Federal Judge Blocks California’s Mask Ban for Immigration Agents

A federal judge in Los Angeles has blocked California from enforcing a law that would have banned federal immigration agents from wearing masks, dealing a setback to state lawmakers who crafted the measure to increase accountability during immigration enforcement operations.

U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder issued her ruling Monday, finding that the law, known as the No Secret Police Act, violated federal law by treating federal officers differently than state law enforcement. The decision means the mask ban cannot take effect as written, though the judge left open the possibility that California could pass a revised version that applies equally to all law enforcement.

Background

California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings after the state signed the legislation into law in September 2025. The move came in response to a summer of aggressive immigration raids by federal agents, particularly Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers operating in Los Angeles and across California.

State Senator Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, authored the legislation following what he described as a "terror campaign" by federal immigration agents. The law was designed to require officers to show their identities and remove masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings during routine law enforcement activities.

The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in November challenging the law, arguing that it would threaten officer safety and that California was unconstitutionally regulating the federal government. The state agreed not to enforce the measure against federal agents while the legal challenge was being decided.

Key Details

Why the Judge Blocked the Law

Snyder's ruling focused on a specific flaw in how the law was written. The No Secret Police Act banned federal agents from wearing masks but exempted state law enforcement officers. This unequal treatment, the judge found, violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents states from discriminating against the federal government.

"The No Secret Police Act, as presently enacted, does not apply equally to all law enforcement officers in the state, it unlawfully discriminates against federal officers," the judge wrote.

However, Snyder made clear that the underlying goal of the law was not unconstitutional. She found that federal officers could perform their jobs without wearing masks and that transparency serves the public interest.

"The Court finds that these Acts serve the public interest by promoting transparency which is essential for accountability and public trust. also, the Court finds no cognizable justification for law enforcement officers to conceal their identities during their performance of routine, non-exempted law enforcement functions and interactions with the general public," Snyder wrote.

What Still Stands

The judge upheld a separate California law requiring federal officers to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number while on duty. This requirement remains in effect despite the Trump administration's challenge.

What Happens Next

Wiener announced immediately that he would introduce new legislation to include state officers in the mask ban, which would address the judge's constitutional concerns. The senator said he had consulted with constitutional law experts when drafting the original bill but had removed state police from it based on conversations with Governor Gavin Newsom's office.

Governor Newsom's office disputed this account, stating that Wiener had rejected proposed fixes to the bill and chose a different approach.

The ruling takes effect on February 19.

What This Means

The decision represents a partial victory for both sides. The Trump administration succeeded in blocking the mask ban from taking effect, but the judge's reasoning suggests that a revised law could survive legal challenge if written to apply equally to all law enforcement.

Wiener framed the ruling as a win, saying the judge had confirmed California's authority to regulate mask-wearing by law enforcement. He is also pushing separate legislation called the No Kings Act that would allow people in California to sue federal agents for violating their rights.

The ruling could have national implications as other states consider similar restrictions on federal agents during the Trump administration's immigration enforcement crackdown. The judge's emphasis on the public interest in transparency and accountability suggests that other states might attempt their own versions of mask bans if they apply equally to all law enforcement officers.

The federal government has warned that allowing California's legislation could encourage other states to impose similar restrictions on federal operations. Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress are demanding that immigration agents stop wearing masks as a condition for extending Department of Homeland Security funding.