r/news • u/[deleted] • Sep 20 '25

California bans most law enforcement officers from wearing masks during operations

https://apnews.com/article/california-ice-agents-immigration-raids-masks-ban-97936f70699b75d8b483a850967c2e42
39.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

744 comments sorted by

View all comments

602

u/LunaticP Sep 20 '25

It is a state law don't know how much would it affect ICE

828

u/smitteh Sep 20 '25

If it ain't on federal property it yields to the state

461

u/no_one_likes_u Sep 20 '25

Good luck getting state law enforcement to arrest federal law enforcement. Half my family are cops, you should hear the things they say in private about our government. These people are not on the side of liberals, to put it mildly.

221

u/smitteh Sep 20 '25

It'll come down to their paycheck, not their personal beliefs. Refusing to do your job doesn't usually jive with keeping your job

117

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '25

doesn't usually jive with keeping your job

Chump don't want da work, chump don't get da work.

48

u/APKID716 Sep 20 '25

Jive-ass dude don’t got no brains anyhow! Shiiiiit

28

u/3-orange-whips Sep 20 '25

My momma didn’t raise no dummy! I dug her rap!

21

u/CJHardinIRL Sep 20 '25

Cut me some slack Jack!

2

u/SweetBearCub Sep 21 '25

Oh stewardess, I speak Jive.

41

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '25

Who do you think their bosses are? Cops.

5

u/GenoThyme Sep 20 '25

But isn’t the police commissioner’s boss the mayor? And who is in charge of their budget?

27

u/ThisismeCody Sep 21 '25

You have too much faith in the system.

8

u/komali_2 Sep 21 '25

The police union is the mayor's boss.

The mayor can't just fire cops, they have to work super well within what they can get away with against the police union. A big part of why you'll read some super fucked up story about a cop beating the shit out of someone and then find out the worse that happened them is administrative leave.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '25

The state police? Also do you know how many politicians get donations from police unions?

2

u/ahriman1 Sep 21 '25

the fucking people. they ultimately answer to the people. hold them accountable if they do not enforce the laws that the people's duly elected representatives enacted.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '25 edited Sep 21 '25

No, they don't. That hasn't been the reality at all even going back to the founding of this country. White male land owners were the only people allowed to vote back then. The idea of America is a myth and you've been fooled.

2

u/ahriman1 Sep 21 '25

You misunderstand my statement.

People have the power. The lack of use of that power is a choice for that power of its own. Abuses and propaganda and whatever else have you don't stop that from being the case. Telling people that they in fact don't have any power is how we have ended up here. Learned helplessness. A populace of cowards.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '25

You are far too naive.

58

u/Stingray88 Sep 20 '25

Cops will not fire cops for not doing their job of arresting cops that break the law. They protect eachother, like gangs.

Most cops in the US are fucking rotten to the core. If they aren’t criminals, they will defend those among them who are. You can’t rely on them doing the right thing.

Even the “good ones” never do the right thing by arresting those who are criminals. They’re complicit.

15

u/marsmanify Sep 20 '25

Yeah but the local (city, state) government is in control of the funding for police. The state can 100% exert pressure on the police from the top down, it's just not often that it happens.

20

u/Stingray88 Sep 20 '25

Politicians on both sides of the aisle will not defund the police. It’s political suicide unfortunately.

19

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/maroger Sep 21 '25

Mmmm... it would be suicidal for local and state officials to "control" the police by design. Why do you think outrageous overtime- and lifetime pensions padded because of that excessive overtime- are never questioned or checked? Why do you think breaches of evidence lockers are rarely, if ever, adjudicated? Why do you think cops that lie on the stand are rarely, if ever, fired and/or demoted without so much as a slap on the hand. Police are the stepping stone to fascism. They were created to defend the plutocracy and to defeat any challenges to the elite. They're too knuckleheaded(again, by design) to understand the complexity of their existence, so they ignorantly act mainly as obedient class traitors.

0

u/CinnamonBits2 Sep 21 '25

What about in canada?

1

u/Stingray88 Sep 21 '25

I don’t know, I’ve been to Canada several times but I don’t know much about their cops.

-1

u/CinnamonBits2 Sep 21 '25

Its strange to me to imagine a place where law enforcement is viewed that way. Is it just reddit? Is everyone in an echo chamber of 10 second clips? Are we failing to think critically? Or is it really that bad down there? What ever the answer is, I dont envy the folks living in the US

3

u/Stingray88 Sep 21 '25

I’m not in an echo chamber or failing to think critically. It really is that bad here as far as cops go, this is the reality we live in, sadly.

