Judge Christina Snyder of the Central District of California issued a preliminary injunction enjoining California from enforcing a provision of the No Secret Police Act that prohibits ICE agents from wearing masks.
The Trump administration filed a lawsuit against California to stop the No Secret Police Act and the No Vigilantes Act.
Snyder refused to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the No Vigilantes Act, which requires the agents to identify themselves, and the other provisions of the No Secret Police Act.
Snyder said the No Secret Police Act violates the Supremacy Clause and discriminates against the federal government by singling it out.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to wear a mask, false whiskers, or any personal disguise, as specified, with the purpose of evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification while committing a public offense, or for concealment, flight, evasion, or escape from arrest or conviction for any public offense.This bill would make it a crime for a law enforcement officer to wear a facial covering in the performance of their duties, except as specified. The bill would define law enforcement officer as anyone designated by California law as a peace officer who is employed by a city, county, or other local agency, and any officer or agent of a federal law enforcement agency or law enforcement agency of another state, or any person acting on behalf of a federal law enforcement agency or agency of another state. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable as an infraction or a misdemeanor, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
However, the law does not apply to California state law enforcement officers.
“Even though the United States has failed to demonstrate that the facial covering prohibition of the No Secret Police Act unduly interferes with federal functions, the Court acknowledges that it is nonetheless an incidental regulation on law enforcement officers,” wrote Snyder.
Snyder pointed out that the Supremacy Clause “prohibits imposing such a regulatory burden, albeit minimal and incidental to operations, in a discriminatory manner against the federal government.”
[Featured image via YouTube]
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY