SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal judge has blocked enforcement of California’s law banning federal and local law enforcement officers from wearing masks during operations, ruling that the statute likely violates the Constitution because it excludes state officers while regulating federal and local law enforcement.
The decision from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California places a hold on the masking provision of Senate Bill 627, known as the No Secret Police Act, while leaving intact a separate requirement that all law enforcement officers, including federal agents, must display visible identification while conducting enforcement operations in California.
The ruling does not conclude that California lacks authority to regulate whether federal agents may wear masks.
Instead, the court found that the law’s differential treatment of federal and local officers, while exempting state law enforcement, creates constitutional problems under federal supremacy doctrine.
The judge indicated that a law banning masks could be enforceable if it applies uniformly to all law enforcement officers operating in the state.
Gov. Gavin Newsom emphasized that the court’s decision upheld the identification requirement, which he characterized as a key accountability measure.
“A federal court upheld California’s law requiring federal agents to identify themselves — a clear win for the rule of law,” Newsom said in a statement issued after the ruling. “No badge and no name mean no accountability. California will keep standing up for civil rights and our democracy.”
The case arose amid heightened scrutiny of federal immigration enforcement tactics, including the use of face coverings by officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection during arrests and operations.
Supporters of SB 627 argued that masking by officers undermines transparency, increases fear in immigrant communities and shields officers from accountability, while opponents contended that masks are sometimes necessary for officer safety.
U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder rejected arguments from the federal government that masking is essential to federal law enforcement operations.
In excerpts from her ruling, Snyder wrote that federal authorities failed to demonstrate that state regulations on masking and identification improperly interfere with federal functions.
“The United States has not shown that its current practices with respect to masking and identification are essential to federal law enforcement operations such that state regulations in those areas seek to interfere with or control federal law enforcement functions,” Snyder wrote.
She also underscored the public interest served by transparency requirements.
“The Court finds that these Acts serve the public interest by promoting transparency, which is essential for accountability and public trust,” Snyder wrote. “Moreover, 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.”
While the masking provision was paused, the court upheld the companion identification requirements, concluding they fall within the state’s police powers.
The ruling affirms that California may require federal agents operating within its borders to wear visible identification during enforcement activities.
State Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat and the author of SB 627, responded by announcing plans to immediately introduce new legislation to address the court’s concerns.
Wiener said the revised bill, Senate Bill 1004, will extend the mask ban to state law enforcement officers, placing federal, state and local agencies under the same rules.
“Today’s federal court ruling is a huge win: The Court ruled that California has the power to protect our community by banning officers, including federal agents, from wearing masks and thus inflicting terror and shielding themselves from accountability,” Wiener said in a statement. “The Court also ruled that for our No Secret Police Act, SB 627, to be enforceable it must apply to all levels of police — not just federal and local officers but also state officers.”
Wiener said SB 627 was originally drafted in consultation with constitutional law experts, but state officers were ultimately removed from the bill during negotiations.
He said the court’s ruling makes clear that their exclusion must be corrected.
“Now that the Court has made clear that state officers must be included, I am immediately introducing new legislation to include state officers,” Wiener said. “I will do everything in my power to expedite passage of this adjustment to the No Secret Police Act.”
Advocacy groups supporting the law echoed Wiener’s framing of the ruling as a partial victory. Prosecutors Alliance Action, a co-sponsor of SB 627, said the decision affirms California’s authority to regulate masking and identification by law enforcement as long as the rules apply equally.
“Today’s decision affirms what we’ve long known: federal agents don’t need masks to do their jobs,” said Cristine Soto DeBerry, executive director of Prosecutors Alliance Action. “The No Secret Police Act is critical to protecting everyone — community members and law enforcement alike — by guaranteeing transparency and accountability.”
The organization said it will co-sponsor the new legislation to add state law enforcement officers to the mask ban, closing the gap identified by the court and restoring enforceability.
The group also pointed to the court’s decision to uphold the identification requirement as evidence that California retains broad authority to regulate how law enforcement operates within the state.
Law enforcement organizations, however, sharply criticized both the law and the court’s ruling.
The Peace Officers Research Association of California said the decision exposes what it called fundamental flaws in SB 627 and argued that the statute unfairly targets non-federal officers while failing to meaningfully regulate federal agents.
“Today’s court ruling confirms what PORAC has been saying about SB 627 all along — the bill was a political maneuver that deceived Californians, especially our immigrant communities, about the state’s ability to regulate the actions of federal law enforcement agents,” said Brian R. Marvel, the group’s president. He said that with federal agents effectively exempt from the masking ban under the current statute, local peace officers are left facing new restrictions that could compromise safety.
Marvel said the organization warned lawmakers about the bill’s legal vulnerabilities and proposed amendments it believes would have addressed them.
He said PORAC is now working with the governor and legislative leaders ahead of the 2026 legislative session to pursue changes.
Despite the pause on enforcement of the mask ban, supporters of the law emphasized that the ruling leaves the door open for a revised statute that applies equally to all law enforcement officers.
Wiener characterized the decision as affirming the state’s power while identifying a fixable defect in the existing law.
“The Court ruled that California has the power to ban federal agents from wearing ski masks and also ruled that the ban must include state officers,” Wiener said. “We will ensure our mask ban can be enforced.”
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.
U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder is a registered Democrat appointed by Bill Clinton.