Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
from Nickel DuraCalMatters
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
A series of immigration raids in California in 2025 had one thing in common: most of the federal agents arresting people were wearing masks on their faces.
In January, the state of California and its largest county will ban law enforcement officers from covering their faces, with a few exceptions, putting local and state police at odds with masked immigration agents.
State law gives law enforcement officers a choice: If they cover their faces, they lose the ability to claim “qualified immunity”, the doctrine which protects employees from individual liability for their actions. That means they can be prosecuted for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest or malicious prosecution, and the law adds a clause that says the minimum penalty for committing these crimes while wearing a mask is $10,000.
Rep. Mark Gonzalez, a Democrat from Los Angeles who co-sponsored the law, said it was necessary to limit anonymous federal agents.
“At first we understood that, oh, they’re only targeting people who aren’t citizens,” Gonzalez said, “And then you actually learn over time that they don’t care who you are, they attack you no matter what, without due process.”
The Trump administration has been suing to block the bill for more than a century federal court precedent is on his side. 1890 Supreme Court Case provides that a state may not prosecute a federal law enforcement officer acting in the course of his duties.
This was announced by the Trump administration in its brief to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that forcing agents to reveal their identities would put agents at risk.
During the Immigration and Customs Enforcement action, “individuals can be heard threatening to doxx and find out who the employees and their family members are and where they live,” administration lawyers said in a Nov. 17 briefing. “There are even public websites that seek out and post personal information about ICE and other federal officials to harass and threaten them and their families.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, said the issue may not be as comprehensive as one or two Supreme Court cases. He pointed out a 2001 decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals it allowed the case of a federal sniper who killed a woman during the 1992 standoff in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, to go to trial.
“It basically says that a federal employee can be prosecuted for unreasonable actions,” Chemerinsky said. “Federal employees, by virtue of being federal employees, do not receive immunity from all state civil and criminal laws.”
Brian Marvel, president of an organization that represents police unions in California, said the law would make life more difficult for local cops and county sheriff’s deputies. Organizations representing police chiefs, sheriffs, agents in the attorney general’s office and California Highway Patrol officers also opposed the law.
“I think the state has put us in a weak position with this fight they’re having with the Trump administration,” said Marvell of the California Peace Officers Research Association. “We don’t want to be at the center of that fight. But unfortunately, (with) the desire for higher name recognition and elections in 2026, they decided to create things that are much more political and not directed at legitimate public safety issues.”
Marvell said another flaw of the law is giving “a false sense of hope to California’s immigrant community” that the law will force federal agents out of the state.
The Los Angeles County Supervisors have, too approved a local ban on wearing masks on enforcement for unincorporated areas of the county, a measure that will take effect in mid-January unless a court decision comes sooner.
Gonzalez noted that masks played an important role in California’s recent history. First, during the pandemic California has temporarily made masks mandatory in society and at work. Then, a few years later, a spate of smash-and-grab robberies were harder to crack because all the suspects were wearing masks. California now finds itself in its third back-and-forth on face covers.
The law provides exemptions for N-95 or medical-grade masks to prevent the transmission of infection and allows undercover agents to wear a mask.
“It’s specifically aimed at federal agents because we have to somehow combat these kidnappings,” Gonzalez said, “and that was our way.”
This article was originally published on CalMatters and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license.