- “Why can’t they perform their duties without a mask? They did that until 2025, did they not?” – Justice Christina A. Snyder
- “These were clearly and purposefully targeted at the federal government.” – Tiberius Davis, Justice Department lawyer
A federal judge on Wednesday sharply questioned the Trump administration’s effort to block a new California law banning most law enforcement officers from wearing masks while conducting operations, signaling skepticism toward claims that the statute unlawfully interferes with federal immigration enforcement.
At a hearing in Los Angeles federal court, Justice Department lawyer Tiberius Davis urged U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder to halt enforcement of the law, arguing that California’s ban on face coverings and requirement that officers display identification would undermine federal authority and place Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at risk.
“Why couldn’t California say every immigration officer needs to wear pink, so it’s super obvious who they are?” Davis asked during the hearing. “The idea that all 50 states can regulate the conduct and uniforms of officers … flips the Constitution on its head.”
Snyder appeared unconvinced, repeatedly questioning why officers could not perform their duties without concealing their identities.
“Why can’t they perform their duties without a mask? They did that until 2025, did they not?” Snyder said. “How in the world do those who don’t mask manage to operate?”
The dispute centers on two laws signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in November: the No Secret Police Act and the No Vigilantes Act. Together, they prohibit law enforcement officers from concealing their faces and require them to display identifying information while conducting enforcement operations in California. Violations would be misdemeanors under state law.
The Trump administration sued California soon after the laws were enacted, arguing they are unconstitutional, discriminatory and dangerous. Federal officials have said they will not comply if the laws are allowed to take effect.
“These were clearly and purposefully targeted at the federal government,” Davis told the court. “Federal officers face prosecution if they do not comply with California law, but California officers do not.”
The administration has emphasized an exemption in the law for California state peace officers, arguing that it unfairly singles out federal agents. The California Highway Patrol is among those exempted, while city and county agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department, would be required to comply.
The hearing comes amid heightened public scrutiny of ICE following the fatal shooting of American protester Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, an incident that has intensified public anger and drawn attention to masked federal agents operating without visible identification.
California Department of Justice lawyer Cameron Bell argued that the laws are narrowly tailored, rooted in longstanding practice and necessary to protect public safety.
“It’s obvious why these laws are in the public interest,” Bell told the court. “The state has had to bear the cost of the federal government’s actions. These are very real consequences.”
Bell pointed to declarations filed by U.S. citizens who said they feared they were being abducted by criminals when confronted by masked immigration agents, leading to confusion and emergency calls to local police.
“I later learned that my mother and sister witnessed the incident and reported to the Los Angeles Police Department that I was kidnapped,” Angeleno Andrea Velez said in one such declaration. “Because of my mother’s call, LAPD showed up to the raid.”
The administration has argued in court filings that the laws would expose agents to harassment, doxxing and violence, and would chill aggressive enforcement of immigration law.
“The laws would recklessly endanger the lives of federal agents and their family members and compromise the operational effectiveness of federal law enforcement activities,” the government said in its filings.
Davis told the court that ICE’s current tactics are necessary in part because California and other states have adopted sanctuary-style policies that limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, as well as restrictions on enforcement actions in sensitive locations such as schools and courthouses.
California countered that federal evidence showing enforcement would be impaired is weak and inconsistent. Bell directly challenged Department of Homeland Security statistics claiming an 8,000% increase in death threats against ICE agents and a 1,000% increase in assaults, saying the agency has changed how it defines threats and that similar claims have faced scrutiny in federal court.
“Blowing a whistle to alert the community, that’s hardly something that increases threats,” Bell said.
On the identification requirement, Snyder suggested that anonymity itself could create harm.
“One might argue that there’s serious harm to the government if agents’ anonymity is preserved,” she said.
The judge also indicated that the fate of the law may hinge on the exemption for California peace officers, questioning whether the discrimination argument would persist if the legislature amended the statute.
“Would your discrimination argument go away if the state changed legislation to apply to all officers?” Snyder asked.
“I believe so,” Davis replied.
The laws were scheduled to take effect Jan. 1 but are currently on hold while the court considers the federal government’s request for a preliminary injunction. Snyder did not issue an immediate ruling, though a decision could come as soon as this week.
If the laws are upheld, California would become the first state in the nation to prohibit federal law enforcement officers, including ICE agents, from concealing their identities while carrying out enforcement operations.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has criticized the measures, saying they endanger officers and violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
“Law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to keep Americans safe, and they do not deserve to be doxed or harassed simply for carrying out their duties,” Bondi said in a statement included in court filings. “California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents. These laws cannot stand.”
In its lawsuit, the Department of Justice has made clear it does not intend to comply with the challenged laws if they go into effect.
“Assaults against federal agents have exploded over the last few months, thanks in part to reckless political rhetoric aiming to de-legitimize our brave agents,” First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said when the suit was filed. “Unconstitutional laws such as this one further endanger our brave men and women protecting our community.”
California lawmakers and state officials have defended the legislation as a transparency measure intended to prevent confusion, abuse and erosion of public trust, particularly in immigrant communities and among U.S. citizens mistakenly targeted during enforcement actions.
The case now awaits Snyder’s ruling, which will determine whether the laws take effect or remain blocked as the constitutional challenge proceeds.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
