New York Cannot Ban Federal Agents From Wearing Masks, Judge Rules

The federal government argued that New York’s law goes against the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Masked federal agents wait outside an immigration courtroom in New York on July 8, 2025. Olga Fedorova/AP

A judge ruled on Aug. 3 that New York cannot ban federal agents from wearing masks or balaclavas, or require them to wear visible identification.

U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino, for the Northern District of New York, wrote that New York state’s perspective “is grounded in unavoidable observations of recent troubling events which loom darkly over the public perception of the manner in which federal immigration law is enforced.”

“New York appears to be well-intentioned in its pursuit of transparent policing,” she said in her ruling.

“However, the issue now before the Court is about constitutionality—not transparency or preferable policy decisions. There is a constitutional proscription on direct state regulation of federal agency operations.”

She said that whether federal law enforcement agencies have chosen to carry out their operations in a “sufficiently transparent manner” was an important question, but it was not for the court to decide at this time.

Federal Agents Fear Doxxing

Federal agents have been wearing masks to protect their identities because they and their families fear being doxxed by activists.

The federal government argued that New York’s law goes against the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars state governments from regulating federal law enforcement.

The Trump administration argued the New York state law violated “principles of intergovernmental immunity and are invalid under the Supremacy Clause because they unlawfully regulate or discriminate against the Federal Government … or are preempted by federal law.”

New York’s law to ban face coverings and implement identification measures was included among several law enforcement policies in the state budget bill that was signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul, a D in May and came into effect in June, according to D’Agostino’s ruling.

The definition of face coverings includes any “opaque mask, garment, helmet, headgear, balaclava, ski mask, neck gaiter, or tactical mask,” but excludes transparent face shields, medical masks, or respirators.

On Feb. 9, 2026, a federal district court judge partially blocked a similar law in California, finding that it discriminated against federal officers.

Judge Christina Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled in favor of the Trump administration, prohibiting the state from enforcing its No Secret Police Act—which was scheduled to go into effect earlier this year—against federal law enforcement officers.

The federal government sued California, challenging both laws: the aforementioned law and the No Vigilantes Act, which requires federal officers to wear identification. Snyder ruled that the second law was not discriminatory.

Several other blue states had followed California and New York’s example.

In May, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Connecticut in federal court over a new state law that prohibited federal agents from wearing masks and also established protected areas—including schools, hospitals, and houses of worship—where people cannot be detained for immigration violations.

New York Reviewing Legal Options

Hochul and New York Attorney General Letitia James issued a joint statement after D’Agostino’s ruling.

“While the court enjoined enforcement of New York’s mask ban, we stand firm in our belief that masked agents do not make New York safer, and our offices are reviewing all legal options at this time,” Hochul and James said.

D’Agostino also denied the federal government’s motion for a preliminary injunction blocking New York’s ban on 287(g) agreements between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local law enforcement, which would have allowed ICE to delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to local officers.

Hochul and James welcomed that ruling.

“As we have said from the start, New York’s ban on 287(g) agreements is legal and will keep our communities safe,” they said in their joint statement.

“Local law enforcement should be focused on local matters, and New York taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for any collaboration with ICE.”

Hochul’s Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, which was proposed in January, prohibits federal agents from using local detention centers for civil immigration enforcement, including what the governor described as “mass raids” and detainee transport.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.