Left: President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before departing on Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House, Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2026, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon). Right: Department of Homeland Security officers use pepper spray as they clash with protesters outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, Calif., on Jan. 30, 2026. This protest was a part of a national demonstration in opposition to ICE activities across the country (Caylo Seals/Sipa USA).
A federal judge has allowed California to exercise oversight over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in a double-edged ruling that gives a loss — and a win — to both the Trump administration and Golden State officials.
In the underlying litigation, the U.S. Department of Justice took issue with a pair of statutes passed last year by the California legislature and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The "No Secret Police Act" bars federal agents and local law enforcement from wearing masks. The "No Vigilantes Act" requires local, state and federal law enforcement to display their name and badge number while on duty.
California passed the legislation in response to widespread outrage over the actions of ICE agents and other immigration enforcement agencies as the Trump administration ramped up its mass deportation agenda alongside mobilizations of National Guard troops used to quell protests against such actions.
Now, in a 30-page order on a motion for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder, a Bill Clinton appointee, has nixed the relevant provisions of the former law while allowing the latter to take effect.
To hear the court tell it, the major issue working in the federal government's favor on the masking issue is the matter of discrimination against federal agents, albeit incidentally.
"While the Act may be a direct response to recent federal law enforcement practices, the Act's text plainly addresses the harms caused by the use of facial coverings by 'law enforcement' generally during enforcement activities," the opinion reads. "The Act, therefore, does not directly regulate federal functions or target federal practices but rather generally applies to law enforcement officers in California. However, the Act treats federal law enforcement officers differently than similarly situated state law enforcement officers."
At heart, Snyder found, the problem is the explicit discrimination in favor of state law enforcement officials — at the expense of both federal and local law enforcement. So, the judge hints that this is a problem with how the law is "presently enacted." Snyder goes on to suggest the state could simply universalize the prohibition to include state law enforcement officials "such as California Highway Patrol officers."
Snyder, however, repeatedly emphasizes that the basic thrust of each law is on fairly solid ground despite her ruling.
"Although the challenged provisions dictate how a federal officer may carry out his law enforcement duties—prohibiting a facial covering and requiring the display of visible identification that includes their agency and either a name or badge number in non-exempted circumstances—the Court finds them analogous to traffic laws that, in a similar sense, dictate how a federal officer may operate a vehicle on state roads but are nonetheless enforceable against federal officers, subject to immunities," the judge writes.
Notably, the DOJ did not challenge the name and badge number requirement as discriminatory. Snyder suspects this is because the law applies to state, local, and federal law enforcement equally.
"The Court finds that these Acts serve the public interest by promoting transparency which is essential for accountability and public trust," the opinion goes on. "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."
After the court's ruling, California legislators quickly signaled their intent to reconfigure the mask law to include state officials.
Snyder, in a lengthy section of the order, makes clear that the Trump administration's broader concerns about the law's impact on law enforcement are not likely to hold the day.
"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," the order continues. "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 rejects a more specific argument, at length:
[T]he Court is not persuaded by the United States' arguments that enforcement of the challenged provisions against federal officers would interfere with federal duties by facilitating evasion of arrest. The United States argues that federal law enforcement officers have encountered situations where people blow whistles to alert those nearby of the presence of enforcement operations, and that there are websites dedicated to tracking federal immigration officers. [B]lowing whistles, recording officers, posting those recordings online, or otherwise communicating about the public presence of a law enforcement officer is generally protected by the First Amendment.
Snyder also rubbishes the notion that masking "is necessary for federal law enforcement" because, at present, the masks worn by ICE — and other immigration agents — are not mandatory or required, but, rather, simply personal wardrobe choices.
"If masking or concealing identification were as critical to federal operations as the United States asserts, the Court would expect that federal agencies would not leave such decisions to the discretion of individual officers," the order goes on.
The court stayed its ruling until Feb. 19, which will give the DOJ a chance to file several appeals before the law takes effect.