\n<\/p>\n
He continued: \u201cPeople do not want masked law enforcement in their communities, people want to be able to see who is patrolling their communities, people understand that if ICE and any other law enforcement wear ski masks, that creates an atmosphere of impunity and terror, and prevents accountability.\u201d<\/p>\n
But it\u2019s not clear if Newsom would sign such a bill. In response to the ruling, his press office wrote<\/a> on social media, \u201cMr. Wiener rejected our proposed fixes to his bill \u2014 language that was later included in the identification bill the court upheld today. He chose a different approach, and today the court found his approach unlawful.\u201d<\/p>\n U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated<\/a> the ruling on X, calling it \u201cANOTHER key court victory.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFollowing our arguments, a district court in California BLOCKED the enforcement of a law that would have banned federal agents from wearing masks to protect their identities,\u201d Bondi wrote. \u201cWe will continue fighting and winning in court for President Trump\u2019s law-and-order agenda.\u201d<\/p>\n In court on Monday, Snyder dismissed several arguments the Trump administration has made to justify why agents should be allowed to mask.<\/p>\n She noted that there are no federal laws or regulations that require federal law enforcement officers to wear facial coverings or conceal their identity, and \u201cin fact, some federal laws and regulations require visible identification in certain circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n Historically, she noted, federal officers have not been masked.<\/p>\n Snyder also found that the federal government \u201chas not met its burden to show that enforcement of the challenged provisions \u2026 would interfere with or take control of federal law enforcement operations,\u201d \u2014 comparing them to traffic laws that dictate how a federal officer may drive on state roads.<\/p>\n And she rejected the argument that bills will put officers at risk of attacks and physical harm, noting that the potential harms cited in court \u2014 including doxing, threats and assault \u2014 are all crimes themselves.<\/p>\n \u201cA rule that prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing masks or requires them to have visible identification does not facilitate or enable criminals to harm law enforcement officers,\u201d she wrote. To the contrary, she added later, the \u201cpresence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.\u201d<\/p>\n And in a clear rebuke to statements made by Vice President JD Vance and others<\/a> after the Minneapolis shootings, Snyder noted that, \u201cThe law is clear that federal officers do not have absolute immunity from state prosecution.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n