The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a full stay on Thursday, halting California's ban on masks for federal law enforcement agents, temporarily preventing the state from enforcing a law that would have made it a misdemeanor for ICE agents to conceal their identities during operations.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the ruling on X:
"The 9th Circuit has now issued a FULL stay blocking California's ban on masks for federal law enforcement agents."
The stay keeps the law frozen while litigation continues, marking the second consecutive legal defeat for Sacramento in its effort to dictate how federal officers conduct immigration enforcement on California soil.
Newsmax reported that California's law took effect Jan. 1 and made it a misdemeanor for many law enforcement officers, including federal agents, to wear a mask or other disguise while interacting with the public during official duties.
Medical protection, such as N95 respirators, was exempted, but the thrust of the law was clear: strip federal immigration agents of the operational anonymity they use to protect themselves during enforcement actions.
Supporters dubbed the legislation the "No Secret Police Act." California state Sen. Scott Wiener authored the bill, and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it into law.
The framing tells you everything. Sacramento wasn't concerned about transparency in policing. It was building another legal obstacle between federal agents and the illegal immigrants California has spent years shielding from enforcement.
Masked federal immigration operations drew protests and public scrutiny in 2025, and California's Democratic leadership responded not by cooperating with federal law but by criminalizing the agents enforcing it.
The Justice Department sued California in November, arguing the state cannot regulate federal officers' duties and that the law violates the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. The Trump administration argued the measure would endanger agents and intrude on federal authority.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder in Los Angeles blocked California from enforcing the mask restrictions against federal officers. Snyder concluded that the law unlawfully discriminated against the federal government.
She did allow California to enforce a separate state requirement that law enforcement officers display visible identification showing their agency and badge number, except when working undercover.
Newsom called Snyder's decision upholding the identification requirement "a clear win for the rule of law." A partial ruling that still stripped the core of his own legislation, rebranded as a victory. That's Sacramento in a sentence.
Wiener said after the district court ruling that he would move quickly to revise the law to apply more uniformly across law enforcement agencies. In other words, the law was so poorly drafted that a federal judge found it singled out the federal government for unique burdens, and the author's response was to promise a second attempt.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli weighed in Thursday with a pointed reminder:
"The state of California needs to familiarize itself with the Supremacy Clause. It does not have the authority to regulate federal agents. This is another key win for the Justice Department."
This is not a close constitutional question. States do not get to dictate the operational protocols of federal law enforcement. They do not get to decide which protective equipment federal agents wear. They do not get to impose misdemeanor charges on officers executing federal warrants.
The Supremacy Clause exists precisely to prevent states from waging guerrilla legal warfare against the enforcement of federal law.
California keeps pretending otherwise, and the courts keep telling them no.
Bondi framed the stakes plainly:
"Law enforcement officers risk their lives for us, only to be doxxed by radical anti-police activists. Unacceptable."
That's the part of this story that doesn't make it into the "No Secret Police Act" branding. Federal agents conducting immigration operations in hostile jurisdictions face real threats. Their names and faces, once exposed, become targets for harassment, intimidation, and violence.
Masks aren't theatrical props. They are protective measures for officers working in communities where local politicians have spent years encouraging resistance to federal immigration law.
California created an environment where agents need anonymity, then passed a law stripping it away. The contradiction isn't accidental. It's the strategy.
Bondi added:
"This crucial ruling protects our brave men and women in the field. We will not stop fighting bad laws like these in California and across the country."
The dispute is the latest flashpoint in a long-running clash between the Trump administration and California's Democratic leadership.
Sacramento has turned obstruction of federal immigration enforcement into something between a governing philosophy and a hobby. Sanctuary policies, non-cooperation mandates, and now criminal penalties for the equipment federal agents wear.
Each new law forces the Justice Department to spend time and resources in court rather than in the field. Each new law signals to illegal immigrants that California will fight to keep the federal government from enforcing the law. And each new law, when it inevitably fails in court, gets quietly revised and resubmitted.
The 9th Circuit, not historically known for siding with federal enforcement priorities, issued a full stay. When even the 9th Circuit tells California it has gone too far, the overreach speaks for itself.
Sacramento will try again. The DOJ will be waiting.
