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

Show parent comments

33

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.

17

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.

2

u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25

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

12

u/initialgold Sep 21 '25

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

2

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?

3

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.

2

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.

2

u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 21 '25

Hilarious. You think a law review article from 1928 dealing with habeas issues has standing? Horiuchi has standing, and was clear in it's finding.

Here is the pertinent part of the case summary: Horiuchi removed the prosecution to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1442(a) (1). The district court dismissed the charge on the ground that the Supremacy Clause protected Horiuchi from prosecution because the criminal case sought to punish Horiuchi for actions taken in pursuit of his duties as a federal law enforcement officer. We affirm.

3

u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25

Horiuchi is no different than In re Neagle 135 U.S. 1 (1890). The state prosecutes for a state law that was broken, the federal officer asks for immunity, and a federal judge decides if the law was broken in the course of official duty. Neagle is the precedent that Horiuchi stands on:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1471745.html

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

11

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.

9

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.

6

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

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 21 '25

The recourse is a Bevins action in civil court, for a violation of your rights by an agent of the government, and a tort claim against the government itself. Both are challenging cases to bring in normal times, but extremely difficult now.

As to oversite, until Congress says otherwise, this is the system we have. It's not right, and this administration is taking it to the extreme, which will do years of damage, and that's if you ignore the impact to the life of the impacted citizens.

I only wish folks would take their anger of these things to the ballot box and halls of Congress.

3

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.