California can't ban federal officers from wearing masks, judge says

U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder on Monday blocked California from enforcing a ban on federal law enforcement officers wearing masks during operations. In a split ruling in the legal fight between the federal government and Gov. Gavin Newsom's administration, the court issued a preliminary injunction stopping enforcement of the mask prohibition contained in the "No Secret Police Act" (SB 627).

"The court acknowledges that there may be situations where masking or concealing identification is reasonable or even essential to federal operations, such as for undercover operations," Snyder wrote in her ruling.

At the heart of the decision was Snyder's conclusion that the mask ban unlawfully discriminates against the federal government, in violation of the supremacy clause. California argued the law was needed to prevent public "terror" and help residents distinguish legitimate officers from criminal imposters.

But the court pointed out that while the act applies to federal and local law enforcement, it expressly exempts California state officers, including members of the California Highway Patrol. Under the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, the ruling explained, states may not impose discriminatory burdens on the federal government. U.S.A. v. State of California et al., 2:25-cv-10999 (C.D. Cal, filed Nov. 17, 2025).

The judge, however, rejected the Justice Department's broader claim that the ban amounted to an unconstitutional regulation of federal functions. Snyder found that federal agents could still carry out their duties without wearing masks and that the ban did not, by itself, substantially interfere with federal operations. What ultimately doomed the provision was its unequal treatment of federal officers compared with similarly situated state law enforcement.

By contrast, the court declined to block the "No Vigilantes Act" (SB 805), which requires non-uniformed officers to clearly display their agency and badge numbers. Snyder determined that these identification requirements are neutral, generally applicable rules--similar to traffic laws--that only incidentally affect federal operations while serving the public interest.

The court stayed the injunction until Feb. 19, to allow time for further legal coordination.