On the Continued Use of Masks by Law Enforcement

New York City Bar Association Statement

The New York City Bar Association (“City Bar”) condemns the continued, widespread use of masks and face coverings by law enforcement agencies as undermining the rule of law.

In June of 2025, the City Bar issued a statement in which it decried the use of masks and other measures to obscure the identity of law enforcement officers, notably those engaged in enforcement of the country’s immigration laws (the violation of which is civil, rather than criminal). In its June 2025 Statement, the City Bar noted that masking appeared to be an attempt to “evade accountability, and to decrease transparency in response to increasing allegations of government overreach, abuse of power, and violations of constitutional rights.”[1]

Since the statement was issued, federal immigration agents and other law enforcement officers have continued to use masks and other mechanisms to obscure their identities, as apparent violence and abuse of constitutional rights – and attempts to document them – continue. During that time, it has become apparent that federal immigration agents and other federal law enforcement officers’ use of masking or other means of obscuring their identity, like foregoing badges, have sowed fear and distrust of law enforcement, and potentially emboldened violations of rights. Furthermore, masking to conceal the identity of law enforcement agents serves no legitimate purpose. Law enforcement officials throughout the country go unmasked and reveal their identities through nametags and badges; federal law enforcement agents should be no different.^[2]

Since June 2025, the use of masks by federal immigration officers has developed into a routine and normalized practice across enforcement operations. Scrutiny of the use of masks has also increased with allegations of excessive force, racial profiling, and arrests carried out in sensitive locations such as schools, churches, and hospitals. That scrutiny intensified after the January 2026 killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, which occurred during a large-scale enforcement surge. Concerns were compounded by the Trump Administration’s reduction of oversight measures, including cuts to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) body camera program and to staffing for ICE’s internal watchdog mechanisms. In response, states including California, Washington, and New Jersey have sought to require officers to identify themselves or limit the use of masks. The federal government has maintained its assertion that masks are necessary for officer safety and has challenged these efforts on constitutional grounds. Yet the federal government has put forward no evidence to support its contention that officer safety justifies this practice – there is no evidence that federal law enforcement agents face heightened risks of doxxing or other threats, and certainly no evidence that they are at higher risk than local and state law enforcement officials who are able to perform their work unmasked.

This practice continues to harm communities and the rule of law. As the practice has continued, the City Bar now writes again to raise the following concerns about the ongoing use of masking and other methods to obscure the identities of law enforcement officers:

CONCERN 1: MASKING CREATES AND ENCOURAGES A CULTURE OF IMPUNITY AND UNDERCUTS DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.

Government power derives its legitimacy from the people it serves. Critical to law enforcement’s effectiveness in serving the people is the public’s ability to hold its members accountable. Accountability is the opposite of impunity, and it is the best means of guarding against abuse, as it shapes behavior, deters misconduct, and reinforces professional standards. A clear path between actions and consequences is available when the officers responsible for those actions are identifiable.

Masking amounts to drastically reducing – and even blocking – accountability. Allowing law enforcement officers to hide their identities undercuts individual accountability in the moment and weakens the structural incentives for lawfully restrained conduct. This lack of transparency undermines a core democratic principle — that state power must be exercised in a way that is open to scrutiny.

The inability to identify individual officers also signals to those inclined to abuse their power that accountability mechanisms are weak or absent. In this environment, the perceived likelihood of consequences diminishes, further reducing the constraints on officer behavior. When officers believe they will not be identified, the deterrent effect of accountability fades, and the risk of misconduct rises.

Indeed, recent events exemplify this risk of misconduct. In August 2026, ICE awarded a no-bid $16.7 million contract for 6,000 pairs of the “CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E.” (Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter), a glove-mounted electric shock device. The taser-like glove is expressly designed to be “low-optics,” meaning it resembles an ordinary work glove and, in the words of a law enforcement endorser, “looks better on video” than conventional use-of-force tools. By deploying masked officers who use devices engineered for visual inconspicuousness, the Administration has layered hidden identity onto concealed force, leaving no accountability trail.^[3]

CONCERN 2: MASKING SOWS DISTRUST OF GOVERNMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.

