Is it illegal for the governor of California to 1) take away licenses of ICE agents and 2) not allow employers to hire former ICE agents
Executive summary
A governor cannot unilaterally nullify federal law or order federal officers to stop performing federal duties; California has recently moved to regulate how ICE identifies itself and to bar masks in the field, but federal officials and some federal prosecutors assert the state lacks authority over federal agents’ conduct [1] [2] [3]. Proposals to revoke ICE agents’ California driver’s licenses or to bar private employers from hiring former ICE personnel raise serious constitutional preemption and federal supremacy questions and, based on the provided reporting, remain legally untested and unresolved [2] [4].
1. The state’s new ID and anti‑mask laws and the federal response
California has enacted a slate of laws requiring federal immigration officers operating in the state to clearly identify themselves and banning masks during enforcement actions — measures the state says are intended to prevent “secret police” tactics and to protect communities [5] [1]. Federal officials and some commentators have pushed back bluntly: a Trump‑appointed U.S. attorney said California “has no authority to regulate federal agents,” and federal agencies have indicated such rules “have no effect on our operations” [2] [1]. The statutes are already producing litigation and jurisdictional friction: the state laws are “tied up in court,” and state prosecutors are simultaneously asserting they will investigate alleged federal misconduct even as the federal government claims immunity for its agents [3].
2. Can the governor strip driver’s licenses from ICE agents?
Political figures have proposed it — Rep. Eric Swalwell pledged to “take your driver’s license” from masked ICE officers if elected governor — and state authority over issuance and revocation of driver’s licenses is a power governors possess in general terms [2] [4]. But removing a license specifically to punish or disable federal officers for performance of federal duties would likely collide with federal supremacy and raise preemption arguments: federal officials and a U.S. attorney have already asserted the state lacks jurisdiction over federal agents, a core legal obstacle to a governor selectively targeting federal employees [2]. The provided reporting does not include a court ruling upholding or striking down a governor’s revocation of federal officers’ state licenses, so whether such an action would survive constitutional challenge remains untested in the sources available [2] [3].
3. Can the state bar employers from hiring former ICE agents?
California law governs many aspects of employer conduct — for example, workplace protections limiting when employers may allow ICE access to nonpublic areas and employee records — and the state has used employment and privacy statutes to shield workers from immigration enforcement practices [6] [7]. The reporting, however, does not document any statute that forbids private employers from hiring former federal agents nor any legal adjudication on whether California could validly impose such a ban. Because the sources do not address preemption or employment‑law limits on a categorical ban, the question is presently outside the scope of the provided reporting and cannot be answered definitively here [6] [7].
4. Where the law is settled and where it is unsettled
What is settled in the reporting is that California has enacted identification and anti‑mask rules for federal agents and that those laws have provoked federal pushback and litigation [5] [1] [3]. What is unsettled in the provided material is whether a governor could lawfully revoke state driver's licenses as a targeted sanction against federal officers, or whether California could lawfully prohibit employers from hiring former ICE personnel — both raise serious constitutional questions [2] [4]. The available coverage highlights political declarations and statutory experiments but does not supply definitive judicial resolutions on those extreme measures, so any definitive legal conclusion would require further legal analysis and current court rulings beyond the reporting assembled here [2] [3].