WASHINGTON: A federal judge has blocked New York State from enforcing a law that would prohibit US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from wearing face coverings during immigration enforcement operations, ruling that the measure likely violates the US Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
In a preliminary injunction, US District Judge Mae D’Agostino held that New York’s face-covering and identification requirements directly regulate federal immigration officers, an area governed exclusively by federal law.
The ruling temporarily prevents the state from enforcing the mask-related provisions against ICE personnel while the legal challenge proceeds.
What was the judge’s constitutional reasoning?
Judge D’Agostino ruled that New York’s law conflicts with the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws.
“Settled law establishes that federal, not state, authorities make the policies that animate the enforcement of federal immigration laws,” the judge wrote.
Although the court acknowledged New York’s concerns that masked federal officers without visible identification could create public safety risks, it concluded that the state cannot dictate how federal immigration authorities conduct their operations.
Which parts of New York’s immigration laws remain in effect?
While granting the federal government’s request to block the mask restrictions, the judge declined to halt enforcement of a separate New York law that prohibits formal cooperation agreements between local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities.
As a result, only the provisions regulating ICE agents’ use of face coverings and identification have been suspended.
What happens next?
The ruling comes just weeks before New York’s law restricting formal cooperation between local police and federal immigration authorities is scheduled to take effect on August 25, 2026.
The case will now proceed through further litigation to determine whether the challenged provisions should be permanently struck down.
Has a similar ruling been issued before?
Yes. The decision follows a similar federal court ruling in California, where a judge ruled that state restrictions targeting federal immigration officers were preempted by federal law, siding with the Trump administration’s legal challenge.