States across the country are moving to restrict face coverings by law enforcement officers, including in immigration-related enforcement, as lawmakers and civil liberties advocates argue the practice undermines public accountability and personal safety. On Thursday, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson signed a measure that limits when officers can wear masks that obscure their identities while interacting with the public, a step advocates say could set a template for other states.
The Washington law was signed just more than a month after California’s earlier effort to block federal officers from masking was suspended by a federal judge, according to the Associated Press. That California ruling faulted the state’s approach as discriminatory toward federal law enforcement officials because the California ban applied differently to federal and local officers than it did to state-level officers. The judge’s decision, the AP reported, also created what analysts described as a pathway for states to try again.
Washington’s new measure narrows that potential discrimination argument by applying facial-covering restrictions to federal, state and local law enforcement officers during public encounters. The AP reported that most of the mask restriction bills pending elsewhere would also apply to all law enforcement officers, rather than singling out federal personnel.
Ferguson, a Democrat, signed the bill in the same broader political environment in which states have used legislation to respond to immigration enforcement tactics associated with President Donald Trump. The AP said those tactics have included federal agents—some wearing masks—sweeping up thousands of people for potential deportation, drawing criticism that masks enable more aggressive action with less oversight.
The Department of Homeland Security condemned the Washington law, calling it “irresponsible, reckless and dangerous.” The department also said, “To be crystal clear: we will not abide by this unconstitutional ban,” according to the AP report. The Associated Press said that the question of the Washington law’s constitutionality is not clear-cut and will likely depend on legal challenges that could draw on the reasoning used in the earlier California case.
The proposal includes exceptions, AP reported, including for undercover and tactical team officers, religious purposes and medical masks, among other categories. The law also does not list specific penalties for violations, but the AP reported it allows people detained by masked officers to sue, seeking money for damages.
The pressure behind the new restrictions gained momentum after some federal immigration agents wore face coverings during large-scale enforcement actions in Los Angeles, the AP said. California’s first attempt began last year, and in September Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law banning federal officers from wearing facial coverings that obscure their identities, with exceptions including medical masks and tactical gear. AP also reported that Democratic lawmakers in more than 30 states have filed proposals to restrict facial coverings, citing the policy concern that masks can raise fears or reduce transparency.
Bridget Lavender, a staff attorney for the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said the California decision has affected how other states approach similar legislation. “I think that the California decision, in many ways, operated like a green light for some states that had been thinking, `Can we actually do this?’” Lavender said, according to the AP.
Washington state Sen. Javier Valdez, a Democrat who sponsored the legislation, said masking up creates fear and hides officers from the public. “Masking up creates intimidation and fear,” Valdez said. “If you’re a law enforcement official, the public deserves to know who you are.”
Republican lawmakers in several states raised objections that mirror a recurring concern: that restrictions on officers do not reach protesters who may also wear masks during demonstrations, and that limiting officers could contribute to public safety risks or misperceptions. In Oregon, Republican state lawmakers argued anti-masking provisions would apply only to law enforcement officers and not protesters, and AP reported Sen. David Brock Smith warned that the measure could contribute to “negative perceptions.” Smith said, “The demonization of public safety officers is something that has a deep impact that reverberates across our citizenry,” adding that “There are individuals that riot and dox these public safety individuals.”
In Washington House debate, Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh recalled attending a Seattle event where masked protesters appeared, and AP reported he suggested it could still be reasonable for an officer to obscure a face to protect themselves. “It would be reasonable for a law enforcement officer to obscure his or her face to protect themselves from the mischievous criminal,” Walsh said, according to the AP.
The legislative push also includes efforts that apply to masking by the public rather than only officers. The AP reported that 23 other states and the District of Columbia already prohibit people from wearing masks in public places to conceal identity, intimidate others or avoid recognition while committing crimes, citing the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law. AP said some Republican lawmakers want to expand those laws, including with Arizona legislation that directs courts to consider identity-obscuring masks as an aggravating factor when sentencing for felonies, and a Missouri proposal that would create a misdemeanor for “masked intimidation” aimed at public demonstrations rather than police activity.
A separate measure passed last week in Virginia, the AP said, would create an enforcement incentive: officers who violate that state ban could face misdemeanor charges punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine, though AP reported that if an agency has its own facial-covering policy, state charges would not be pursued. The AP reported that Virginia’s sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Saddam Azlan Salim, linked the proposal to experiences growing up in the United States, saying, “I grew up here knowing if somebody comes here with a mask, no identification, either they are going to rob you or you’re going to get kidnapped,” according to the AP.
A fast-moving legal landscape may determine how far the restrictions spread. As states attempt to adjust their approaches after earlier court rulings, the policies could become part of an ongoing national debate over transparency, safety and the balance of authority between state law and federal immigration enforcement—particularly when face coverings appear in public confrontations and immigration-related arrests.