On Monday, February 9, 2026, a federal judge in Los Angeles struck down California’s controversial law prohibiting federal law enforcement agents, including those from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), from wearing masks while performing their duties. The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over law enforcement transparency, federal-state relations, and public accountability in California.
Judge Snyder’s ruling blocked the enforcement of the so-called “No Secret Police Act,” a law signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2025. The act sought to ban any law enforcement officer from wearing a facial covering during their official duties, except in specific scenarios such as SWAT operations or undercover assignments. However, the law had a notable exemption: it did not apply to officers employed by the state of California. This carve-out would ultimately prove fatal to its constitutionality in the eyes of the court.
“The act treats federal law enforcement officers differently than similarly situated state law enforcement officers,” Judge Snyder wrote in her decision, as reported by Politico. She concluded that this unequal treatment violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from discriminating against the federal government. “Because such discrimination violates the Supremacy Clause, the Court is constrained to enjoin the facial covering prohibition,” Snyder stated.
While the ruling marked a defeat for those who championed the mask ban as a means to increase law enforcement transparency, it was not a total loss for California’s efforts to hold officers accountable. In the same decision, Judge Snyder upheld a companion measure: the “No Vigilantes Act.” This law requires any law enforcement officer operating in California—local, state, or federal—to visibly display identification, including their agency and either their name or badge number, with exceptions only for undercover or tactical situations. “No badge and no name mean no accountability. California will keep standing up for civil rights and our democracy,” Governor Newsom said in a statement following the ruling, according to The Los Angeles Times.
The split nature of Judge Snyder’s ruling allowed both sides of the political spectrum to claim partial victory. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who led the Trump administration’s legal challenge against the mask ban, celebrated the outcome as “ANOTHER key court victory.” She took to social media to declare, “We will continue fighting and winning in court for President Trump’s law-and-order agenda — and we will ALWAYS have the backs of our great federal law enforcement officers.” Bondi and Justice Department lawyers had argued that the mask ban would put federal agents at risk of harassment, doxing, and even physical harm, especially as ICE agents have faced increasing hostility and threats in recent years.
Judge Snyder, however, was unconvinced by these arguments. She pointed out that there are no federal laws or regulations requiring federal officers to conceal their identities, and in fact, some federal rules call for visible identification in certain circumstances. “A rule that prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing masks or requires them to have visible identification does not facilitate or enable criminals to harm law enforcement officers,” Snyder wrote. She went further, asserting that “the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”
The origins of the “No Secret Police Act” and its companion bill can be traced to a period of heightened tension between California officials and the Trump administration over immigration enforcement. The widespread use of masks by ICE agents during President Trump’s immigration crackdown drew sharp rebukes from city and state leaders, who argued that it fostered fear in immigrant communities and hindered accountability for law enforcement actions.
State Senator Scott Wiener, the author of the mask ban, made no secret of his intentions following the court’s decision. “We will unmask these thugs and hold them accountable. Full stop,” Wiener said, as quoted by The Los Angeles Times. He called the ruling a “huge win” for efforts to ensure accountability for ICE and Border Patrol agents. Wiener announced that he would immediately introduce new legislation to include state officers in the mask ban, aiming to address the discrimination issue flagged by Judge Snyder. “Now that the Court has made clear that state officers must be included, I am immediately introducing new legislation to include state officers,” Wiener stated. His goal: to expedite passage of an adjusted “No Secret Police Act” that would apply equally to all law enforcement officers in California.
The debate over the mask ban also exposed tensions between Wiener and Governor Newsom’s administration. Newsom’s office posted on social media that Wiener had “rejected our proposed fixes to his bill — language that was later included in the identification bill the court upheld today. He chose a different approach, and today the court found his approach unlawful.” The governor’s stance was clear: while supporting transparency and accountability, he stopped short of endorsing the original mask ban’s selective application.
Notably, Judge Snyder’s ruling did not close the door on California’s efforts to regulate law enforcement conduct. She suggested that a revised law, one that applies equally to all officers regardless of agency, could withstand constitutional scrutiny. “The Court finds that these Acts serve the public interest by promoting transparency which is essential for accountability and public trust,” Snyder wrote. She emphasized there was “no cognizable justification for law enforcement officers to conceal their identities during their performance of routine, non-exempted law enforcement functions and interactions with the general public.”
Meanwhile, the “No Vigilantes Act” is set to move forward, though its enforcement is stayed until at least February 19, 2026, to allow for potential appeals. This law, requiring visible identification for law enforcement, is seen by supporters as a critical step toward rebuilding trust between communities and police—a trust that has been eroded by years of contentious immigration enforcement operations and high-profile incidents involving masked officers.
As the dust settles, the future of California’s approach to law enforcement transparency remains uncertain. Senator Wiener’s new bill, if passed and signed into law, could reintroduce a statewide mask ban that satisfies constitutional requirements. But with Governor Newsom’s support unclear and strong opposition from law enforcement groups, the legislative path forward is anything but straightforward.
For now, California’s battle over masks, badges, and the visibility of those tasked with upholding the law continues to reflect broader national debates about policing, civil rights, and the balance between security and accountability. The coming months will reveal whether lawmakers can craft a solution that stands up in court—and in the court of public opinion.