A federal judge blocked New York’s law banning Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from wearing masks, ruling Monday that the state cannot regulate federal law enforcement activities. U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino issued a preliminary injunction finding that New York’s mask ban and identification requirements violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which bars states from regulating federal agencies.
Governor Kathy Hochul signed the sweeping anti-ICE package in late May 2026, with the mask ban taking effect on June 26. The law prohibited all law enforcement—including federal agents—from wearing face coverings while on duty and required them to display visible identification badges and badge numbers.
D’Agostino acknowledged New York’s stated intentions. “The state appears to be well-intentioned in its pursuit of transparent policing,” she wrote in her 51-page ruling. However, she found the government likely to prevail on constitutional grounds, noting that “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.”
The preliminary ruling means local police officers cannot arrest ICE agents for covering their faces in public settings. The Justice Department had sued New York in June, arguing that states cannot interfere with federal law enforcement operations. Brandon Neuman, a DOJ lawyer, told the court in July that “the key harm here is to the sovereign function of the United States.”
D’Agostino’s decision follows a pattern in other states. Federal judges have blocked similar mask bans in California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania using the same constitutional reasoning. California’s law, signed in September 2025, was the first state-level mask ban for ICE agents. After California’s initial block in February 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal government’s position in April, further solidifying the legal precedent against such state restrictions.
The ruling split New York’s anti-ICE package in half. While D’Agostino blocked the mask ban, she allowed the state’s separate law prohibiting 287(g) cooperation agreements between local police and ICE to stand. Those agreements allow local officers to assist federal immigration enforcement. D’Agostino found that New York’s ban on such partnerships represents a legitimate use of state authority over local resources and policy.
Governor Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James said they are reviewing legal options for appeal. “We stand firm in our belief that masked agents do not make New York safer,” they said in a joint statement. The ruling has become a campaign issue in Hochul’s 2026 re-election bid against Republican Bruce Blakeman, the Nassau County executive, who supports ICE enforcement.
Sources
- The Guardian — Judge Mae D’Agostino’s preliminary injunction blocking the mask ban, the Supremacy Clause ruling, and the partial allowance of the 287(g) ban
- Politico — The federal judge’s ruling and New York’s legal challenge
- AP News — The preliminary injunction details and the mask ban block
- Fox News — Judge D’Agostino’s injunction and the ruling’s scope
- American Immigration Council — Context on similar mask bans in other states and the pattern of federal court blocks
- CalMatters — The Ninth Circuit’s April 2026 ruling on California’s mask ban, establishing precedent
- Governor Hochul’s office — The May 28, 2026 signing of the anti-ICE package and mask ban effective date
