In this episode of the Prima.Law Podcast, we dive straight into the constitutional crisis unfolding on the West Coast. On November 17, 2025, the Department of Justice filed a massive lawsuit against the State of California to block two new state laws: the "No Secret Police Act" (SB 627) and the "No Vigilantes Act" (SB 805).
These laws make it a crime for federal agents—specifically ICE and CBP—to wear masks or hide their badges while on duty. Governor Newsom says it’s about transparency; the DOJ says it puts agents' lives at risk and violates the Constitution.
In this episode, James breaks down:
The Complaint: We analyze the DOJ's argument that California is attempting to "regulate" the federal government in violation of the Supremacy Clause.
The "Neagle" Standard: Why a Supreme Court case from 1890 involving a U.S. Marshal shooting a man to protect a Justice is the key to understanding why federal agents have immunity from state criminal laws.
Rights vs. Powers: Why the federal government can’t claim "Freedom of Speech" (First Amendment) to wear masks, but relies instead on "Sovereign Immunity" and the Supremacy Clause.
The Immigration Angle: How this lawsuit is really a proxy war over immigration enforcement, and why treating federal agents differently than state police (who have their own internal privacy rules) might be California's fatal legal mistake under the Intergovernmental Immunity doctrine.
Civil vs. Criminal Liability: A look at the new Martin v. United States (2025) decision and how it changes the landscape for agents who act "unreasonably."
Key Cases Discussed:
United States v. California (2025 Complaint)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
In re Neagle (1890)
North Dakota v. United States (1990)
Church of American Knights of the KKK v. Kerik (2002)
Sponsor:This episode is brought to you by Prima.Law—The modern case management platform built by immigration attorneys, for immigration attorneys. Stop struggling with ancient software and start automating your practice today. Visit Prima.Law for a demo.