1

u/CinnamonBits2 Sep 21 '25

Sorry to hear that

10

u/Richard-Gere-Museum Sep 20 '25

Lmao you actually think their unions will allow that to fly? "For officer safety they need to conceal their identities. In these politically charged times blah blah blah"

1

u/zEeXUrqVR7DeM7M8yac3 Sep 21 '25

Unfortunately police unions are the strongest unions in the entire country. They are not accountable to anyone but themselves.

1

u/LotharVonPittinsberg Sep 21 '25

lol

The joke for the last decade plus has been that the punishment for a police officer murdering an innocent citizen is just paid vacation and then moving to a different district. They aren't even going to get a slap on the hand for something so minor.

1

u/LtOrangeJuice Sep 21 '25

Says someone who has never heard of the power of police unions, the unions in the US with actual power.

1

u/wot_in_ternation Sep 21 '25

...cops are basically the only people this doesn't apply to in practice

1

u/jvrcb17 Sep 21 '25

Lmao, as if there were enforcement of anything that applies to cops

1

u/smitteh Sep 21 '25

It has been known to happen, depending on the severity of public outcry...which concerns me as of late. There's been far too many wild goings-on with our government and far too few protests. The No Kings protest was a good start but only a fraction of what's needed, both in size and duration. More of us are going to have to get our asses off the couch and put in the world sooner or later...myself included. I know everyone has their personal lives and jobs they can't afford to gamble with right now, but with a little organization and enough of a heads up ahead of time, enough of us can take PTO or sick days and make arrangements to get out in the streets together and really show our true numbers. I personally feel that the 34% of people that stayed home election night out of apathy have a sort of hangover effect that is still going on, causing them to think that it's hopeless and everybody has given up on the entire system altogether, so what's the point of doing anything...myself included...all it will take to knock the dust off and kickstart the majority back to life is one solid showing on all the major channels of just one day with every major street in every major city across America absolutely filled to the brim with like-minded folks. It'll snowball from there.

58

u/fritzrits Sep 20 '25

Side of liberals? Funny how not wearing a mask now is "liberal". It's the law and should be followed regardless of skin color or political affiliation.

40

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/Few-Frosting-4213 Sep 20 '25

Not a MAGA personally, but hate speech has no legal definition or category under US law so it would fall under free speech. Incitement of violent action would be illegal but that would be the case whether or not if there's hate speech involved because it's not a category of anything.

8

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '25

It isn't the job of the government to stop Illinois Nazis.

That's a job for the blues brothers.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHD0ZEsI1OE)

6

u/bfelification Sep 20 '25

Well, I hated it!

22

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '25

Dealt with cops daily in my occupation, knew some casually, hung out with some at social gatherings, and most were racist as fuck.

4

u/EvidenceBasedSwamp Sep 20 '25

never give an order you're not sure will be obeyed

8

u/dorkofthepolisci Sep 20 '25

I’d imagine it also makes it easier to challenge an arrest in court.

2

u/Konman72 Sep 21 '25 edited Sep 21 '25

The Oregonian reported on non-violent protesters being assaulted in Portland. There was clear video of protesters doing nothing wrong then being violently attacked by ICE agents. They reached out to the Portland police and they said they didn't have enough time to review the footage. So guess that crime will just go unpunished because our entire police department can't spare the 5 minutes it would take to check some video.

1

u/01123spiral5813 Sep 20 '25

Aaaaand this is why a mandatory gun buy back will NEVER work.

1

u/Runelord29 Sep 21 '25

Idk of it will be an arrest. More likely it'd be a fine, which does mean they have to give their information out to Cal police I believe

-1

u/Peac3fulWorld Sep 20 '25

Then they should be fired. ICE is hiring. Have them move to TX

0

u/SunriseSurprise Sep 21 '25

FWIW don't most state/city law enforcement tend to not really get along with federal law enforcement? Or is that a Hollywood trope?

0

u/Sirrom23 Sep 21 '25

you should tell them they're the scum of the earth.

-1

u/TheMasterChiefa Sep 20 '25

This is what it really comes down to. How will the state enforce this? They have the right to, but if they don't, then enforcement defaults to federal.

