Immigration officers can still wear masks in California for now, federal judge decides

Andrea Klick, The Orange County Register on Feb 9, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction Monday, Feb. 9, allowing federal immigration officials to continue wearing masks during California operations, but upheld a law requiring law enforcement to display badges identifying themselves and their agency.

U.S. District Judge Christine A. Snyder in Los Angeles granted the Trump administration’s request for a temporary order halting enforcement of SB 627, the No Secret Police Act, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in September amid ongoing waves of federal immigration enforcements across California.

Snyder denied the Trump administration’s request for a preliminary injunction against SB 805, the No Vigilantes Act, which requires all non-uniformed law enforcement officers working in California to wear a visible badge that includes their agency and name or badge number.

Both SB 627 and SB 805 went into effect on Jan. 1, but California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office agreed not to enforce either law while the federal government’s lawsuit played out.

The laws were an attempt by California lawmakers to push back against what critics called abuses during the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. Lawmakers argue a mask ban would allow for more transparency and accountability, while the U.S. Department of Justice argued the law could lead to federal officers and agents being doxed or harassed.

The law makes exceptions for SWAT teams, undercover operations and medically or situationally necessary face coverings.

In court documents, Snyder said the federal government didn’t prove that banning face coverings would impede immigration officers’ work. However, the court granted the injunction because the facial covering ban doesn’t apply to all law enforcement officers across the state and therefore discriminates against federal law enforcement, according to court documents.

SB 627 applies to federal and local law enforcement, but doesn’t include state law enforcement officers. The injunction takes effect Feb. 19.

California State Sen. Scott Weiner, D-San Francisco, who proposed the original bill to ban facial coverings, said Monday he introduced a new legislation that includes state law enforcement officers and would push to get it passed quickly.

“ICE and Border Patrol are covering their faces to maximize their terror campaign and to insulate themselves from accountability,” Wiener said in a news release. “We won’t let them get away with it.”

Wiener said lawmakers earlier removed language about state law enforcement officials from SB 627 after talking with the governor’s office.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the preliminary injunction will continue to allow federal agents to wear masks “to protect their identities.”

“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 said on X.

State Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, D-Pasadena, who co-authored both bills, celebrated the judge’s decision regarding the No Vigilantes Act on social media.

“I DEDICATE THIS WIN TO THE LOSERS WHO SPREAD FAKE NEWS THAT MY BILL VIOLATES THE ‘SUPREMACY CLAUSE,’” she wrote. “SAD! WE WILL IDENTIFY ALL AGENTS BREAKING THE LAW. LAWSUITS ARE NEXT.”

Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department previously said they wouldn’t enforce the ban. At a news conference in January, McDonnell said he disagreed with the policy and said it could create conflicts between police and other law enforcement agencies.

“The reality of one armed agency approaching another armed agency to create conflict over something that would be a misdemeanor at best or an infraction, it doesn’t make any sense,” McDonnell said. “It’s not a good public policy decision and it wasn’t well thought out in my opinion.”

In response, state lawmakers who introduced the bill encouraged individuals, groups, city attorneys and district attorneys to use videos and photos of immigration enforcements in the state as evidence to sue violators of the mask ban. Under the law, the civil penalty would start at $10,000.

________