California lawmakers on Thursday approved legislation that would bar most law enforcement officers from covering their faces while on duty, a response to recent immigration enforcement operations in the Los Angeles area in which some federal agents concealed their identities.
The bill, which now goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature, would prohibit local and state officers — and seek to apply to federal agents acting in the state — from wearing neck gaiters, ski masks and other facial coverings while conducting official business. Exceptions in the measure include undercover work, medical masks such as N95 respirators and authorized tactical gear. Newsom has about a month to sign the measure into law.
Supporters said the legislation was spurred by a Supreme Court decision earlier in the week that lifted limits on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Los Angeles and, in the view of bill proponents, gave federal agents broader authority to resume wide-ranging raids. Assemblymember Juan Carrillo, a Democrat who sponsored the measure, said the court’s ruling "effectively [allows] federal agents to stop suspects based solely on their race, language, or job," and argued that unmasked officers are needed so residents can identify law enforcement.
The bill is the first of its kind to clear a state legislature, though similar proposals have been introduced in Tennessee, Michigan, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Democratic lawmakers in Congress have also proposed a federal prohibition on face coverings for law enforcement.
Constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in an opinion cited by supporters that while states cannot directly regulate the federal government, federal employees are not free to ignore state rules "unless doing so would significantly interfere with the performance of their duties." The measure’s backers said that unmasking officers would reduce public fear and improve transparency.
Opponents, including Republican lawmakers and some law enforcement groups, said the ban could endanger officers. State Sen. Kelly Seyarto, a Republican, said prior to the vote, "Bad guys wear masks because they don't want to get caught. Good guys wear masks because they don't want to get killed." Trump administration officials have defended the use of face coverings by immigration agents, saying the agents have faced increased harassment in public and online.
Federal immigration operations in Southern California have drawn sustained attention since June, when the Biden administration ramped up arrests as part of a broader deportation initiative. The activity prompted large protests and led to the federal deployment of National Guard and Marine personnel to assist local authorities. Advocates for migrants and some state officials have contended that masks used by federal agents generate fear among immigrant communities and impede accountability.
Legal and practical questions remain about whether California could enforce the ban against federal officers. Federal law and the Constitution give the federal government supremacy in its functions, and past disputes over state attempts to regulate federal agents have frequently been resolved in federal courts. Supporters cited Chemerinsky’s view to argue there are avenues for states to restrict conduct by federal employees when it does not materially impede federal duties; critics said the bill invites litigation and could complicate coordination between state and federal law enforcement.
If signed by Newsom, the bill would take effect according to the timetable specified in the legislation and could prompt immediate legal challenges. State attorneys general in several states have previously weighed in on federal immigration practices, and civil rights groups have also signaled they will continue to monitor enforcement tactics and constitutional implications as raids proceed.
The measure’s passage reflects growing legislative scrutiny of federal immigration enforcement tactics and an effort by state officials to assert public-safety norms in communities where raids and enforcement actions have stirred controversy.
Newsom has previously criticized federal agents’ use of masks during arrests while also raising questions about the state’s authority over federal operations. Whether he signs the bill, and how courts and federal authorities respond if he does, will shape the practical reach of the measure and the continuing debate over enforcement tactics in California.