Appeals court blocks California law on ICE identification

Questions about this coverage

How did the left and right cover Appeals court blocks California law on ICE identification?

Of the 20 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 10% are rated left, 10% are rated centre, 80% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.

Is Appeals court blocks California law on ICE identification left or right?

The story itself is neither. What can be counted is who has covered it, and 80% of the 20 rated outlets on it are rated right — so far this is a story carried mostly by the right. Coverage is still arriving and that can change, which is why the figure is dated rather than fixed.

Is the coverage of Appeals court blocks California law on ICE identification biased?

Appeals court blocks California law on ICE identification is one event reported by 20 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.

Which side is not reporting Appeals court blocks California law on ICE identification?

When we first saw this story, outlets rated left had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.

Which outlets covered Appeals court blocks California law on ICE identification?

20 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.

What was California's "No Vigilantes Act"?

The "No Vigilantes Act" was a California state law that required plainclothes federal law enforcement officers, including those from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to visibly display identification while operating in the state.

Why did the federal government sue California over this law?

The Department of Justice sued California because it argued that the "No Vigilantes Act" violated the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which prevents states from directly regulating federal operations without congressional authorization.

What did the appeals court rule?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the "No Vigilantes Act" violates the Supremacy Clause. It instructed a lower court to issue a preliminary injunction, effectively blocking California from enforcing the law.