DOJ Halts California’s Unconstitutional Mask Ban on ICE Agents

The U.S. Department of Justice has successfully paused enforcement of California’s controversial “No Secret Police Act” (SB 627), a law championed by State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) that sought to prohibit law enforcement officers—including federal ICE agents—from wearing face coverings during operations. 

In November, the Globe reported:

Upon signing the legislation, Newsom’s office announced, “Standing alongside leaders of communities terrorized by Trump’s lawless raids across Southern California, Governor Gavin Newsom today signed a groundbreaking package of bills to respond to federal overreach and push back against Trump and Stephen Miller’s ‘secret police’ tactics in California. The new laws make California the first state in the nation to prohibit federal law enforcement officers, including ICE, from hiding their identities, and make it less likely that federal immigration enforcement officers target children in classrooms and patients in hospitals.”

The “No Vigilantes Act,” Senate Bill 805 requires ICE, Border Patrol, and Homeland Security agents operating in California to clearly identify themselves while conducting operations.

Upon its passage, California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas chimed in, referring to ICE agents as “Donald Trump’s secret police,” and said they “are terrorizing hardworking Californians — but Democrats are fighting back to keep our communities safe from Trump’s heartless and illegal ICE raids. Secret police are un-American. These new laws make it clear: Show some ID, masks off. We will fight as long as it takes to protect California.”

The pause underscores the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, reminding California Democrats that they cannot dictate terms to federal immigration enforcement, especially under the Trump administration’s renewed focus on border security and his campaign pledge of mass deportations of criminal illegal aliens. 

The drama unfolded publicly on X (formerly Twitter) this week, highlighting the vast divide between California’s progressive elite and those committed to upholding federal law. 

On January 1, 2026—the day the law was slated to take effect—Wiener posted a triumphant video declaring, “My anti-masking law is now officially in effect. In California, law enforcement can no longer hide behind face coverings. I’ve stood up to Trump and his reign of terror as your State Senator, and I will continue to do so as your future Congressman.”

Framed as a stand against “ICE terrorizing immigrant communities,” Wiener’s rhetoric painted federal agents as villains, conveniently ignoring the real threats they face from doxxing, harassment, and violence by radical Democratic activists. The DOJ reports over a thousand percent increase in violence against federal law enforcement officers.

This isn't true. California has no authority to regulate federal agents. This state law violates the federal Supremacy Clause. We have asked a federal judge to strike it down, and a hearing is scheduled for January 12. In the meantime, California has agreed to put the law on hold… https://t.co/uuL7q30KuN pic.twitter.com/YOquo4yNEl

— F.A. United States Attorney Bill Essayli (@USAttyEssayli) January 2, 2026

Bill Essayli, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, swiftly debunked Wiener’s claim. In a response post viewed over 270,000 times, Essayli shared court documents from the ongoing federal lawsuit, United States v. State of California (Case No. 2:25-cv-10999), filed November 17, 2025. 

“This isn’t true,” Essayli wrote. “California has no authority to regulate federal agents. This state law violates the federal Supremacy Clause. We have asked a federal judge to strike it down, and a hearing is scheduled for January 12. In the meantime, California has agreed to put the law on hold and not enforce its unconstitutional mask ban, which is designed to allow radical leftists to dox federal agents enforcing immigration laws.”

Essayli’s post included a joint stipulation approved by U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder on December 9, 2025, which stays California’s response to the DOJ’s complaint until after a ruling on the preliminary injunction. Within 21 days of that decision, the parties must propose a schedule for further proceedings. This agreement effectively halts SB 627’s enforcement against federal officers, protecting them from state interference.

SB 627, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 20, 2025, amends California’s penal code to make it a misdemeanor for law enforcement to wear masks or disguises that conceal their identity during official duties, with limited exceptions for health or safety. Wiener touted it as the nation’s first “anti-masking” measure for police, explicitly targeting ICE amid fears of mass deportations under President Trump. The statute attempts to regulate federal agents, a clear violation of constitutional principles established in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where states cannot impede federal operations.

The DOJ’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that SB 627 (and a related law requiring badge displays) unconstitutionally burdens federal immigration enforcement. 

ICE agents often wear masks for operational security—to protect against identification by criminal networks, including cartels and human traffickers. By forcing agents to unmask, California risks their safety and undermines national security efforts. As the complaint states, “Federal officers must be able to perform their duties without state-imposed restrictions that expose them to harm.”

This isn’t California’s first clash with federal immigration law. California has long positioned itself as a sanctuary state, with policies like SB 54 (2017) limiting local cooperation with ICE. Wiener’s bill fits this pattern: virtue-signaling to progressive voters while endangering those on the front lines. Running for Congress in a deep-blue San Francisco district, Wiener’s post smacks of campaign pandering, exaggerating the law’s impact despite the federal injunction.

As the January 12 hearing approaches, all eyes are on Judge Snyder. A favorable ruling for the DOJ could permanently invalidate the law, reinforcing federal supremacy in immigration enforcement. Wiener’s premature victory lap exposes the hubris of California’s one-party rule. In the end, the Constitution—not progressive posturing—will decide.