Masking sows distrust of government and law enforcement, reinforcing the perception that authorities are acting in secret and as a force for intimidation rather than in service of the community. The wearing of masks by law enforcement contributes to a fear of government, signaling a posture closer to conflict than to lawful, community-oriented public service. When law enforcement begins to feel militarized rather than civic in nature, cooperation declines, fear increases, and the legitimacy of public institutions weakens.

Members of law enforcement are public servants and thus owe a duty to be transparent and accountable to the communities they serve. When officers obscure their identities, it becomes far more difficult for individuals to report misconduct, seek remedies, or even verify that those exercising authority, including force, are actually governmental agents.

CONCERN 3: MASKING MAKES IT MUCH HARDER FOR VICTIMS TO SEEK REDRESS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.

When masked agents violate the civil rights of the members of the public, it is harder for victims to seek and obtain justice. While plaintiffs can name “Doe defendants” where they do not know the name of officers who have abused them, doing so creates additional hurdles for litigants seeking justice and adds work for courts. In instances where agencies have not kept adequate records, it may never be possible to ascertain the identities of officers involved in violations of civil rights.

Masked officers can negatively impact criminal proceedings; where there are factual questions about the identity of an officer, courts may face added challenges sorting through competing and confusing narratives.

CONCLUSION

The impunity, erosion of public trust, and barriers to civil rights redress described above each flow from the same root cause: the inability to identify the officer. Although several state legislatures have moved to require officer identification and prohibit masking, the federal government’s challenges to those laws have foreclosed state-level remedies, confirming the need for federal action to provide a durable solution. The City Bar therefore renews its call for the Administration to end the masking practice immediately and to restore the oversight mechanisms it has eliminated, and further calls on Congress to pass legislation requiring federal law enforcement officers engaged in public-facing operations to display visible identification and cease the use of masks.

The appendix below chronicles the key developments since the City Bar last spoke to this issue: the normalization of masked law enforcement, the legislative responses it has generated across more than twenty states, and the federal government’s efforts to stymie those responses in court.

