Is the state’s new ICE mask ban in trouble?

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here.

Hello and welcome back to Capitol Confidential! Happy Monday.

Another week closer to Election Day. We’ve got 16 days until Nov. 3

Starting this week on Wednesday, Capitol Confidential will start to look a bit different. While the free newsletter isn’t going away, it will be shorter, with full access available to paid subscribers.

If you want to sign up, we’re offering 25% off your first monthly or annual subscription for the next several weeks.

As always, don’t hesitate to reach out to me with any questions at [email protected]

A federal appeals court delivered another blow to California’s ongoing efforts to rein in ICE agents operating in the state, this time barring a law that would have required federal agents to display identification.

A three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously last week that the state’s “No Vigilantes Act,” SB805 from Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, D-Alhambra, violates the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution. The court reversed a federal judge's earlier decision not to block the law from going into effect.

SB805 was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year, requiring federal immigration agents to wear identification that includes their agency and either a name or badge number. The legislation was created in response to President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and growing outrage among California Democrats over the operations in the state.

In the decision, the judges wrote the law “attempts to directly regulate” the country’s ability to perform governmental functions, such as federal law enforcement and immigration enforcement, which requires authorization from Congress.

Pérez said in a statement that she was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.

“As the Trump administration, again, ramps up immigration enforcement in California, this is an especially dangerous time to have unidentifiable people who are purportedly federal agents with limited training violently swarming our communities with concealed identities,” Pérez said. 

But the “No Vigilantes Act” may not be the only new law affected by the ruling. 

The decision could open the door to challenges against a different California law that seeks to ban ICE agents from wearing masks.

Sen. Scott Wiener’s SB1004, which the governor signed last month, builds off another Wiener law that was caught up in its own tangle of legal challenges, the so-called “No Secret Police Act.” A U.S. district judge ruled in April that the law discriminated against immigration agents and other federal police by allowing state officers to remain masked.

In response, Wiener came back with SB1004, designed to sidestep the judge’s ruling and taking a new legal route by applying the ban to masks worn by both state and federal officers. 

Bernadette Meyler, a professor at Stanford Law School with an expertise in constitutional law, described last week’s 9th Circuit decision as significant not just for the “No Vigilantes Act,” but also for the revised mask ban. 

“I don't think that the Legislature would have passed this new mask ban law, saying it covers state as well as federal officers, if they had known that basically any statute drafted simply to cover law enforcement would trigger this federal officer immunity,” Meyler said.

While she thinks it’s unlikely the Supreme Court would overturn the decision, there is still room for debate in other aspects of California’s attempts to regulate ICE. 

If lawmakers were to attempt to work around this new ruling, as they have done with Wiener’s mask ban, Meyler mused they might try to draft legislation that seeks to outlaw certain types of activities while masked. 

Kevin Johnson, an immigration law professor and former law school dean at UC Davis, pointed to the Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. United States in 2012, which held that much of Arizona's immigration enforcement law intruded on the federal power to regulate immigration, violating the Supremacy Clause. 

“The same reasoning applies to the California law requiring ICE officers to display identifications and the California anti-masking laws,” Johnson said in a statement to Capitol Confidential. 

“I am sympathetic to California's interests here of protecting its residents,” he said. “But attempts by the state to directly regulate federal law enforcement officers is not the appropriate legal avenue.”

Erik Mebust, spokesperson for Wiener, said a legal challenge to the revised mask ban is “possible,” and something they are prepared for. 

Mebust said they expect any filings will drop around the time SB1004 goes into effect, at the start of 2027. 

Meyler said it’s possible a legal challenge could come even sooner. 

It’s the ballot measure everybody is talking about. 

Well, almost everybody. 

As the Chronicle’s Joe Garofoli reported, two of the state’s most powerful and prominent politicians — former Vice President Kamala Harris and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi — have yet to weigh in on Prop 40. 

Newsom has already staked his position, standing in opposition to the billionaire tax, which has cleaved open a deep division among the state’s Democrats. 

But, what of California’s Democratic state legislators? According to the Yes and No campaigns’ websites, the list of state senators and Assembly members is heavily skewed, with far more on record opposing the measure. 

Those who support Prop 40 include: 

The No on Prop 40 camp includes: 

Voting on the billionaire tax is not as simple as voting for or against Prop 40, thanks to two competing measures on the ballot, Props 41 and 42. 

For the Chronicle, Kathleen Pender breaks it all down.

Prop 40 would impose a one-time “wealth tax” on the net worth of people who were California residents as of Jan. 1, 2026 – even if they later became non-residents – and had more than $1 billion in net worth as of Dec. 31, 2026. It also would exempt billionaire-tax revenues from three state-spending rules, including one known as the Gann limit.

Prop 41 would conflict with Prop 40 because it would outlaw new taxes passed after Jan. 1, 2026 that are exempt from the Gann limit. 

Prop 42 also appears to counter Prop 40 by preventing new taxes on personal property (i.e., wealth) and taxes that apply retroactively, including those based on residency.

Backers of the billionaire tax are urging people to vote “Yes” on 40 and “No” on Props 41 and 42. 

How does that shake out? 

If Prop 40 passes with more than 50% of the vote and Prop 41 and Prop 42 do not: The billionaire tax would take effect and the other two would not, Pender reported. 

But, if Prop 40 loses and Prop 41 and/or 42 pass: The billionaire tax would fail. 

Prop 41 would take effect if it got a simple majority. So would Prop 42 if it passed.

But what happens if Prop 40 gets more than half the vote, and so does Prop 41 and/or 42?

Here’s your go-to guide on all the possible outcomes of the dizzying web of billionaire tax measures. 

The San Francisco Chronicle’s 2026 voter guide is here, with all the need-to-know information about this year’s election. 

For those of you in the Bay Area, that includes guides about your local ballot measures and races. For the rest of us, it’s a very useful guide for all the state races, including the very long list of statewide ballot measures. 

Confused about the propositions? Out of the loop on the lesser-known statewide races like controller and insurance commissioner? We’ve got you. 

Check out the interactive voter guide for California and Bay Area elections.

Questions? Thoughts? Interesting tidbits to share? Reach out at [email protected], and follow me on X, @KathrynPlmr.