By Redacción
Redaccion@latinocc.com
A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked the enforcement of a state law that prohibited most law enforcement officers, including federal agents, from covering their faces during official operations, ruling that the measure unlawfully discriminates against federal authorities.
U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder granted a preliminary injunction requested by the Trump administration on Monday, allowing federal agents to continue using facial coverings while conducting operations in California.
In her ruling, Snyder determined that the law did not apply equally to state and federal officers, raising constitutional concerns. However, she upheld another provision of the legislation requiring federal agents operating in California to display visible identification, such as their name or badge number.
The decision marks a partial legal victory for the Trump administration, which challenged the law last year, arguing that it interfered with federal law enforcement duties.
Security versus transparency
The blocked law was enacted in September following a series of immigration raids carried out by federal agents across Southern California. During those operations, some agents wore masks and lacked visible identification, sparking criticism from state officials, civil rights advocates and community leaders.
The legislation — the first of its kind in the United States — sought to ban the use of balaclavas, neck gaiters and other facial coverings during official duties, with exceptions for undercover officers, medical masks and specialized tactical gear.
The Trump administration argued that the measure was an unconstitutional attempt by the state to regulate federal law enforcement activities. Attorney General Pamela Bondi praised the ruling as a “key judicial victory,” pledging continued legal efforts to protect federal agents.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta emphasized that the court rejected the administration’s attempt to eliminate the identification requirement. “Safe communities depend on transparency and trust,” Bonta said in a statement, reaffirming the state’s commitment to civil liberties and public safety.
The case remains ongoing as courts consider the broader constitutional implications of the law amid heightened tensions over immigration enforcement.