Appendix: Timeline of developments since June 2025

1. Mid-2025: Masked federal immigration enforcement became widespread and increasingly normalized
   1. June 2025 Los Angeles Raids – Raids in Los Angeles involved agents increasingly conducting arrests while masked, including at courthouses and workplaces. Reuters also reported that the administration was pushing ICE to sharply increase arrests, fueling more aggressive enforcement tactics.[4]
   2. July 2025 Expansion Across Major Cities – Plainclothes, and armed federal immigration officers began operating in multiple cities, including Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Phoenix, Miami, and Washington, D.C. Observers described agents using force, grabbing individuals off the street, and conducting enforcement from unmarked vehicles at schools, courthouses, religious institutions, and worksites.[5]
2. Late 2025: Masking became a routine feature of operations
   1. December 2025 Human Rights Watch findings – Human Rights Watch found that federal immigration agents were “commonly” operating while masked and without visible identification, noting that the practice undermined accountability and made misconduct investigations more difficult.[6]
3. December 2025 to February 2026: Large-scale masked deployments in Minnesota
   1. December 2025 “Operation Metro Surge” – The federal government launched a large-scale enforcement operation in Minnesota’s Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul) to increase “at-large” arrests.
   2. January 2026 Scale of deployment – approximately 3,000 federal immigration agents were deployed to the area.[7]
   3. January 2026 Mask Use – On January 12, 2026, Minneapolis alleged that “thousands of armed and masked DHS agents,” including ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers conducted militarized raids, traffic stops, and arrests in sensitive locations such as schools, churches, and hospitals.[8]
4. January 2026: Fatal incidents intensified scrutiny
   1. January 7, 2026, Renée Good – Renée Good, a Minneapolis resident and mother of three, was shot and killed in her car by a masked ICE agent.[9]
   2. January 24, 2026, Alex Pretti – Alex Pretti, an intensive care unit nurse, was shot and killed during a separate Minneapolis incident involving masked federal agents. The shooting involved additional federal officers, including CBP personnel – not ICE alone.[10]
5. Early 2026: Masking became central to federal accountability and funding disputes
   1. January 2026 Reduction in Oversight Mechanisms – The Trump Administration moved to cut funding for ICE’s body camera program and had already “sharply cut” staffing within DHS oversight offices.[11]
   2. January 2026 Congressional response – Senate Democrats stated they would not support extending DHS funding without reforms, including requiring agents to remove masks, use body cameras, and comply with stricter warrant requirements.[12]
   3. February 2026 Federal Continued Justification – ICE maintains that agents wear masks to prevent doxxing and to protect themselves and their families from threats and harassment.[13]
6. June 2025 to May 2026: Several states propose and some enact legislation pushing back against immigration enforcement’s use of masks.
   1. June 2025 – January 2026, Tennessee – Legislators in Tennessee introduced HB 1442 / SB 2011, the “Stop American Gestapo Act” (SAGA), creating a Class C misdemeanor for officers interacting with the public while masked or without clearly displayed name and badge number, with exceptions for specified protective circumstances.
   2. July 2025, Massachusetts – Legislators in Massachusetts introduced H 4684, the “Ensuring Law Enforcement Identification and Public Trust” Act, making it a misdemeanor for law-enforcement officers to wear masks or personal disguises while interacting with the public. The bill explicitly covers local, state, and federal officers.
   3. July 2025, Michigan – Michigan’s “Justice Needs No Mask” proposal would prohibit masked law-enforcement officers from concealing their faces while interacting with the public and require identification. The proposal specifically responded to masked ICE arrests and was framed as a broad police-accountability measure.
   4. July 2025 / enacted May 2026, New York – Legislators in New York introduced S 8462 (July 2025), prohibiting law-enforcement face coverings and requiring identification, with federal officers covered and reporting requirements included. The final law was embedded in the state budget alongside restrictions on 287(g) agreements and sensitive-location protections, enacted May 2026.
   5. September–October 2025, Maryland – Legislators in Maryland pre-filed SB 1 / HB 155, one of the strongest general-purpose state laws, requiring statewide police-training standards prohibiting face coverings and requiring visible identification. Enacted as Chapter 612 and signed May 26, 2026; effective October 1, 2026.
   6. October 2025, Illinois – Legislators in Illinois introduced HB 4086, banning masks and neck gaiters while officers interact with the public (with medical, wildfire, and SWAT exceptions) and requiring name, badge number, and agency; and SB 2685, targeting ICE/DHS immigration enforcement specifically. HB 4086 was re-referred to Rules; SB 2685 remained in Assignments.
   7. October 2025, Pennsylvania – Legislators in Pennsylvania introduced HB 1831, prohibiting masks and face coverings in public spaces. The proposal was part of the broader debate over law-enforcement masking and sits within Pennsylvania’s general criminal prohibition on masks in public rather than a standalone police-identification statute.
   8. January 2026, Alaska – Legislators in Alaska introduced HB 250, making it a crime for a peace officer to wear a mask in public while acting in an official capacity. Rather than regulating identification more broadly, it creates a criminal offense specifically for masked peace officers.
