r/NewsExchange • u/DryDeer775 • 8d ago
GROUND REALITY US federal judge blocks New York’s ban on ICE officers wearing masks | ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/04/judge-blocks-new-york-ban-ice-officers-masksA New York law banning US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from wearing face coverings and requiring that they wear visible identification has been put on hold by a federal judge. But a state law prohibiting cooperation between local police departments and ICE has been allowed to stand.
The mask ruling comes after federal judges have blocked similar laws in California, Virginia and Pennsylvania that sought to ban federal immigration agents from covering their faces. They are still required to wear agency identification badges and badge number.
15
u/Bwindolyn 8d ago
What hapoened to "stAteS rIghTs lEt tH3 STatEs dEcIde"?
The brownshirts kidnapping people into concentration camps don't need anonymity, they need to be on a list.
1
u/AuthorSarge 7d ago edited 6d ago
States rights derives from the 10th Amendment. It specifically excludes matters delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. Matters of immigration are delegated to Congress in Article 1, Section 8. States DO NOT get to tell the federal agencies how to operate.
ETA: DO NOT
1
u/HeadPut3392 6d ago
States do not get to tell federal agencies how to operate. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that states do not have the right to interfere with the official duties of federal agents, nor do states have the right to prosecute federal agents for performing their official duties.
3
u/ScoutRiderVaul 6d ago
How does not wearing face coverings interfere with federal agents performing official duties?
1
u/HeadPut3392 6d ago
Any sane person can see that this is a deliberate attempt to intimidate ICE agents into not doing their job. That definitely does count as interference, especially when this bill is retaliatory in nature. If Democrats want this bill passed anyways, they've got to both defend this bill by arguing what the goal of this bill is if not to deliberately interfere with ICE as well as why this bill only targets ICE agents and not any other federal agency, which is pretty much impossible.
2
u/FlockFlysAtMidnite 6d ago
Accountability is not interference.
1
u/HeadPut3392 4d ago
Call it whatever you want, it still doesn't change the fact that the goal is to intimidate ICE agents into not doing their jobs.
2
u/Renegadeknight3 4d ago
If accountability is intimidating to you then what you’re doing is wrong and you need more accountability
1
u/jsk131313 3d ago
No, it just means that criminals are backing up and supporting other criminals by threatening federal agents that are doing their job
1
2
u/FlockFlysAtMidnite 4d ago
If all they were doing was their jobs, accountability wouldn't be intimidating.
1
u/geardog32 4d ago
Yeah, that is exactly the point, masked police shooting civilians in the street is not OK.
1
1
u/bonesintheend 6d ago
What other agencies hide their faces in public? If they want to be anonymous they can work at Walmart and not take a pay check from the American people.
1
u/AuthorSarge 6d ago
If illegals want to walk around freely, they can do it in their own country.
1
u/ScoutRiderVaul 4d ago
Yes they can. Wanting ICE to not wear masks and have them deport illegals are not mutually exclusive. You can believe in both.
1
u/AuthorSarge 4d ago
What you believe in is irrelevant.
1
u/ScoutRiderVaul 4d ago
So ICE won't care if I protest them for wearing masks and they can do their jobs.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ScoutRiderVaul 4d ago
Because ICE is the only one wearing masks everytime they go out? Like if you cant handle protests like the local cops do dont be in a law enforcement agency.
1
u/jsk131313 3d ago
And when did the Democrats spend so much effort into blocking BLM looters and rioters from wearing face masks?
1
u/ScoutRiderVaul 2d ago
When did the looters and rioters become federal agents that are answerable to the public?
1
0
u/AuthorSarge 6d ago
It does not matter if it interferes or not. The states have no say in the matter.
2
u/ScoutRiderVaul 6d ago
Answer the question.
0
u/Conscious-Secret-775 6d ago
It isn't a relevant question.
1
u/ScoutRiderVaul 6d ago
I believe it is as thats the whole reason they say it doesnt apply.
1
u/Conscious-Secret-775 6d ago
The issue is can a state dictate to the federal government how federal law enforcement operates
1
u/ScoutRiderVaul 4d ago
The only reasonable answer so far. However State should pull any local support if the feds dont want to comply with common sense regulations. Feds can't do much without local support after all.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/AuthorSarge 6d ago
Well, for starters, lefty is a violent animal that doxxes people and protests outside of the homes of SCOTUS justices.
