Federal Judge Halts Enforcement of California Mask Ban

A federal judge on Monday blocked California from enforcing a newly enacted law that sharply restricts when federal immigration agents can wear masks during deportation operations, dealing a setback to state lawmakers seeking to curb what they describe as secretive immigration enforcement tactics.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder ruled that the so-called “No Secret Police Act” likely violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by singling out federal law enforcement while exempting state officers from similar restrictions.

“The Act treats federal law enforcement officers differently than similarly situated state law enforcement officers,” Snyder wrote in a 30-page decision.

The ruling prevents California from enforcing the mask restriction against federal agents, including officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, at least for now.

Court Rejects Federal Doxing Argument

The Trump administration had argued that ICE agents must be allowed to wear masks to protect themselves from harassment and doxing. Snyder rejected that claim, writing that the federal government failed to show a sufficient justification for officers to conceal their identities during routine law enforcement interactions.

“There is no cognizable justification for law enforcement officers to conceal their identities during their performance of routine, non-exempted law enforcement functions and interactions with the general public,” the judge said.

However, Snyder concluded that the problem with the anti-masking law lies not in its intent, but in its narrow scope.

She suggested the statute could survive constitutional scrutiny if it were expanded to apply equally to state law enforcement officers.

Identification Law Allowed to Proceed

While blocking the mask ban, Snyder declined to halt enforcement of a second California statute aimed at immigration enforcement abuses, known as the “No Vigilantes Act.”

That law requires most local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel to display their name or badge number while on duty. Unlike the mask ban, the identification requirement applies broadly to California officials as well as federal agents.

Snyder said the identification law is likely constitutional because it promotes transparency without discriminating against the federal government.

“The Court finds that these Acts serve the public interest by promoting transparency which is essential for accountability and public trust,” she wrote.

Enforcement Still on Hold—for Now

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office had agreed not to enforce either law while the court considered the federal government’s request for an injunction. Snyder stayed her ruling until February 19, meaning the identification requirement is unlikely to take effect before then.

Enforcement of that law could be delayed further if the Trump administration seeks and obtains a stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Safe communities thrive on transparency and trust, and California is committed to doing our part to uphold public safety and civil liberties,” Bonta said in a statement.

Lawmaker Moves to Revise Mask Ban

Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener, the author of the mask ban legislation, responded to the ruling by announcing plans to amend the law to include state law enforcement officers.

Last year, Wiener exempted state-level officers while applying the restrictions to federal and local agencies, a decision made amid strong opposition from law enforcement groups.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.