A federal judge dealt a major blow to California’s latest attempt to obstruct immigration enforcement this week, siding with the Constitution — and federal officers — over a state law critics say would have endangered agents in the field.
On February 9, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder blocked enforcement of California’s so-called “No Secret Police Act” (SB 627), a measure that would have forced ICE and other federal agents to remove protective masks during operations. Snyder ruled the law likely violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause because it singles out and discriminates against federal officers.
Even more striking to observers: Snyder is a Clinton appointee, undercutting the predictable narrative that the decision was partisan. Her ruling focused squarely on federal authority and officer safety.
“The Court finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks,” Snyder wrote. “However, because the No Secret Police Act… does not apply equally to all law enforcement officers in the state, it unlawfully discriminates against federal officers.”
In plain English: California tried to impose special restrictions on federal agents that it does not apply to its own officers — a direct constitutional problem.
Judge Snyder did uphold a companion measure, the “No Vigilantes Act” (SB 805), which requires visible agency affiliation and badge numbers. But the mask mandate — the most controversial portion — is now frozen as the case moves forward.
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision as a victory for basic law enforcement safety, noting that federal agents have become prime targets of harassment campaigns fueled by anti-ICE activism.
“These federal agents are harassed, doxxed, obstructed, and attacked on a regular basis just for doing their jobs,” Bondi said. “We have no tolerance for it.”
She credited Department of Justice attorneys for securing what she called “another key court victory” for President Trump’s law-and-order agenda and vowed continued legal resistance to state efforts that undermine federal enforcement.
The safety concerns are not theoretical. ICE agents have faced organized doxxing efforts, threats to their families, and attempts to interfere with operations. Masks, officials argue, are not about secrecy — they’re about protecting officers from retaliation in an era where political violence and online targeting have become normalized on the far left.
California officials, unsurprisingly, framed the partial ruling differently. Gov. Gavin Newsom attempted to spin the decision as a win for “accountability,” pointing to the upheld ID requirement while ignoring the fact that the central pillar of the law was blocked.
The state had argued the measure was a routine exercise of police powers that only “incidentally” affected federal enforcement. The court clearly wasn’t convinced.
Critics say the law was less about civil liberties and more about scoring political points with activist groups that oppose immigration enforcement altogether. One social media user captured the frustration many Americans feel: federal agents are condemned for wearing protective gear, while masked agitators at riots are often excused as exercising protest rights.
The broader issue is federal supremacy. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, not a sandbox for state political experiments. Snyder’s ruling reinforces a basic constitutional principle: states cannot selectively handicap federal officers to satisfy ideological agendas.
For now, federal agents can continue protecting their identities — and their families — while doing a job many politicians prefer to demonize from a distance. And the court’s message was clear: the Constitution still applies, even in California.
