NEW YORK (PNN) - August 4, 2026 - A judge ruled on August 3 that New York cannot ban federal agents from wearing masks, balaclavas, or require them to wear visible identification.
United States 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," wrote Judge D’Agostino.
She said whether federal law enforcement agencies have chosen to conduct 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 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 Constitution, which bars state governments from regulating federal law enforcement.
President Donald J. Trump’s regime argued the New York state law violated "principles of intergovernmental immunity and is invalid under the Supremacy Clause because it unlawfully regulates or discriminates against the federal government... or is 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 Marxist Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul 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 February 9, 2026, a federal district court judge partially blocked a similar law in Kalifornia, finding that it discriminated against federal officers.
Judge Christina Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Kalifornia ruled in favor of the Trump regime, 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 Kalifornia, 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 followed Kalifornia 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.
Hochul and outlaw 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.