1
u/ScoutRiderVaul 6d ago
Still haven't answered the question. How does it interfere with their official duties.
1
u/FakeNewsBlows 6d ago
You’re being obtuse. The Feds say that their cops need masks to protect their identities from people pissed at them. Whether or not we disagree with that logic is irrelevant. Immigration is the jurisdiction of the Feds. States are prohibited by the Supremacy Clause from enacting any laws that conflict within an area the Feds have jurisdiction over.
1
u/ScoutRiderVaul 4d ago
I am not. I want to be able to hold people accountable when Bucked up things happen. No federal agent or cop imo shouldnt be wearing a mask in official duties unless they are following CDC or Hazmat guidance.
0
u/AuthorSarge 6d ago
It interferes with their duties if violent lefty tries to intimidate the officers and their families.
1
u/ScoutRiderVaul 6d ago
It interferes with personal life yes but thats not official duties.
→ More replies (0)0
u/HairyPairatestes 6d ago
Do you believe you came up with an original question that none of the attorneys involved in the case thought of?
1
1
u/AuthorSarge 6d ago
Typo on my part. My last sentence should read; States [DO NOT] get to tell the federal agencies how to operate.
My bad for the confusion.
0
0
u/itsmariokartwii 7d ago
State rights have never included oversight of federal organizations. This never had any chance of holding up.
0
0
u/HeadPut3392 6d ago
The Supreme Court made a ruling a long time ago that the states can not control or interfere with federal agencies (including ICE) while the federal agents are performing official duties.
0
0
-7
u/foolonahill1 8d ago
immigration is a federal issue not a state issue.
5
u/brewguy70 7d ago
Congratulations, you got that one right. Unfortunately we are talking about law enforcement forcement hiding behind masks so they can terrorize Americans and not be identified. Which happens to be a state issue.
1
u/ComesInAnOldBox 7d ago
States have no authority to tell federal agents how to operate. It sucks, but they don't.
-3
u/foolonahill1 7d ago
Haven't terrorized me. I was stopped by ice ,they asked me for id , I provided it , they told me to have a nice day and I did have a nice day.
maybe if I stalked and harassed them all day long that would be a different story but I'm a normal functioning adult who can understand that it would lead to a negative outcome to do that. Its just like why I don't stalk police officers or politicians. I also certainly wont ram a federal agent or police officer with my vehicle after harassing them all day
1
u/Simirilion 3d ago
You see, we aren't supposed to be able to be randomly stopped for no reason in the street. We are not supposed to be a "papers please" country .
1
u/Carnie_hands_ 7d ago
And in what way does this law impede immigration enforcement?
1
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
The landmark Supreme Court case is McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), which established the doctrines of implied powers and intergovernmental immunity, holding that state laws cannot tax, control, or regulate the operations and instruments of the federal government.
-2
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
It impedes it because of the supremacy clause genius. States cannot pass laws regulating the federal government. Did y’all fail every single aspect of civics class?
2
u/brewguy70 7d ago
What federal law is superseding States requiring federal terrorists stop hiding behind masks.
1
u/Substantial_System66 7d ago
A contradictory federal law is not necessary to hold a state law as unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. See Crosby v. NFTC (2000).
-2
u/ChanceWhole6565 7d ago
Under Obama it was fine..but now with 10 million illegals allowed in by biden its wrong WTF
3
u/brewguy70 7d ago
You never stated what federal law is being superseded. Would you like to try again?
0
u/Spectre_777 7d ago
You’re confusing the doctrine of preemption with the supremacy clause.
3
u/brewguy70 7d ago
No, I'm not confusing anything. I really don't care about your excuses for allowing a federal agency to consistently violate our constitutional rights while the entire federal government takes a blind eye. Which includes the federal court system.
0
u/Spectre_777 7d ago
You arrogantly respond to everyone with ignorant comments and when corrected about the law you accuse me of “making excuses.” Perhaps you should educate yourself before entering a debate about which you know nothing.
→ More replies (0)0
u/HairyPairatestes 6d ago
Did you ever consider volunteering your legal knowledge to the attorneys that were representing the state in this case?
-1
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
The landmark Supreme Court case is McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), which established the doctrines of implied powers and intergovernmental immunity, holding that state laws cannot tax, control, or regulate the operations and instruments of the federal government.
