ICE Masks

2 states, 3 proceedings tracked · Active

Several states have enacted laws restricting when law-enforcement officers, including federal immigration officers, may conceal their faces, and requiring those officers to display identification. California's 2025 No Secret Police Act and No Vigilantes Act, and New York's 2026 Face Covering Act (enacted as part of budget bill S9005C), are the leading examples. The federal government has filed offensive lawsuits to block these laws, arguing that under the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity a state may not regulate how federal officers carry out their duties. The courts have largely sided with the federal government so far, on Supremacy Clause and intergovernmental-immunity grounds: the Ninth Circuit has enjoined California's officer-identification requirement pending appeal, and a federal judge in New York has enjoined that state's face-covering and identification provisions while leaving a separate provision in place. This page tracks those cases as they develop.

California (No Vigilantes Act)

United States v. California (No Secret Police and No Vigilantes Acts)

2:25-cv-10999 · C.D. Cal. · 2025-11-17

The United States challenges California's 2025 No Secret Police Act and No Vigilantes Act, which restrict federal immigration officers from concealing their faces and require them to display identification. Before Judge Christina A. Snyder, the government sought to block the laws and then took an emergency appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

On Appeal → Full case page

District docket (CourtListener)

California (No Vigilantes Act)

Ninth Circuit enjoins the identification requirement (No. 26-926)

26-926 · 9th Cir. · 2026-04-22

On April 22, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel (Judges Nguyen, Bennett, and Collins, in an opinion by Judge Bennett) granted the government's motion for an injunction pending appeal, enjoining California, Governor Newsom, and Attorney General Bonta from enforcing Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act (California Penal Code Section 13654) against federal agencies and officers. Section 10 requires non-uniformed federal law-enforcement officers to visibly display identification while performing their duties, on pain of criminal prosecution. The panel held the United States is likely to succeed on its claim that the provision violates the Supremacy Clause because it directly regulates the federal government in performing its functions, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. A further oral argument in the appeal is scheduled for August 25, 2026 in Pasadena.

On Appeal

Ninth Circuit Opinion, injunction pending appeal (Apr 22, 2026) Ninth Circuit docket (CourtListener)

New York (Face Covering Act)

United States v. New York: preliminary injunction granted in part

1:26-cv-01360 · N.D.N.Y. · 2026-07-13

The United States brought facial challenges to New York's 2026 budget bill S9005C, including Civil Rights Law section 101 (the Face Covering Act, barring law-enforcement officers, including federal officers, from wearing facial coverings in certain circumstances), section 102 (the Identification Act), and Executive Law section 170-k (the Termination Act). On August 3, 2026, Judge Mae A. D'Agostino granted the preliminary injunction in part and denied it in part. She preliminarily enjoined New York from enforcing the Face Covering Act and the Identification Act against the federal government, while denying the injunction as to the Termination Act, finding the government had not shown a likelihood of success on that provision.

Active

Memorandum-Decision and Order (Aug 3, 2026) District docket (CourtListener)