Full story
Judge Halts Mask Ban
A federal judge blocked New York’s law barring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from wearing masks and requiring visible identification, issuing a preliminary injunction that put the state’s “mask ban” on hold.
“New York can’t ban federal agents from wearing face coverings or require that they wear visible identification”
U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino wrote that the measures “directly regulate federal officers in violation of the Supremacy Clause,” and the ruling meant local police officers could not arrest ICE agents for covering their faces in public settings.
The decision came after the federal government sued in June, arguing the state could not dictate how federal immigration officers conduct enforcement operations, and it followed New York’s Democratic-led restrictions signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul in May.
D’Agostino’s 51-page ruling also let stand a separate New York prohibition on 287(g) cooperation agreements between local police departments and ICE, which the state said would take effect later in August.
The AP reported that Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James said they “stand firm in our belief that masked agents do not make New York safer and our offices are reviewing all legal options at this time.”
Competing Claims, Quotes
New York officials framed the 287(g) cooperation ban as a safety and cost issue, saying in a joint statement that “Local law enforcement should be focused on local matters, and New York taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for any collaboration with ICE.”
In contrast, the Trump administration and federal lawyers argued that states cannot regulate federal officers, with a DOJ lawyer saying “The key harm here is to the sovereign function of the United States,” during oral arguments on July 21.
Courts in other states had already blocked similar face-covering restrictions, and the Guardian reported that the preliminary ruling meant local police officers were blocked from arresting ICE agents for covering their faces in public settings.
D’Agostino acknowledged New York’s transparency rationale but ruled the question was constitutional, writing that “the issue now before the Court is about constitutionality—not transparency or preferable policy decisions.”
The Guardian also reported that James Percival, a general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, reacted on X that Democratic-led states “continue to stack losses as they try to pass unconstitutional bans on ICE officers wearing masks.”
What Happens Next
With the mask and identification provisions enjoined, the case leaves the 287(g) cooperation ban in place while the litigation proceeds, and the Guardian reported it was allowed to stand because it was an “appropriate means of furthering New York’s legitimate interests in protecting public welfare and choosing how state and local resources are expended.”
“appropriate means of furthering New York’s legitimate interests in protecting public welfare”
The Hill reported that D’Agostino declined to block the separate law barring local law enforcement agencies from partnering with ICE, and it said the so-called 287(g) agreements were set to take effect later this month.
The Center Square reported that Hochul signed the “Local Cops Local Crimes Act” in May, and it said the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in June challenging the law’s constitutionality.
In the ruling’s framing, D’Agostino wrote that New York “cannot impose its own uniform requirements on federal agents simply because it disagrees with how the Federal Government is exercising its authority,” and that language underpinned the preliminary injunction against the mask ban.
AP News said the face-coverings and identification measures took effect in June, while the judge’s decision was expected to have implications nationwide for other states that pursued their own measures to restrict immigration agents.
