\n<\/p>\n
LOS ANGELES — <\/span>A federal judge on Monday blocked a California law from going into effect that would ban federal immigration agents from covering their faces, but they will still be required to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number.<\/p>\n California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings under a bill that was signed in September following the summer of high-profile raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in Los Angeles. <\/p>\n The Trump administration filed a lawsuit<\/a> in November challenging the laws, arguing that they would threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing and violence and that they violated the constitution because the state is directly regulating the federal government.<\/p>\n Judge Christina Snyder said she issued the initial ruling because the mask ban as it was enacted did not also apply to state law enforcement authorities, discriminating against the federal government. The ruling could have national implications as states grapple with how to deal with federal agents enforcing the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. <\/p>\n It left open the possibility to future legislation banning federal agents from wearing masks if it applied to all law enforcement agencies, with Snyder writing “the Court finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks.\u201d The ruling will go into effect Feb. 19.<\/p>\n Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill in September banning some law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings<\/a>. It was slated to go into effect Jan. 1 but was put on hold due to the lawsuit.<\/p>\n In addition to exempting state law enforcement officers, it made exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a mask would jeopardize an operation. Snyder sided with the federal government, which argued this exemption was discriminatory against federal agents.<\/p>\n Newsom also signed into law a measure requiring law enforcement to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number while on the job, which was challenged by the federal government but upheld by the judge. In a statement, Newsom called the judge’s decision a \u201ca clear win for the rule of law.”<\/p>\n California State Sen. Scott Weiner, who proposed the original bill to ban facial coverings, said Monday he would immediately introduce new legislation to include state police in the law.<\/p>\n \u201cICE and Border Patrol are covering their faces to maximize their terror campaign and to insulate themselves from accountability,\u201d Weiner said in a news release. \u201cWe will ensure our mask ban can be enforced.\u201d<\/p>\n At a Jan. 14 hearing, Snyder repeatedly asked the government\u2019s lawyer, Tiberius Davis, to explain why banning masks would impede the federal law enforcement in carrying out their duties, if officers rarely wore masks prior to 2025.<\/p>\n Davis cited claims by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that there has been a multifold increase in assaults and threats against federal officers. He also brought up an incident in Los Angeles where three women are being accused of livestreaming while following an ICE agent<\/a> home and posting the address on Instagram.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is real deterrence on the officer\u2019s safety and ability to perform their duties,\u201d Davis said. <\/p>\n Cameron Bell, California Department of Justice attorney, challenged his claims, saying there was no concrete evidence that federal agents can\u2019t perform their duties without facial coverings<\/a>.<\/p>\n Bell referenced declarations from U.S citizens who have been detained by federal agents but thought they were being kidnapped.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s obvious why these laws are in the public interest,\u201d Bell said.<\/p>\n The federal government also argued in legal briefs that allowing California\u2019s legislation could lead other states to be \u201cemboldened to impose similar unconstitutional restraints.\u201d<\/p>\n