their ICE cooperation policies or hold firm despite losing this legal weapon.