Judge Blocks New York Mask and ID Rules for Federal Agents, Upholds Ban on Local Immigration Contracts

A federal judge on Monday blocked New York state from enforcing laws that prohibit federal agents from wearing masks and require them to visibly display identifying information while on duty, but allowed a state measure ending local cooperation with federal immigration authorities to move forward.

In a 51-page decision, U.S. District Judge Mae A. D’Agostino granted in part and denied in part a motion by the U.S. Department of Justice for a preliminary injunction against New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James.

The ruling temporarily halts key transparency provisions enacted as part of New York’s state budget legislation in May, while preserving the state’s ban on voluntary intergovernmental immigration agreements.

Mask and Identification Mandates Blocked

Judge D’Agostino ruled that the federal government is likely to succeed on its claim that New York’s “Face Covering Act” and “Identification Act” violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.

The state laws sought to subject officers from federal agencies—including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and Customs and Border Protection—to state criminal penalties for concealing their faces or failing to display visible agency logos and identification while interacting with the public. First offenses under the laws carried penalties of up to 15 days in jail, while subsequent offenses were classified as misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in prison.

D’Agostino rejected the state’s argument that the restrictions fell within New York’s traditional police powers to promote public safety and law enforcement transparency.

“The United States may perform its functions without conforming to the police regulations of a state,” D’Agostino wrote, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent. “Because the Face Covering and Identification Acts take direct aim at regulating the federal agents in their function of enforcing federal law, the Court finds these provisions likely run afoul of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine.”

The judge emphasized that decisions regarding officer gear, uniforms, and identification protocol belong to federal executive leadership rather than individual state legislatures. The injunction prevents state and local officials from enforcing the mask and identification rules against federal personnel while the lawsuit proceeds.

Ban on Immigration Enforcement Contracts Upheld

While handing the Justice Department a victory on officer conduct regulations, the court denied the federal government’s request to block New York’s “Termination Act”.

Set to take effect Aug. 25, 2026, the Termination Act prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies, correctional facilities, and detention centers from entering into, renewing, or maintaining agreements with federal authorities under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 287(g) allows local police to be deputized to perform federal civil immigration enforcement functions. The act also voids contracts housing civil immigration detainees in state and local facilities.

The Department of Justice argued that the state law interfered with federal objectives, discriminated against the federal government, and violated the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Judge D’Agostino rejected those arguments, holding that federal immigration law does not compel state or local governments to assist in civil federal enforcement.

“Section 1357 gives the States and local governments the option to enter into agreements with federal immigration officials to assist with immigration enforcement,” the court noted, pointing out that New York is “not bound by that hope or expectation.”

The judge concluded that the state exercised a legitimate public purpose aimed at preserving local law enforcement resources and public safety, and that the federal government failed to demonstrate that the state acted out of self-serving interests or violated constitutional contract protections.

The lawsuit, originally filed by the federal government in June in the Western District of New York before being transferred to the Northern District, follows similar legal challenges nationwide over state efforts to regulate federal law enforcement activities and limit participation in federal immigration operations.

The preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the mask and identification mandates will remain in place until the court renders a final judgment on the merits of the case.

Murad Awawdeh, president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition, condemned the injunction and said masked agents create “a dangerous environment” because they can operate without transparency or accountability. He praised the court’s decision to uphold the end of 287(g) agreements, saying New York police should not be “officially deputized to do ICE’s dirty work.”