   9. 2025–2026, Florida – Legislators in Florida introduced HB 419 and SB 316, combining a general law-enforcement mask ban with a specific identification regime for covered immigration officers. Neither bill was passed.
   10. January 2026, Georgia – Legislators in Georgia introduced two complementary approaches: SB 389, targeting covered immigration officers specifically by requiring visible identification and prohibiting face coverings during public immigration enforcement; and HB 1060, which would prohibit law-enforcement face coverings during routine operations more broadly. Both bills died in committee.
   11. January–February 2026, Hawaiʻi – Hawai’i legislation introduced multiple bills, including SB 2203 (creating a criminal offense for law-enforcement use of masks) and HB 2540—among the most elaborate proposals, banning facial coverings, requiring visible ID and marked vehicles, and regulating civil immigration enforcement. Both bills ultimately failed.
   12. January 2026, New Mexico – New Mexico legislation introduced HB 208, the “Law Enforcement ID and Concealing Identity” bill, barring peace officers from face coverings while interacting with the public, with health (N95/medical) and wildfire-protection exceptions. The bill was postponed indefinitely.
   13. January 2026, Vermont – Vermont legislation introduced S 208, “Standards for Law Enforcement Identification,” requiring name, badge, and agency identification and prohibiting masks or personal disguises during public interactions, with extensive exceptions for medical, weather, rescue, tactical, and undercover circumstances, as well as disability and religious accommodations. The House rejected the conference proposal 81–51 on May 29, 2026.
   14. February 2026, California – Legislators in California reworked legislation against masked law enforcement, broadening the proposed prohibition to include state law enforcement after the “No Secret Police Act,” enacted in September 2025 and focused on federal agents, was blocked by a U.S. District Court in January 2026.[14]
   15. February–March 2026, Minnesota – Legislators in Minnesota introduced SF 3628 and subsequent versions (SF 4448 / HF 4405), ranging from a general law-enforcement restriction to a targeted ban on federal immigration officers wearing nonmedical face coverings during patrols, stops, arrests, searches, raids, and other public-facing immigration functions. The bills did not become law.
   16. March 2026, Washington – Legislators in Washington enacted a law prohibiting law enforcement officers from concealing their identities with face coverings.[15]
   17. March 2026, New Jersey – Legislators in New Jersey enacted legislation requiring law enforcement officers to reveal their identities during certain public interactions and to provide identification before detaining individuals.[16]
   18. March 2026, Connecticut – Legislators in Connecticut enacted SB 397 as Public Act 26-14 (signed May 4, 2026), one of the most comprehensive packages: the law combines a mask ban with identification requirements, state oversight mechanisms, and restrictions on immigration enforcement and ALPR data. The DOJ has challenged the application of the law to federal officers, arguing it violates the Supremacy Clause.
   19. March 2026, Virginia – Legislators in Virginia enacted HB 1482, restricting facial coverings by law-enforcement officers with exceptions, and imposing identification requirements and penalties. The law is part of a broader package governing federal/state immigration-enforcement cooperation. The DOJ filed suit on June 11, 2026, challenging the mask and identification requirements as applied to federal officers and expressly invoking the same federal-authority theory advanced in the California and New York cases.
   20. February-April 2026, Oregon – Legislators in Oregon enacted HB 4138, the “Law Enforcement Accountability and Visibility Act” (Chapter 66), requiring identifying information on uniforms and prohibiting facial coverings by law-enforcement officers, with specified exceptions. The law also restricts state and local cooperation with federal and out-of-state law enforcement. No federal challenge has been filed as of the date of this statement.
7. April-August 2026: Federal challenges to state legislation
   1. April 2026, California – the Ninth Circuit enjoined California’s law requiring federal law enforcement officers to visibly display identification while engaging in law enforcement activities.[17]
   2. April 2026, New Jersey – The U.S. Government sued New Jersey over its law prohibiting masking by law enforcement.[18]
   3. June 2026, Virginia – The DOJ filed suit on June 11, 2026, challenging Virginia’s HB 1482—its mask and identification requirements as applied to federal officers—expressly invoking the same Supremacy Clause and intergovernmental-immunity theory advanced in the California and New York cases.
   4. May 2026, Connecticut – The DOJ challenged Connecticut’s Public Act 26-14 (SB 397), arguing that its mask ban and identification requirements violate the Supremacy Clause as applied to federal officers. The case remains pending.
   5. August 2026, New York – On August 4, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction blocking New York’s mask and identification provisions as applied to federal officers, finding the federal government’s Supremacy Clause and intergovernmental-immunity arguments likely to succeed on the merits. The decision is now the leading federal-court ruling on the constitutional limits of state authority to regulate the conduct of federal law enforcement.

About the Association
The mission of the New York City Bar Association, which was founded in 1870 and has over 20,000 members, is to equip and mobilize a diverse legal profession to practice with excellence, promote reform of the law, and uphold the rule of law and access to justice in support of a fair society and the public interest in our community, our nation, and throughout the world. www.nycbar.org