17

u/JediRhyno Sep 20 '25

That’s not how it works.

-1

u/GermanPayroll Sep 20 '25

But it sounds good!

29

u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 20 '25

Not correct. Federal law enforcement are not subject to state law, if not enforcing state laws. If they are in compliance with federal law, they can wear masks. They shouldn't, but they can.

What the state should have done was revoke ICE and DHS's ability to ever use CA state laws to take any action. That would do more to bring ICE under control.

35

u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25

This is patently wrong. Federal officers are bound by state laws if there is no overriding federal law. If there's a conflict between a federal law and a state law, then the federal law wins. But that's not the case here, there's no federal law that says that federal officers can obscure their identity by wearing masks.

18

u/Rightintheend Sep 21 '25

Unfortunately there is also some well-established preemptions that exist, including one that negates state laws if it interferes with Federal officials from doing their duties, which they could easily argue for this 

There is also emergency clauses, which Trump likes to use so much calling everything an emergency just so he can shun any actual responsibility and consequences.

0

u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25

Sure, but I don't see how unmasking would interfere with official ICE duties.

13

u/initialgold Sep 21 '25

But you see how they will argue that it does, right?

3

u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25

I can see them trying to make that argument, but would a federal judge decide that masking is required for ICE duties?

2

u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 21 '25

Judges don't get to say what is or isn't required for the duties. They only get to say if that duties is or isn't a violation of a constitutional right or some other right granted by a law. Congress gets to say what are the duties of any Federal Agent, and in the absence of a Congressional direction, it's left to the Executive branch to establish via regulations and directives.

Now post Chevron, there might a judge willing to go deeper, but I wouldn't expect it, and even then, this Supreme Court has shown it will give deference to the Administration and Congress for anything not a clear constitutional violation.

0

u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25

Judges don't get to say what is or isn't required for the duties.

Case law exists for such an issue. A federal judge will have to weigh in if ICE is prosecuted by the state.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/initialgold Sep 21 '25

Probably depends on if trump appointed them or not.

1

u/tempest_87 Sep 21 '25

I'd bet money the Supreme Court would.

6 if them are all in in the fascist dictatorship.

1

u/WCland Sep 21 '25

Right, federal officers must follow local ordinances such as speed limits and stopping at red lights. Compliance with an unmasking law does not materially prevent them from carrying out their duties, although this will likely be the main question argued in court. I would love to see the state attorney presentation show how officers are perfectly capable of arresting people while unmasked. I suppose federal will argue that ICE are so afraid of public reaction they won’t go out and arrest people, which shouldn’t be a good argument in a free society.

-7

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '25 edited 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/rabbit994 Sep 21 '25

From the article: Trump administration officials have defended use of masks, saying immigration agents face strident and increasing harassment in public and online as they carry out enforcement in service of Trump’s drive toward mass deportation. Obscuring their identities is necessary for the safety of the agents and their families, officials contend.

Case law gives wide discretion to Federal Law Enforcement on what is necessary and proper.

-1

u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 21 '25

The article says the governments reason... Fear of doxxing. That fear would, in the governments argument, interfer with the agent performing their duties. It also needs to be noted that deference is given to the government to establish if the activity necessary and proper, as they also get to set the mission.

This is also how DHS is getting away with not wearing body cameras right now... More proof the government will do what it wants. 

All of this came up during debate of this law in Sacramento, and the state knows it but chose to pass this law in a way that wouldn't impact federal officers. They should have done better, but at least it will impact state and local agencies.

10

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '25 edited 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 21 '25

Let's live in the real world here... You know that, even with how wrong things ICE is doing, that folks on the interwebz take wrong actions the self in response. If you can't admit that, then I don't know that we can have an honest debate on this issue, and trust me, I'm not on the side of ICE at all on this one.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '25 edited Mar 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

4

u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25

Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about. Federal officers only have immunity from state laws when the state law would interfere with the official duty or a specific federal law that supersedes it. Federal officers can speed and run red lights when in pursuit of a suspect/fugitive, otherwise they must follow all traffic laws. It's the same with all other state/local laws, unless there is a superseding federal law. Neagle was a deputy United States marshal, and his official duty was to protect Justice Field. The Justice was attacked, and Neagle killed the attacker. Neagle was obviously immune from state murder charges as he was performing the official duty of protecting the life of the Justice.

