Particle.news
Download on the App Store
15 ARTICLES
·
2d ago

California Passes Police Mask Ban and ID Rules, Sending Controversial Bills to Newsom

Newsom’s decision by Oct. 12 could test whether California can restrict federal officers.

Los Angeles, CA – August 14: Gregory Bovino, Chief Patrol Agent of the El Centro Sector and Commander-Operation At Large CA (center), marches with federal agents to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building after US Border Patrol agents produced a show of force outside the Japanese American National Museum where Gov. Newsom was holding a redistricting press conference on Thursday, Aug. 14, 2025 in Los Angeles, CA. (Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
U.S. Border Patrol officers march to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building after a show of force outside the Japanese American National Museum where California Gov. Gavin Newsom was holding a redistricting press conference on Aug. 14, 2025, in Los Angeles.
FILE - Law enforcement officers stand guard during a protest June 14, 2025, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Ethan Swope, File)
An ICE agent plans his escape through an angry crowd after an immigrant raid on Atlantic Boulevard in Bell, California, on June 20, 2025.

Overview

  • Lawmakers approved SB 627 to bar most on-duty face coverings for law enforcement, including federal immigration agents, with exceptions for undercover, SWAT/tactical operations and health or safety gear.
  • A companion measure, SB 805, would require plainclothes officers to visibly display their agency and either a name or badge number, subject to limited exemptions.
  • If enacted, SB 627 carries civil penalties starting at $10,000 and potential criminal consequences tied to agency compliance policies, with implementation set for July 2026.
  • The bills passed largely along party lines as supporters cited public trust and impersonation risks, while police unions and Republican lawmakers warned of officer safety threats.
  • Legal enforceability against federal agents is disputed, with DHS officials opposing the restrictions and legal scholars split on whether the Supremacy Clause would preempt the state rules.