LA Judge Questions if California Mask Law Impedes ICE Agents

Concerns that unmasking federal immigration agents will lead to public harassment may not be enough to strike California’s new law requiring them to show their faces, a federal judge signaled Wednesday, asking for more evidence that operations would be affected.

Judge Christina Snyder asked repeatedly for a Justice Department attorney to explain what about the state’s law forcing agents to identify themselves “actually impedes” the federal government from carrying out immigration enforcement operations.

“Obviously, we do not want law enforcement officers being doxxed,” Snyder said. But, she said DOJ’s argument that agents must mask to avoid harassment from having their personal information exposed is “kind of a false concern,” because state law criminalizes such actions, known as doxxing.

The US sued California in November, seeking to block enforcement of the No Secret Police Act (SB 627) and No Vigilantes Act (SB 805). The laws prohibit federal agents from wearing masks and require them to display their agency and name or badge number, with some exceptions for safety and undercover work. They’re part of a 2025 package by California lawmakers meant to fight the Trump administration’s immigration policies, addressing concerns that masking created opportunities for civilians to pose as agents and reduced officers’ accountability.

Snyder will decide whether the laws are regulations unlawfully controlling the federal government—or permissible, general laws that happen to impact US agents.

DOJ’s Tiberius Davis argued that the masks are necessary as community organizations are tracking immigration agents, filming and posting them, and providing warnings that allow people to “evade” operations. It would be an overreach for the California government to interfere with agents’ uniforms, he said and an attempt by California to regulate the federal government.

Snyder asked Davis to identify evidence that the laws negatively impact federal immigration enforcement. Recruitment for ICE is booming, Snyder noted. Immigration agents didn’t commonly mask until 2025, she said.

Also, she said, “your argument is somewhat belied by the fact that masking is discretionary among ICE agents.”

“How do those who don’t mask manage to operate?” Snyder said.

Snyder, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, did have some concerns about the laws.

DOJ argued that because one only to federal and local law enforcement officers, not California state officers, it unlawfully singles out federal agents.

The argument prompted her to ask attorney Cameron Bell, of the California Justice Department, if it would be easy for the state legislature to amend that law, SB 627, to apply to all officers.

She also asked Bell to address Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) July comment that “it appears we don’t have legal authority for federal agents” to impose a masking law.

“What should I make of what the governor has had to say about all of this?” Snyder said.

Newsom’s comments are “legally irrelevant,” Bell said.

Snyder took the matter under submission.

The laws were set to take effect Jan. 1, but California agreed not to enforce them until Snyder rules on the preliminary injunction request.

The case is USA v. California, C.D. Cal., No. 2:25-cv-10999, 1/14/26.