Federal Judge Delivers Win for ICE Agents Over California’s Discriminatory Mask Ban
In a significant victory for federal law enforcement, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder—a Clinton appointee—struck down California’s controversial “No Secret Police Act” on Monday, ruling it unconstitutional for unfairly targeting ICE agents while exempting state officers from the same mask restrictions.
Signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September 2025, the measure sought to prohibit federal, city, and county officers from wearing masks to conceal identities during routine operations, ostensibly to promote “transparency” and curb alleged abuses in immigration enforcement.
Yet the law’s glaring exemption for state law enforcement, including the California Highway Patrol, exposed its selective nature, prompting the judge to issue a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement.
Judge Snyder declared in her 30-page opinion, “The Act treats federal law enforcement officers differently than similarly situated state law enforcement officers.”
She further noted, “The court finds that these acts serve the public interest by promoting transparency, which is essential for accountability and public trust,” but emphasized there was “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” — though she rejected the federal argument that masks were needed solely to prevent doxxing.
This ruling reinforces federal supremacy and protects ICE agents’ ability to operate effectively without arbitrary state interference, especially in high-risk immigration enforcement scenarios.
Newsom’s Signature Law Exposed as Flawed and Politically Motivated
Gov. Gavin Newsom, who championed the bill alongside Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener, framed it as a stand against “secret police” tactics, but the court’s decision highlights how the law’s discriminatory design undermined its own goals.
While Newsom also signed the companion “No Vigilantes Act”—requiring all officers to visibly display identification, which the judge upheld as applying more broadly—the mask ban’s carve-out for state officers revealed a clear bias against federal agents enforcing immigration laws.
In response to the setback, Newsom’s office pointed fingers at Wiener for unilaterally exempting state officers, while Wiener announced plans to propose new legislation extending the ban to include state law enforcement.
Such back-and-forth finger-pointing underscores the rushed, partisan nature of California’s anti-ICE push, which critics argue prioritizes political theater over practical public safety or consistent accountability.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli celebrated the outcome, stating, “States do not have the authority to regulate federal agents. Scott Wiener and California’s Governor tried to mislead the public by claiming they could prevent agents from wearing masks, making it easier to dox them.
That state law has now been officially blocked by a federal judge. Let this serve as a reminder that these politicians are willing to mislead you about what is actually lawful.”
Ruling Highlights California’s Pattern of Hindering Federal Enforcement
The decision comes amid ongoing tensions between California and the Trump administration over immigration policy, where state leaders like Newsom have repeatedly sought to obstruct federal operations through targeted legislation.
By attempting to strip ICE agents of protective anonymity while allowing state officers the same option, the “No Secret Police Act” appeared more focused on hamstringing border security efforts than fostering genuine transparency.
Though the upheld identification requirement promotes accountability across the board, the struck-down mask ban serves as yet another example of California’s overreach—crafting laws that single out federal officers in ways that courts ultimately reject. This outcome protects frontline ICE personnel from unnecessary risks and reaffirms that states cannot unilaterally dictate how federal law enforcement safeguards the nation.
