A New York law banning US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from wearing face coverings and requiring that they wear visible identification has been put on hold by a federal judge. But a state law prohibiting cooperation between local police departments and ICE has been allowed to stand.
The mask ruling comes after federal judges have blocked similar laws in California, Virginia and Pennsylvania that sought to ban federal immigration agents from covering their faces. They are still required to wear agency identification badges and badge number.
US district judge Mae D’Agostino of the federal court in Albany, New York, wrote that while the state “appears to be well-intentioned in its pursuit of transparent policing”, her decision was made on constitutional arguments rather than “transparency or preferable policy decisions”.
D’Agostino said that New York officials “may be correct that federal immigration officers wearing masks and not displaying viable identification creates certain dangerous situations that the face covering and identification acts remedy”.
She wrote that the Trump administration nonetheless has shown a likelihood that the measures go against the supremacy clause of the US constitution, which bars state governments from regulating federal law enforcement.
The preliminary ruling means local police officers are blocked from arresting ICE agents for covering their faces in public settings.
“The United States has demonstrated a likelihood that it will succeed on its claim that [New York’s] face covering and identification acts directly regulate federal officers in violation of the supremacy clause,” D’Agostino wrote.
“Whether federal law enforcement agencies have chosen to carry out such operations in a sufficiently transparent manner is an important question. But that question is not for this court to answer at the present time.”
New York’s governor, Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, signed the restrictions known as the “New York mask law” in late May in response to federal immigration enforcement tactics during Donald Trump’s second presidency. Members of the president’s Republican party argue that a mask ban undermines public safety.
On the issue of whether local law enforcement can cooperate with federal agents, D’Agostino’s ۵۱-page preliminary ruling said New York’s ban on ۲۸۷(g) cooperation agreements – that comes into effect later in August – should stand because it is an “appropriate means of furthering New York’s legitimate interests in protecting public welfare and choosing how state and local resources are expended”.
Brandon Neuman, a US justice department lawyer, argued in July that both the mask and cooperation bans in New York are invalid because states can’t make laws that regulate the actions of federal agencies.
“The key harm here is to the sovereign function of the United States,” he said.
James Percival, a general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that oversees immigration enforcement agencies, reacted to D’Agostino’s ruling by saying on X that Democratic-led states “continue to stack losses as they try to pass unconstitutional bans on ICE officers wearing masks”.
Hochul and New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, said the ruling allowing the ۲۸۷(g) ban to remain in effect shows the law “is legal and will keep our communities safe”.
“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,” they said in a joint statement.
“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.”
The statement alluded to the New York government’s ability to appeal D’Agostino’s ruling, saying: “Our offices are reviewing all legal options at this time.”
ICE cooperation has become a campaign issue in Hochul’s bid for re-election in November. She is facing Bruce Blakeman, a Nassau county executive, who supports ICE tactics and opposes the prohibition of cooperation with the agency.
