A federal judge in Los Angeles blocked California from enforcing its so-called "No Secret Police Act" on Monday, granting a preliminary injunction that halts the state's attempt to force ICE agents to remove their masks during immigration enforcement operations.
Judge Christina Snyder — a Clinton appointee, no less — ruled that the law violated the Supremacy Clause because it singled out federal officers while exempting state law enforcement from the same requirements. The law, in other words, didn't apply the rules equally. It weaponized them.
"The Court finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks. However, because the No Secret Police Act, as presently enacted, does not apply equally to all law enforcement officers in the state, it unlawfully discriminates against federal officers."
A separate provision, the "No Vigilantes Act," survived the ruling. That measure requires all officers to display their agency affiliation and a personal identifier — such as a badge number — on their uniforms. But the centerpiece of California's defiance, the mask ban aimed squarely at federal agents, is dead on arrival.
Governor Gavin Newsom signed both measures into law last September, crafting them as a direct response to federal immigration enforcement operations in California, Fox News reported. The laws were set to take effect January 1, 2026, though the state paused enforcement against federal agencies while the court weighed the injunction request.
When the ruling came down, Newsom did what Newsom does — he declared victory while standing in the wreckage.
"A federal court upheld California's law requiring federal agents to identify themselves – a clear win for the rule of law. No badge and no name mean no accountability."
Notice the sleight of hand. The court struck down the law's core provision — the one designed to strip federal agents of the operational security they need to do their jobs safely — and Newsom pointed to the surviving fragment as proof the whole enterprise succeeded. It's like losing the house in a divorce and bragging that you kept the welcome mat.
"California will keep standing up for civil rights and our democracy."
Standing up for civil rights by trying to expose the identities of federal agents who enforce the law. That's the California definition of democracy — sovereignty for the state, danger for the officers.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi didn't mince words about what this law would have meant in practice. She applauded the ruling on X Monday and made clear the administration sees this as part of a larger pattern.
"These federal agents are harassed, doxxed, obstructed, and attacked on a regular basis just for doing their jobs. We have no tolerance for it."
That's not rhetoric. ICE agents operate in some of the most hostile jurisdictions in the country — cities and states that have built entire legal architectures around obstructing federal immigration enforcement. Masks aren't a fashion choice. They're a basic layer of protection for agents whose names and faces, once exposed, become targets for activists and criminal networks alike.
California's argument before the court cast the law as a routine exercise of state police powers — something akin to speed limits or traffic regulations. State attorneys insisted the provisions merely "incidentally" affected federal operations and did not amount to unconstitutional regulation of federal law enforcement.
Judge Snyder wasn't buying it. The law's selective application — penalizing federal agents while leaving state officers untouched — revealed its actual purpose. This wasn't neutral regulation. It was a targeted burden dressed in the language of accountability.
California has spent years constructing a legal fortress around illegal immigrants within its borders. Sanctuary policies. Non-cooperation mandates. And now, laws designed to make federal agents personally identifiable — and therefore personally vulnerable — while carrying out lawful operations.
The underlying logic is always the same: if you can't stop federal enforcement outright, make it as dangerous and difficult as possible for the people doing the enforcing. Strip their anonymity. Expose them to retaliation. Then claim you're defending civil liberties.
Bondi framed the ruling as part of a broader winning streak for the administration's legal strategy.
"We will continue fighting and winning in court for President Trump's law-and-order agenda — and we will ALWAYS have the backs of our great federal law enforcement officers."
The constitutional principle at work here isn't complicated. Federal law takes precedence over conflicting state or local law. States don't get to regulate how federal agents conduct federal operations — especially when the regulation applies only to federal officers and exempts their state counterparts.
California tested that boundary. The court pushed back. And the fact that the judge who did it was appointed by Bill Clinton makes the legal reasoning that much harder for Sacramento to dismiss as partisan overreach.
Newsom will keep talking about accountability. Bondi will keep winning injunctions. And federal agents in California will keep their masks on — because the law, the actual law, says they can.
