A federal judge has paused California’s attempt to bar federal immigration officers from wearing face coverings during enforcement actions, siding with the U.S. government in a dispute over how far a state can regulate federal law enforcement.
The order blocks the state’s mask prohibition from taking effect but allows a separate requirement that officers display clear identification showing their agency and badge number.
The measure, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last fall, aimed to limit the use of masks, neck gaiters and similar coverings by most law enforcement officers after a series of high-profile immigration operations in Los Angeles drew criticism from community groups. Lawmakers argued that visible faces and identification would promote transparency and accountability.
Federal officials challenged the law in court, contending that it singled out federal agents and could expose them to harassment or threats. Government attorneys said officers have faced increasing risks, including doxing and confrontations during field operations.
U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder concluded that the mask restriction likely treated federal authorities differently from state and local police. That distinction, she said, raised constitutional concerns by placing limits on the federal government that did not apply across the board.
In her order, Snyder wrote that “the Court finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks,” yet determined the current version of the law could not proceed as drafted. The ruling takes effect Feb. 19.
The judge upheld the separate identification mandate, allowing California to require visible badges and agency names during operations. Federal lawyers had challenged that piece as well, though the court declined to block it.
State Sen. Scott Wiener, who introduced the original proposal, said he plans to revise the legislation so it applies evenly to all law enforcement agencies. In a statement, he said, “ICE and Border Patrol are covering their faces to maximize their terror campaign and to insulate themselves from accountability. We will ensure our mask ban can be enforced.”
During earlier hearings, attorneys for the federal government argued that preventing agents from masking could hinder their work. One government lawyer said, “There is real deterrence on the officer’s safety and ability to perform their duties,” pointing to reported threats and assaults against personnel.
California officials countered that there is little proof that face coverings are necessary for routine enforcement. A state attorney told the court that some residents have mistaken masked officers for kidnappers, fueling fear during arrests.
The dispute could influence similar efforts elsewhere, as other states and cities weigh limits on how federal immigration authorities conduct operations. For now, federal agents in California may continue using face coverings, though they must clearly identify themselves.
