California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while conducting official business.
Federal agents stand guard while blocking a road leading to an agricultural facility in Camarillo, Calif., where federal agents and immigration officers carried out an operation on July 10.Daniel Cole / Reuters file
LOS ANGELES — The Trump administration filed a lawsuit Monday over California’s new laws banning federal agents from wearing masks and requiring them to have identification while conducting operations in the state.
The federal government has argued the laws threaten the safety of officers who are facing “unprecedented” harassment, doxing, and violence and said it will not comply with them.
California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while conducting official business under a bill that was signed in September by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The law prohibits neck gaiters, ski masks and other facial coverings for local and federal officers, including immigration enforcement agents, while they conduct official business. It makes exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators or tactical gear, and it does not apply to state police.
Newsom also signed legislation requiring law enforcement to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number while on the job. The laws require federal law enforcement agencies to issue a mask policy by July 1, 2026, and a visible identification policy by Jan. 1, 2026.
“California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents. These laws cannot stand,” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a press release.
The lawsuit said there have been multiple incidents where Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers were followed and their families threatened. It cites a case of three women in Los Angeles who are being accused of livestreaming while following an ICE agent home and posting the address on Instagram.
“Given the personal threats and violence that agents face, federal law enforcement agencies allow their officers to choose whether to wear masks to protect their identities and provide an extra layer of security,” the lawsuit said.
Newsom has called the practice of masked federal agents arresting people across the state “dystopian.”
Critics have raised concerns about the increased role of federal agents in local policing and often unidentified agents conducting immigration enforcement activities.
“If the Trump administration cared half as much about public safety as it does about pardoning cop-beaters, violating people’s rights, and detaining U.S. citizens and their kids, our communities would be much safer,” a spokesperson for Newsom’s office said in a statement.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a memo in October to law enforcement agencies across the country advising officers to clearly identify themselves in the field. It cited several incidents where masked criminals posed as immigration officers robbed and kidnapped victims.
The federal government also said in its lawsuit that the laws violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits states from regulating the federal government. It said the law banning federal officers from wearing masks discriminates against the federal government because it exempts state police.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said it was reviewing the complaint.
“It’s problematic when Californians can’t tell the difference between a law enforcement officer who is charged with protecting them and a criminal who is attempting to cause them harm,” Bonta’s office said in a statement. “The FBI itself has warned that the practice of ICE agents obscuring their identity has led to a rise in copycats committing crimes, threatening public safety and eroding trust in law enforcement.”
December 20, 1946 The morning after Viet Minh forces under Ho Chi Minh launched a nighttime revolt in the Vietnamese capital of Hanoi, French colonial troops cracked down on the communist rebels.Ho and his soldiers immediately fled the city to regroup in the countryside. That evening, the communist leader issued a proclamation that read: Ho Chi Minh, Paris 1946 “All the Vietnamese must stand up to fight the French colonials to save the fatherland. Those who have rifles will use their rifles; those who have swords will use their swords; those who have no swords will use spades, hoes, or sticks. Everyone must endeavor to oppose the colonialists and save his country. Even if we have to endure hardship in the resistance war, with the determination to make sacrifices, victory will surely be ours.” The first Indochina War thus began.
December 20, 1960 North Vietnam announced the formation of the National Front for the Liberation of the South (usually known as the National Liberation Front or NLF), designed to replicate the success of the Viet Minh, the umbrella nationalist organization that successfully liberated Vietnam from French colonial rule. National Liberation Front flag Ho Chi Minh biography(2 separate links)
December 20, 1990 Kansas reservist Dr. Yolanda Huet-Vaughn refused orders to serve in the first Gulf War (Desert Storm) and was later sentenced to prison. The Kansas medical board withdrew her hospital privileges.“The issue was not whether I belonged in the military but whether the military belonged in the Middle East waging war. I did not want to focus on the personal decision. I was trying to focus on the decision for which each and every American would have to be responsible.” — Yolanda Huet-Vaughn What if they gave a war and nobody came?
December 20, 1994 100,000 Chechnyan civilians linked hands in a 65 km-long human chain (40 miles) to protest the Russian invasion of their country and attack on their capital, Grozny. Read more (It’s a NYT; if you can’t get it see it at Wikipedia.)
December 20, 1999 The Vermont Supreme Court rulled in Baker v. State of Vermont that homosexual couples were entitled to the same benefits and protections as wedded couples of the opposite sex. History of the Freedom to Marry
Scottie's Playtime 