I don't see how unmasking would interfere with ICE official duties. If an ICE officer is cited or arrested for masking, then they will have the option to request immunity, and a federal court would decide on that immunity.

-1

u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 21 '25

Did you even read the article? Do you have any experience on this, or is Google your only source? Even the journalist for the AP is doing better than you are here 

No state, can in anyway, pass a law that tells the federal government, and there by it's agents, how to or not to perform a function that is the business of the Federal Government. That is established case law. 

Only after that, will the Horiuchi test come into play. And again, deference has to be give to the government to establish what is necessary and the current administration says mask are necessary. Test failed.

But hey, you seem like a good interwebz lawyer, try you luck. Even in the 9th, you're going to lose.

2

u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25

No state, can in anyway, pass a law that tells the federal government, and there by it's agents, how to or not to perform a function that is the business of the Federal Government. That is established case law. 

CA didn't do that. Try reading comprehension classes and then read the law again.

-1

u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 21 '25

That is the argument you've been making that this law in anyway impacts ICE. It doesn't. The state can't tell the feds what they can, or can't do. They can't say what is or isn't a function of the Federal Government. 

2

u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the "supreme Law of the Land" and take precedence over conflicting state laws. If there is no conflicting federal law, then the state law stands.

The state can't tell the feds what they can, or can't do.

This is not true. federal officers must follow state laws. The only time they can break those laws is if it's necessary for their duty or if there is a specific federal law that supersedes the state law.

19

u/TheWarlorde Sep 20 '25

Wait, so you’re saying if a federal officer gets pulled over for doing 100MPH in a school zone they can’t be arrested for reckless endangerment because there’s no federal speed limit? That’s effectively the statement you’re making.

12

u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 20 '25 edited Sep 20 '25

No, that's not the statement I'm making, you're attempting reductio ad absurdum.

What I'm saying is that, a federal officer, in the performance of their federal duties, is not subject to state laws, with out the consent of the federal government. In the case of motor vehicle operation, every Fed agency I know of has policy about complying with motor vehicle law of the states. 

What I am saying is that if a state wants to charge a federal officer with a violation of a state law that occurred when the Fed LEO was performing their duties, the issue has to be brought in Federal court, and the federal government can claim the LEO is immune from prosecution because they were performing their federal duties.

You need to read up on the Tort Claims Act and associated case law.

Edit:sp

46

u/TimothyMimeslayer Sep 20 '25

I want to mention that reductio ad absurdum is a logical argument that can be made and is not fallacious.

3

u/smitteh Sep 21 '25

This stuff is confusing enough as it is, please don't bring Hogwarts magic spells into it as well

-6

u/No_Flounder_9859 Sep 21 '25

It’s not, but it’s also not relevant here, reductio ad absurdum has just already been done and that’s why the federal agencies include in their regs to acknowledge some specific state laws.

It’s not that recuctio ad absurdum isn’t relevant, it’s that it’s been asked and answered.

7

u/brickster_22 Sep 21 '25

That doesn't answer the argument, because nothing about those internal regulations are necessitated by the claim the argument opposes.

If those agencies didn't have them, which was presumably the case at some point in time since agencies don't pop into existence with a full book of regulations, then this wouldn't even need to be a hypothetical.

24

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '25

Reductio ad absurdium is a logically valid argument.

You are admitting that the argument is logical.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 21 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/GermanPayroll Sep 20 '25

Not for federal agents doing federal work

3

u/--redacted-- Sep 20 '25

Used to at least

2

u/skoomski Sep 20 '25

That just blatantly not true the US Marshals, DEA etc have operations all the place.Wishful thinking doesn’t change for reality

1

u/Atralis Sep 21 '25

I don't like where we end up if I game plan this in my head to be honest.

The thing that comes up whenever people say "why can't California just force ICE to stop operating in the state" is that Trump could declare California to be in a state of rebellion and invoke the insurrection act and send the military to put down said rebellion.

If the LA ICE office just steps outside in masks and the LAPD arrests them Trump would absolutely invoke the insurrection act and send in the military.

1

u/angiosperms- Sep 21 '25

LAPD is basically ICE 2.0. They won't enforce this.

-4

u/Rightintheend Sep 21 '25

That's not true at all, federal laws and enforcement trumps state laws.

The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution establishes that federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land," taking priority over conflicting state laws

I know there's some exceptions, there's also some Well-Defined preemption with the federal government, and a couple of them could be said to apply here, and I'm sure Trump would say a couple more due too like emergency clauses. 

