Judge Strikes Down California’s Ban on Masks for Federal Agents

But the state can require federal agents to display identification, the judge said. The Trump administration had asked the court to block both laws.

A federal judge on Monday struck down California’s law prohibiting federal law enforcement agents from wearing face masks but upheld a companion measure requiring them to display identification. The split ruling allowed California Democrats and the Trump administration each to claim a partial win.

Judge Christina A. Snyder of U.S. District Court in Los Angeles issued a preliminary injunction blocking the mask law. She ruled that it was unconstitutional because it exempted state law enforcement officers, making it discriminatory.

“The act treats federal law enforcement officers differently than similarly situated state law enforcement officers,” wrote Judge Snyder, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, whose Justice Department had challenged the California law, issued a triumphant statement on social media.

“We will continue fighting and winning in court for President Trump’s law-and-order agenda — and we will ALWAYS have the backs of our great federal law enforcement officers,” she wrote.

However, the judge rejected the Trump administration’s argument that California’s mask ban amounted to an unconstitutional regulation of the federal government. She suggested that the ban would be lawful if it applied to all officers, and she ruled that the state could enforce a separate law that requires all law enforcement officers to display visible identification.

State Senator Scott Wiener, a Democrat who wrote the mask law, responded to the ruling by swiftly drafting a new bill to include state officers in the ban.

“I will do everything in my power to expedite passage of this adjustment,” Mr. Wiener said in a statement. “We will unmask these thugs and hold them accountable.”

Mr. Wiener said he had excluded state officers from the mask law at the request of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office. Aides to the governor disputed that account, saying that Mr. Wiener had rejected amendments proposed by the governor’s office.

The governor lauded the judge’s ruling on the identification requirement, calling it “a clear win for the rule of law.”

“No badge and no name mean no accountability,” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement. “California will keep standing up for civil rights and our democracy.”

Mr. Newsom signed legislation in September that made California the first state in the nation to prohibit law enforcement officers from covering their faces; it took effect on Jan. 1. Federal agents began wearing masks more regularly during immigration raids last year in large part to avoid being identified by activists.

The Trump administration argued in court that the law was unconstitutional because states could not regulate federal agencies. It also said that California’s law was discriminatory because it applied to local and federal officers, but not to those employed by the state.

The federal government contended that its agents needed to be able to protect their identity from protesters who threatened to harass or harm them and their families.

“Denying federal agencies and officers that choice would chill federal law enforcement and deter applicants for law enforcement positions,” the Justice Department wrote in its lawsuit.

It cited examples of harassment and violence against immigration authorities. Among them were cases involving a man who was arrested on suspicion of posting an ICE lawyer’s personal information online; three women who were accused of following an ICE agent to his home and posting his address on Instagram; and a gunman who fired shots at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement center in Dallas, killing two immigrant detainees.

In her ruling on Monday, Judge Snyder rejected that part of the government’s argument and said that federal agents could perform their duties without masks. She wrote that federal officers, like many other public figures, face risks but that “these harms are the result of criminal behavior.”

“A rule that prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing masks or requires them to have visible identification does not facilitate or enable criminals to harm law enforcement officers,” the judge added.

In a footnote, she suggested that the state’s mask ban would pass constitutional muster if the law were amended to apply the same rules to federal, state and local agents.

The Trump administration’s lawsuit also challenged a California law that required agents working in the state to wear visible identification, such as a name or a badge number.

Judge Snyder said that the identification law treated all officers similarly, and she rejected the administration’s claim that it was unconstitutional.

Supporters of the laws had argued that unidentifiable masked agents defied the democratic principles of a free and open government that is accountable to the public. They said that California’s prohibition on masks was constitutional because state and local governments could require federal agencies to follow general laws, such as speed limits.

Federal agents have been enforcing immigration laws for many years without covering their faces, the state argued, so the new law does not impede them from performing their core functions.

California had also maintained that “the needless concealment” of officers’ identities made it difficult to hold those who break the law accountable.

Related Content