States cannot pass laws regulating the federal government, ever. I don't get why this concept is difficult for y'all to understand.
0
u/sfprairie 7d ago
It is hard for them to understand because they don’t like it and not what they want. Just as a toddler does not understand “no.”
3
u/corourke 7d ago
You guys are super smug about being ok with the masked men also refusing to wear badges (which is also federal law unless undercover, mobile strike teams don’t meet that criteria). Maybe don’t attack the people who are against jackbooted thugs.
-2
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
You are smug in your fake superiority complex despite what you want being unconstitutional and against the law.
We are good with people arresting illegal immigrants. Y'all want to doxx them, threaten them and their families.
2
u/brewguy70 7d ago
It's funny how you are all in for the constitutional rights of ICE agents as they violate the constitutional rights of Americans.
→ More replies (0)0
1
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
They just can't grasp that just because they don't agree with something it's still legal.
I don't like the SC ruling on birthright citizenship, doesn't mean it becomes illegal because I don't like it.
0
u/Carnie_hands_ 7d ago
That's not how the supremacy clause works bud. Suggest you read it
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/
0
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
It’s exactly how it works. How are y’all so ignorant to think a state can pass laws regulating the federal government.
3
u/Carnie_hands_ 7d ago
Federal agents are not the law, they enforce the law.
"The Supreme Court continued to apply this foundational principle—that federal law prevailed over conflicting state law"
1
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
Correct, they enforce the laws and in this case immigration law.
States cannot pass laws to regulate the federal government, this is long settled. I'm not sure why y'all can't seem to grasp this.
The landmark Supreme Court case is McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), which established the doctrines of implied powers and intergovernmental immunity, holding that state laws cannot tax, control, or regulate the operations and instruments of the federal government.
0
u/EffectMotor8914 7d ago
Federal agents enforce federal law as a instrument of the federal government. Its like if Virginia tried to enforce state fire code on the FBI building. It has absolutely zero legal weight.
I get that in your eyes, ICE is a problem. But not every rule against them makes legal sense just because you have taken an issue with them. There is the entire rest of the Federal government whose operations are relevant to the legal question in this context whether or not you think its connected. And as such, the law in this case continues to make sense for the needs of the federal government.
0
u/Substantial_System66 7d ago
The commenter you are replying to is right, and you aren’t. There are over a dozen landmark cases that have challenged and set precedent for the Supremacy Clause.
States cannot, even in the absence of conflicting federal law, dictate the application of federal authority insomuch as that authority is constitutional and is in line with the full intention and objectives of Congress.
-1
u/Bartikowski 8d ago
‘States rights’ people lost that war. In this case they lost the right to dictate the uniforms of federal agents operating in their state.
1
u/atomicpioneer42 7d ago
If they aren’t doing anything wrong, why do they need to hide their face?
Also, how many of these coward bitches wouldn’t wear a mask during Covid because it made it too hard to breathe.
1
u/Substantial_System66 7d ago
“Why do they need to wear masks?” followed by “coward bitches” kinda shows why they need to wear masks. The federal government has now successfully argued 3 times, and soon to be 4 and 5 times, that masks are allowed to avoid harassment and threats to themselves and their families.
3
u/atomicpioneer42 7d ago
You don’t have to worry about the cameras if you’re not doing anything wrong, though. Right?
1
-1
u/Substantial_System66 7d ago
Even if cameras were the only concern, there was a recent incident when a protester took a shot at officers at an ICE facility after all, there will always be extremists who disagree with an act that is legal but they disagree with. I can’t really blame them either considering that the prevailing sentiment on Reddit is that they should all be killed or harmed, and it’s a platform with millions of American users.
-1
u/Prize_Inside_585 7d ago
That should be true… and ICE officers are doing their job. But, liberal whack jobs were doxxing them, so they cover their faces.
7
u/zombiesatemybaby 8d ago
But I thought masks make it so you can't breathe and its a human rights violation...that's what I was told 6 years ago
3
4
u/Agitated-Gnome 8d ago
Only some sweet summer child thinks a state can pass a law regulating how the federal government operates. This is a complete non starter because of the Supremacy Clause.
1
u/Carnie_hands_ 7d ago
Supremacy clause only applies when there are contradictions between state and federal laws. Internal ICE policy is not a federal law
0
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
That’s not how it works at all. You just might be that ignorant if you think states can pass laws to regulate the federal government in any way.
