A federal judge on Monday issued an order blocking California from enforcing its new law barring ICE and other federal law enforcement officers from wearing masks, ruling that the state illegally targeted the feds.
But Judge Christina Snyder did allow the state to enforce its new law requiring officers to wear visible identifying information.
The Clinton appointee said she doubted the need for federal officers to actually wear masks, saying they have gone for decades without doing so.
But she said California’s law fails because, while it snares federal officers, it doesn’t apply to all state officers.
“Because such discrimination violates the Supremacy Clause, the court is constrained to enjoin the facial covering prohibition,” she wrote.
The state’s identification law doesn’t include disparate treatment for state versus federal officers, so she said it can take effect.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the ruling as a “key court victory.”
“These federal agents are harassed, doxxed, obstructed, and attacked on a regular basis just for doing their jobs. We have no tolerance for it,” she said on social media.
Masking has become one of the most visible flashpoints of the ongoing fight over President Trump’s push for mass deportations and his deployment of Homeland Security personnel into major American cities.
Administration officials say the masks have become necessary as protesters have taken to targeting officers in retaliation for the enforcement surge.
That includes both clashes on the streets and attempts to get to officers when they’re off the job.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reports a 1,000% increase in assaults and an 8,000% increase in death threats, fueled by “doxxing” websites that spread officers’ personal information.
Judge Snyder wasn’t swayed. She said ICE has gotten along for years without the need to resort to masks, and she said the fact that some officers still don’t mask suggests that California’s law wouldn’t be a burden.
“If masking or concealing identification were as critical to federal operations as the United States asserts, the court would expect that federal agencies would not leave such decisions to the discretion of individual officers,” the judge wrote.
She stayed her ruling for 10 days to give the administration a chance to appeal.
Both masking and wearing identification have been mentioned by judges scolding the administration for the zeal of the immigration effort.
Congressional Democrats have also seized on the issue.
Part of their demands for reforms at ICE — their price for allowing the department to be funded for fiscal year 2026 — are bans on masking and requirements for agents and officers to wear visible identification.
Some other Democrat-led jurisdictions have pondered following California’s lead. Judge Snyder’s ruling could become a roadmap of sorts, prodding states to ensure that their own police are covered by the same policy.
State Sen. Scott Wiener, the sponsor of the anti-mask law, told the San Francisco Chronicle he will introduce a revised version that applies to all police.
California’s law requiring identification is dubbed the No Secret Police Act. The masking law is the No Vigilantes Act. It allowed some exceptions, such as for SWAT and tactical teams and undercover duty.
The law stripped legal immunity from officers engaged in further criminal behavior while masked.
Both laws were signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat with White House aspirations. They were supposed to take effect on Jan. 1, but the state agreed to delay enforcement until the court ruled.
The governor hailed the victory on the identification law.
“No badge and no name mean no accountability. California will keep standing up for civil rights and our democracy,” he said in a statement.
In addition to a strike at ICE, officials justified the anti-masking law by pointing to reports of people posing as immigration officers to carry out robberies, kidnappings and sexual assaults.
An FBI bulletin last year cited ICE’s higher profile as a reason for an increase in those cases.
• Stephen Dinan can be reached at sdinan@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.