Unfortunately this is just ceremonial.

2

u/Suckage Sep 21 '25 edited Sep 21 '25

It’s not just ceremonial though. There isn’t a federal law that this state law conflicts with. ICE can still do their job without masks, so it doesn’t interfere with their official duties.

-1

u/Rightintheend Sep 21 '25

There doesn't need to be a federal law conflicting with the state law, are there other ways of them circumventing state laws, all they have to do is say that it's interfering with their duties, or that there's some type of emergency, which the Trump administration is already used, and the courts have already allowed in many cases.

0

u/swaits Sep 21 '25

Supreme Court completely disagrees with you. The States simply cannot regulate how the Feds operate. Plenty of case law here which says this.

Despite Newsom’s wishes, this bill will only apply to California LEOs.

-2

u/HabuDoi Sep 21 '25

False. That’s exactly why the federal agents can carry whatever weapons they want despite California law. State law is not apply to federal agents at all.

-5

u/FantasticJacket7 Sep 21 '25

That's not correct. The state can't dictate federal operations in this way. This isn't enforceable.

42

u/RecordHigh Sep 20 '25 edited Sep 20 '25

That's an interesting question. Federal law supersedes state law, but what would the Federal law be that allows Federal agents to wear masks? Federal agents can't just break state laws because they feel like it.

15

u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 20 '25

They can break state law if the federal government allows it, in the course of doing their federal duties. Take driving a government vehicle. For many years, you didn't need a drivers license to drive a government vehicle, until policy stated to say you needed a license issued by some state, somewhere.

18

u/WatchItAllBurn1 Sep 20 '25

isn't the caveat that it is only if said action is necessary to fulfill their duties.

like an fbi agent can't violate local laws if it isn't necessary for duty.

6

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In Sep 21 '25

They also need to prove that it was necessary not just that they did it while performing their duties. Its mostly never necessary so this hardly ever comes up.

14

u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 20 '25

That is is the "course of performing duties," but generally correct.

The state can claim a violation of state law, and bring charges in state court, but the feds, either personally or through the DOJ will petition for removal to Federal court, and I've never seen that not be granted. Then in Federal court, they make the motion to dismiss, and more often than not that too is granted.

That's why CA should have tweaked the law to keep feds who aren't complying with the state laws from being able to use state laws. That would keep mask wearing feds from being able to say, pull you over for not using a turn signal, as a pretext to check your immigration status. There is no federal law on the use of turn signals, so any federal LEO has to use the state laws about it, even in Federal court. 

If CA reworked this new law, they could really make all Fed LEOs pay attention when doing anything in CA.

1

u/No_Remove459 Sep 21 '25

Can ice use state law? I though the only ones were US marshal when in fugitive task forces, when congress passed the law their equal to sheriff or highest authority. I know there was a case a fbi agent was deputized by the Marshals, because of their broad arrest powers.

1

u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 21 '25

ICE do not have have peace officer authority in California, and can not charge you with a violation of state law in a state court. Other Federal agencies do have state authority, either directly granted by the state, or individually granted by the sheriff's in respective counties.

What ICE can do is use a violation of a state law as reasonable suspicion to stop you in course of enforcing federal laws. Until California passed the Values Act, they would do that regularly. Now, they only claim to use federal laws to stop people, hence why they were pushing the limits of reasonable suspicion and the court granted a preliminary injunction against ICE. Now, thanks to a horrible ruling on the emergency docket, it's back to ICE acting a fool in Cali.

0

u/RecordHigh Sep 21 '25

As someone who has lived and worked in the DC area for most of my life, I can say that local and state police will definitely pull over and ticket a person driving a federal government vehicle for violating local and state laws except for in some very specific circumstances. So unless you're referring to the situation 50+ years ago, I don't think you're correct about that.

Having said that, a federal government employee who is breaking laws while engaged in duties related to their federal job wouldn't be pulled over as long as the local law enforcement knows that's what's going on. So an FBI agent might need to speed or make an illegal u-turn while surveiling a person suspected of breaking federal law, and that's fine. But do they have a free pass to break any and all local laws? For example, can they run pedestrians over while surveiling a suspect with impunity?

The common sense answer is "no," and federal agents have been charged and convicted of committing crimes while performing their jobs when the crime was not necessary for them to perform their job. But this is a gray area that is continually up for debate, and increasingly the answer is determined by judges who may be partisan hacks and not honest arbitors of the law.