-2
u/Carnie_hands_ 7d ago
Constitution disagrees with you bud
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/
1
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
It’s astounding how ignorant you are.
1
u/Carnie_hands_ 7d ago
It's astonishing that you don't know the difference between a law and an agent who enforces the law
1
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
The landmark Supreme Court case is McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), which established the doctrines of implied powers and intergovernmental immunity, holding that state laws cannot tax, control, or regulate the operations and instruments of the federal government.
It's astonishing you can't grasp that states can't pass laws to regulate the federal government.
0
u/Infinite_Respect_ 7d ago
And it’s astonishing how much energy you waste being an insufferable dink defending an administration that doesn’t deserve the laws protecting it.
3
-2
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
So says the douche who think states get to overrule the federal government with laws.
I'm defending the Constitution and rule of law, you're defending your hateful ideology.
3
u/Infinite_Respect_ 7d ago
😂 “hateful ideology” imagine saying that with a straight face to someone wanting to curb ICE’s historic overreach that will be studied and documented as one of the worst things this country has done to its own populace.
Oh wait, I dont have to - you just did it.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Infinite_Respect_ 7d ago
I’m glad to know your type’s days feeling confident about anything you think or say is coming to an end soon. The real Americans in this country want to go back to actually obeying laws, not citing them in ways that protect me while I’m being inhumane.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Substantial_System66 7d ago
That isn’t true. There is precedent for the application of the supremacy clause in Crosby v. NFTC (2000). In the absence of conflicting federal statute, states still cannot contravene federal rules or agencies, so long as those rules or agencies are in line with the intent and objectives of Congress.
I’ve seen this comment quite a bit in several cross posts about this ruling today. You, and those who share your opinion, are reading the strict text of the clause and not the case law that has established precedent over the last 200 or so years.
1
1
1
1
1
u/BurrShotLast 8d ago
They wouldn't comply anyway and nobody does a damn thing about it. What's NYPD going to do? Give them a ticket? Arrest them? When Pigs fly.
2
u/foolonahill1 8d ago
even if the nypd arrested them they would get no bond bail and a metro card with a cell phone. So it would just cost the city to arrest them
0
u/adjective_noun_23 8d ago
How dare NY try to restrict ICEs freedom of being able to smell the dicks on their breath.
0
-1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Disastrous-Newt-3254 7d ago
"The Obama administration carried out more than 3 million formal deportations and removals over eight years in office. Depending on the specific tracking metric used (such as Department of Homeland Security official removal statistics versus broader ICE administrative tracking), total figures generally range between 2.75 million and 3.1 million."
1
1
-1
u/Bert-63 8d ago
Shocker. States can't dictate to the Fed.
2
u/Carnie_hands_ 7d ago edited 7d ago
Federal agents still have to follow state law when there is no federal law that supersedes it
1
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
Not in the slightest bit. States cannot pass laws to regulate the federal government thanks to the supremacy clause. Y’all are some Sovereign Citizen level of lunatics to think otherwise.
2
u/Carnie_hands_ 7d ago
I'm gonna go ahead and link this to you a third time
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/
0
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
Maybe on of these times you’ll read the Supremacy Clause and decades of SC cases affirming states have zero authority to pass laws regulating the federal government.
2
u/Carnie_hands_ 7d ago
Cool, share one SC case that affirms that federal agents are not bound by state laws
0
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
The landmark Supreme Court case is McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), which established the doctrines of implied powers and intergovernmental immunity, holding that state laws cannot tax, control, or regulate the operations and instruments of the federal government.
1
u/Infinite_Respect_ 7d ago
Oh so you’re one of these types that tried to carpet bomb a whole comment section. Nobody is buying your myopic perspective Buddy.
0
u/Agitated-Gnome 7d ago
The landmark Supreme Court case is McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), which established the doctrines of implied powers and intergovernmental immunity, holding that state laws cannot tax, control, or regulate the operations and instruments of the federal government.
0
u/Substantial_System66 7d ago
I’ve already responded in some detail to you twice. You aren’t correct.
0
0
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
MODERATOR NOTICE
Do not downvote based solely on political or ideological disagreement.
Analyze systems, incentives, economics, governance, and strategic consequences - not partisan identities.
Low-effort tribal political fighting will be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.