A federal judge on Monday invalidated a controversial California state law that barred federal officers from wearing masks or other face coverings while enforcing state law or executing civil processes, ruling that the statute interfered with federal authority and is preempted by federal law.
U.S. District Judge C. Jay Olavez in Sacramento held that Assembly Bill 372, passed by the California Legislature amid heightened tensions between state and federal authorities, improperly sought to regulate equipment used by federal officers such as U.S. Marshals and Bureau of Prisons personnel. The judge concluded that the law intruded on a domain historically and legally reserved for the federal government, making it unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The California law had prohibited federal agents from wearing masks, hoods, or other face coverings while on duty in an effort to promote accountability and discourage anonymity during interactions with the public. Supporters of the statute described it as a measure to ensure transparency and protect civil liberties, particularly in communities concerned about federal enforcement tactics.
However, the federal government, backed by the Department of Justice, argued that the state law conflicted with federal interests and operational needs, especially where masks and protective gear are part of authorized equipment for safety and tactical reasons. In siding with the government, Judge Olavez emphasized that states cannot impose equipment restrictions on federal officers that undermine federal law or interfere with federal operations.
In his ruling, the judge referenced longstanding precedents holding that when federal and state laws conflict, federal authority prevails. The decision underscored that while states have broad powers to regulate for public safety and welfare, they cannot constrain how federal officers perform their duties when acting under federal authority.
Civil liberties groups weighed in on both sides of the issue. Supporters of the California law criticized the ruling as a setback for state efforts to assert local autonomy and promote policing transparency. Meanwhile, law enforcement associations argued that the judgment restored necessary clarity and operational flexibility for federal agents who rely on protective gear for their safety.
The decision is expected to curtail similar statutes in other states that have sought to limit federal enforcement practices. California officials have not yet announced whether they will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.