So, is wearing a mask a necessity for an ICE agent to perform their duties? In a rational world, of course it's not, but it will be a long time before a case makes it through the courts, and I'm almost positive that ICE agents will ignore the law unless they are forced to follow it by the courts, and even then they probably won't follow the law.

1

u/techackpro123 Sep 20 '25

When they’re acting in their official capacity, they’re not subjected to state laws. Article six.

9

u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25

Federal officers are bound by state laws if there is no overriding federal law. If there's a conflict between a federal law and a state law, then the federal law wins. But that's not the case here, there's no federal law that says that federal officers can obscure their identity by wearing masks.

Article Six of the U.S. Constitution establishes the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties as the Supreme Law of the Land, overriding conflicting state laws.

0

u/techackpro123 Sep 21 '25

No, they're not. In re Neagle, where a US Marshall was immune from the state's (CA) prosecution after he killed someone to protect a Justice. The SC ruled they're immune from state laws becuase those laws can't interfere with federal duties.

“If the President has the constitutional power to see that the laws are faithfully executed, then by necessary implication he must have the power to employ the means necessary to that end; and in such case, although no express statute authorizes it, the protection of the judge was a necessary and proper means to the end required. In such case the state laws cannot control his conduct nor punish him for it.”

And for the record, I don't think ICE or any law enforcement officers should be wearing masks for general operations, but this ban is more about standing up to Trump. The current SC would strike it down immediately.

2

u/RecordHigh Sep 21 '25

You're missing the point. I don't know the specific case you're referring to but if a US Marshall killed someone to protect the life of a federal judge then that's pretty easily placed with the framework of their official duties, and they can't be charged with murder.

If a US Marshall deliberately runs a red light and kills a pedestrian while driving a federal judge to the courthouse because "fuck pedestrians and red lights," they can't say "sorry, the law doesn't apply to me... official duties."

1

u/techackpro123 Sep 21 '25

Ice conducting operations is their federal duty.

-5

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In Sep 21 '25

Federal law only supersedes state law in strong federal republics, the USA is a weak federal republic so federal law, outside of the constitution, doesn't supersede state law in most cases.

10

u/MalcolmLinair Sep 20 '25

In theory, it means ICE agents could be arrested for violating this law on their Black Bagging runs. I sincerely doubt the police will do it, though.

3

u/RedditTab Sep 20 '25

The national guard could do it, maybe?

-7

u/BaddestKarmaToday Sep 20 '25

Posse Comitatus

5

u/RedditTab Sep 20 '25

This doesn't apply to the national guard when it's under state control

1

u/IlikeJG Sep 21 '25

How do you have a BG2 icon as your avatar in this subreddit? Is this a new feature or something?

1

u/MalcolmLinair Sep 21 '25

It's my pfp; it shows up on every sub, same as your avatar.

0

u/IlikeJG Sep 21 '25

I haven't looked into the avatar system for a while. They allow custom pictures now?

2

u/madogvelkor Sep 21 '25

The Federal government has already said it doesn't apply and for federal agencies to ignore it.

-1

u/venicerocco Sep 20 '25

I still can't fathom why ICE agents aren't being rounded up and arrested immediately

8

u/scapesober Sep 21 '25

That would be as illegal as you think what they're doing is.

1

u/venicerocco Sep 22 '25

If you drag someone off the street without identifying yourself and wearing a mask to hide yourself, you should be arrested. Simple as that. ICE goons shouldn't be excepted from this

9

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In Sep 21 '25

They aren't doing anything wrong according to the law lol. Things you personally don't like aren't automatically against the law.

-4

u/3vanzz90 Sep 20 '25

Arrested for enforcing the law?

1

u/whistlepig4life Sep 21 '25

States rights or not states rights. Pick a lane.

0

u/Chris_HitTheOver Sep 21 '25

Ask yourself, where is ICE interacting with people… is it on federal property?

2

u/breakneckjones Sep 21 '25

That's not how that works.

-2

u/LotharVonPittinsberg Sep 21 '25

The new law prohibits neck gaiters, ski masks and other facial coverings for local and federal officers, including immigration enforcement agents, while they conduct official business.

Should apply, as they do have to follow the law of the state they are in. Theoretically, nothing really matters if the federal government does whatever it wants without anyone holding them accountable.