Judge partially blocks California law baring ICE

A federal decide partially blocked a California law banning federal immigration brokers from obscuring their faces with masks, but ordered that they put on clear identification exhibiting their badge quantity and company. The decide wrote, however, that masks bans “serve the public interest by promoting transparency,” opening the door for an amended invoice that might in the end reinstate the law.

After California grew to become the first state to ban most law enforcement brokers from sporting facial coverings, the Trump administration challenged the law in a lawsuit that alleged the masks are mandatory to shield brokers who are going through important will increase in violence, harassment and doxing. The administration has incessantly cited these alleged dangers despite few officers having worn masks before 2025, and while offering little evidence of their veracity.

Judge Christina Snyder said the ban, as enacted, didn’t apply to state law enforcement businesses, which discriminated against the federal authorities, though she left open the chance that future laws might ban federal brokers from sporting masks.

“The Court finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks,” she wrote on Monday. “The presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”

California State Sen. Scott Weiner, who proposed the original bill to ban facial coverings, said Monday he introduced new legislation to reinsert state law enforcement agencies into the proposed law.

“We removed state police based on conversations with the Governor’s office,” Weiner wrote on social media. “Adding state officers back in will allow us to enforce the law against all law enforcement. We will unmask these thugs and hold them accountable.

“Unmasking ICE and CBP agents is a critical step to holding them accountable for the terror they are inflicting on communities. Without identification, there is no accountability. We need to end the air of impunity driving ICE’s assault & hold agents accountable for violence,” Weiner wrote.

At a Jan. 14 hearing, Snyder repeatedly asked the government’s lawyer, Tiberius Davis, to explain why banning masks would impede the federal law enforcement in carrying out their duties, if officers rarely wore masks prior to 2025, according to The Associated Press.

Davis cited claims by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that there has been a multifold increase in assaults and threats against federal officers. He also brought up an incident in Los Angeles where three women are being accused of livestreaming while following an ICE agent home and posting the address on Instagram.

“There is real deterrence on the officer’s safety and ability to perform their duties,” Davis said.

Cameron Bell, California Department of Justice attorney, challenged his claims, saying there was no concrete evidence that federal brokers can’t carry out their duties without facial coverings.

Bell referenced declarations from U.S residents who have been detained by federal brokers but thought they have been being kidnapped.

“It’s obvious why these laws are in the public interest,” Bell said.

The federal authorities also argued in legal briefs that permitting California’s laws may lead other states to be “emboldened to impose similar unconstitutional restraints.”

Davis cited a assertion from Newsom in July 2025 during an interview posted online where he mentioned the masks ban invoice, saying, “It appears that we don’t have the legal authority for federal agents but we do for other law enforcement authorities.”

Los Angeles County supervisors voted in December to enact a local ordinance banning law enforcement from sporting masks that went into impact Jan. 8. However, the sheriff’s division said it will not implement the ordinance until after the court ruled on the statewide masks ban.

The Los Angeles Police Department had also said it wouldn’t implement the masks ban.