Federal Court Slams California Overreach — Blocks State’s ICE “Unmasking” Law

In a clear rebuke to California’s progressive political leadership, a federal judge has blocked enforcement of a controversial state law aimed at forcing federal immigration agents to go unmasked on the job. The law, dubbed the No Secret Police Act, was passed by Democratic lawmakers and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom last year in a politically charged effort to so-called “unmask” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers — a move that federal authorities argued would jeopardize officer safety and undermine federal authority.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder halted the law’s enforcement after the Justice Department sued, asserting it violated the Constitution by singling out federal officers for special regulation. The judge agreed, finding the statute discriminated against federal agents by banning their use of masks while exempting state police — a carve-out that effectively treated federal law enforcement differently than other officers. This unequal treatment, the court said, runs afoul of constitutionally grounded principles of federal supremacy.

The blocked provision would have prohibited federal agents from wearing masks, ski masks, neck gaiters, or other facial coverings during routine operations — even when doing so might protect their identities from hostile actors who track and harass them online. Authorities for the Department of Homeland Security contended that ICE and other federal officers face real threats, including doxxing, violence, and targeted intimidation, and should be able to safeguard themselves as needed.

While the judge prevented California from imposing the mask ban, she did uphold another provision of the state’s law requiring law enforcement to display clear identification — including agency affiliation and badge numbers — while on duty. That part of the law will go into effect later this month.

California officials argued the mask ban was meant to promote “transparency” in federal enforcement actions. But critics pointed out that it was nothing more than a symbolic attack on lawful federal immigration efforts and an invitation for activists to single out officers. Federal authorities have made clear they will not comply with state efforts to regulate how federal officers dress or conduct official duties.

The ruling is a reminder that states cannot dictate the uniforms, tactics, or operational choices of federal agencies, especially when those choices are grounded in officer safety and national enforcement priorities. It also sets a precedent for other states considering similar laws, underscoring the constitutional limits of state power.