Judge blocks California mask ban for federal immigration agents

Body

A federal judge blocked a California law that would have limited federal immigration enforcement agents from wearing face masks while on duty, while leaving in place a separate requirement that officers show clear identification. U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder ruled Monday that the mask ban could not go into effect for federal agents, but she allowed the state’s identification requirement to take effect.

Snyder’s decision addressed California’s status as the first state to move broadly to restrict law enforcement officers’ use of facial coverings, a policy that was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September following the summer of high-profile Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles. The mask ban was scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, but the Trump administration sued in November to block it.

In court filings, the federal government argued the policy would threaten officer safety and would create risks including harassment, doxing and violence, and it said California’s attempt to regulate federal agents violated the Constitution because the state was directly regulating the federal government. Snyder said in her ruling that she issued an initial order because the mask ban as enacted did not also apply to state law enforcement authorities, which she characterized as discriminating against the federal government.

Snyder wrote that the “Court finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks.” The order, according to the reporting, would take effect Feb. 19, while the judge left open the possibility of future legislation if a mask ban were drafted to apply across law enforcement agencies rather than singling out federal officers.

Newsom’s September law banned many law enforcement personnel from wearing masks, neck gaiters and other facial coverings, but it included exceptions. The reporting said the law made exceptions for undercover agents, for protective equipment such as N95 respirators, for tactical gear, and for other situations where not wearing facial coverings would jeopardize an operation.

The judge sided with the federal government on the mask ban’s application to federal officers. The decision also sustained a related California measure that required law enforcement to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number while on the job, a provision that the federal government challenged but that Snyder upheld. In a statement after the ruling, Newsom called it “a clear win for the rule of law.”

At a Jan. 14 hearing, Snyder pressed the government’s lawyer, Tiberius Davis, to explain why banning masks would interfere with federal officers’ ability to perform their duties, particularly if officers rarely wore masks before 2025. Davis pointed to claims attributed to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security about a “multifold increase” in assaults and threats against federal officers.

Davis also referenced an incident in Los Angeles involving allegations that three women were livestreaming while following an ICE agent home and then posting the address on Instagram. “There is real deterrence on the officer’s safety and ability to perform their duties,” Davis said, according to the transcript described in the reporting.

Cameron Bell, a California Department of Justice attorney, challenged the federal claims, saying there was no concrete evidence that agents could not perform their duties without facial coverings. Bell also referenced declarations submitted by U.S. citizens who were detained by federal agents and who believed they were being kidnapped. “It’s obvious why these laws are in the public interest,” Bell said.

In a related argument, the federal government said allowing California’s legislation could lead other states to be “emboldened to impose similar unconstitutional restraints.” Davis also cited a statement attributed to Newsom from an interview posted online in July 2025, in which Newsom discussed the mask ban bill and said, “It appears that we don’t have the legal authority for federal agents but we do for other law enforcement authorities.”

California legislators and local officials had also advanced mask restrictions before the statewide court fight. Scott Weiner, a California state senator who proposed the original bill, said Monday he would introduce new legislation immediately to ensure state police are included under the mask ban after the ruling. “ICE and Border Patrol are covering their faces to maximize their terror campaign and to insulate themselves from accountability,” Weiner said in a news release. “We will ensure our mask ban can be enforced.”

The reporting said Los Angeles County supervisors voted in December to enact a local ordinance banning law enforcement from wearing masks that went into effect Jan. 8, but the sheriff’s department said it would not enforce the ordinance until after the statewide court ruling. The Los Angeles Police Department had also said it would not enforce the statewide mask ban while the lawsuit proceeded.