The preliminary injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge Mae D'Agostino, prevents local police from arresting federal agents for covering their faces while on duty. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from wearing face coverings in public, ruling that the state measure likely violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The preliminary injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge Mae D'Agostino, prevents local police from arresting federal agents for covering their faces while on duty. The ruling follows similar injunctions against mask bans in California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
In her 51-page ruling, Judge D'Agostino wrote that while New York “appears to be well-intentioned in its pursuit of transparent policing,” the decision rested on constitutional grounds rather than “transparency or preferable policy decisions.” She acknowledged that state 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.” However, she concluded that the Trump administration had shown a likelihood of success on its claim that the state laws “directly regulate federal officers in violation of the supremacy clause.”
The judge also addressed a separate provision of New York law that prohibits local police departments from entering into 287(g) cooperation agreements with ICE. That ban, which takes effect later in August, was allowed to stand. D'Agostino wrote that the cooperation ban is an “appropriate means of furthering New York's legitimate interests in protecting public welfare and choosing how state and local resources are expended.”
New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, signed the restrictions in late May in response to federal immigration enforcement tactics during President Donald Trump's second term. Republicans have argued that the mask ban undermines public safety.
During a July hearing, U.S. Justice Department lawyer Brandon Neuman argued that both the mask and cooperation bans are invalid because states cannot regulate the actions of federal agencies. “The key harm here is to the sovereign function of the United States,” he said.
James Percival, general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, responded to the ruling on X, saying that Democratic-led states “continue to stack losses as they try to pass unconstitutional bans on ICE officers wearing masks.”
Hochul and New York Attorney General Letitia James issued a joint statement saying the ruling that allowed the 287(g) ban to remain in effect shows the law “is legal and will keep our communities safe.” They added: “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 also said, “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 noted that their offices are “reviewing all legal options.”
ICE cooperation has become a campaign issue in Hochul's re-election bid in November. She faces Bruce Blakeman, the Nassau County executive, who supports ICE tactics and opposes the prohibition on cooperation with the agency.
The state's position on the mask ruling is not detailed in the source account beyond the joint statement indicating a review of legal options.