States’ efforts to unmask ICE agents face uphill legal battle

As rain fell outside an empty warehouse in New York’s Orange County last week, hundreds of demonstrators gathered to protest what is planned to be the site of a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center.

“No ICE Gestapo,” one sign read. Another declared, “Stop the ICE gulag.”

The protest reflects a broader national trend. An analysis from Princeton University found immigration-related demonstrations reached record levels in 2025 as activists mobilized against the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts.

But demonstrations are only one front in the fight.

Democratic-led states have increasingly turned to the courts and state legislatures to challenge federal immigration enforcement. Several have passed laws requiring federal immigration officers to display identification or restricting the use of face coverings during enforcement operations.

The Justice Department has responded with lawsuits against states including California, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and several New England states, arguing they are attempting to regulate how federal officers carry out their duties.

“Despite that well-established precedent, New York recently passed bills, which Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law, that purport to do exactly what constitutional law says it cannot: subject federal officers to criminal laws that seek to regulate how those officers carry out their federal duties,” the Justice Department wrote in its most recent complaint, noting Hochul said the legislation was intended “to hold ICE accountable.”

Both sides argue the measures are rooted in public safety.

The Justice Department says face coverings protect immigration agents and their families from doxxing, harassment, and potential retaliation. State officials counter that requiring identification increases transparency and accountability during enforcement operations, arguing residents should be able to identify officers exercising police powers in their communities.

The legal dispute has become the latest battle over the balance of power between states and the federal government, with constitutional scholars saying the central question is not whether ICE agents should wear masks, but whether states have the authority to dictate how federal officers perform their duties.

“There is a long-standing doctrine in constitutional law known as federal supremacy,” Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, told the Washington Examiner. “It comes straight from the Constitution, called the Supremacy Clause, and what it says is that federal law is the supreme law of the land.”

The Supremacy Clause bars states from directly regulating the federal government or discriminating against federal officials carrying out their duties.

Eugene Volokh, another constitutional law scholar and UCLA School of Law professor, similarly argued that the cases center on the limits of state power rather than the underlying immigration debate.

“Generally speaking, states cannot tell the federal government what to do,” Volokh said, pointing to both the Supremacy Clause and the related doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, which limits states’ ability to regulate federal activities.

Both experts pointed to Supreme Court precedent dating back more than two centuries. Blackman cited the court’s 1819 decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, where the justices ruled Maryland could not tax the federally chartered Bank of the United States.

Volokh pointed to the court’s 1920 decision in Johnson v. Maryland, in which the justices held that Maryland could not require a postal worker to obtain a state driver’s license before operating a federal mail vehicle.

“There’s an immunity of the instruments of the United States from state control in the performance of their duties,” Volokh said.

The experts argued the ICE mask cases could present an even clearer example of that principle because the laws specifically target federal officers rather than applying broadly to all people within a state.

“It’s pretty clear what the state is trying to do is not impose a general rule on absolutely everybody, but to target a certain kind of federal government action that it doesn’t like,” Volokh said.

Blackman made a similar distinction, arguing that states can regulate some activity involving federal facilities, such as health inspections or building codes, when those rules do not interfere with federal operations.

But he said the ICE mask laws are different because their purpose is to alter how federal agents conduct enforcement.

“The express purpose of this mask law is to interfere with the federal mission,” Blackman said. “I just don’t see any credible argument how this is valid.”

The states’ strongest argument, the experts acknowledged, is that governments routinely impose generally applicable laws that federal officials must follow. Federal employees, for example, are not immune from all state criminal laws or traffic regulations.

But Volokh said the distinction is whether a state law applies to everyone or specifically targets federal operations.

“If there’s some sort of federal gun control law, how you best enforce that, how the ATF would best do its job is a matter for the federal government,” he said. “It’s not a matter for state government.”

While both scholars predicted the states’ laws are unlikely to survive legal challenges, they said the measures may still serve a political purpose.

Blackman described the laws as “virtue signaling,” arguing Democratic-led states want to show voters they are pushing back against the Trump administration’s immigration policies even if courts ultimately block the measures.

Volokh offered a similar explanation, saying lawmakers sometimes pass laws they expect courts to strike down because they want to send a message.

“Sometimes states enact laws recognizing that they’re probably going to be struck down because they want to send a message,” Volokh said.

He added that officials may be trying to communicate to voters: “We’re on your side. Maybe the federal government will stop us, but we’re at least trying.”

REFLECTING POOL ALGAE WAS ‘IN THE PIPES’ BURGUM SAYS DESPITE TRUMP BLAMING VANDALS

Despite the political stakes, the experts said the cases are unlikely to dramatically reshape the relationship between the federal government and the states. Instead, they expect courts to reaffirm existing principles of federal supremacy, pointing to a recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruling that already struck down California’s ICE mask-banning law.

“I don’t think they’ll win, so probably not,” Blackman said. “It’ll be the status quo.”