California Governor Faces Tough Decision on Mask Ban for Law Enforcement

Newsom must decide whether to back a rewritten version of the law that lacks an exemption for state officers.

Published on Feb. 11, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A federal judge ruled that California's law banning law enforcement from wearing masks is unconstitutional because it exempts state officers. This puts Governor Gavin Newsom in a difficult position, as he must decide whether to support a revised version of the law that applies to all law enforcement, including state officers, which could risk backlash from law enforcement unions.

Why it matters

The mask ban law was intended to increase transparency and accountability for law enforcement, especially federal immigration agents, during a time of heightened immigration enforcement. Newsom's decision on whether to back a revised version of the law could have significant implications for the ability to monitor and hold federal agents accountable in California.

The details

The original bill, written by state Senator Scott Wiener, did not exempt state law enforcement from the mask ban. However, law enforcement unions opposed the bill, arguing that officers may need to wear masks for legitimate reasons. Newsom signed the bill into law but promised to add exemptions through "clean-up" legislation. Now, with the federal judge's ruling, Newsom must decide whether to support a revised version of the law that applies to all law enforcement, including state officers, which could risk backlash from law enforcement unions.

  • The original mask ban law was passed by the California Legislature last session.
  • This week, a federal judge ruled that the law is unconstitutional because it exempts state law enforcement.
  • Newsom must now decide whether to support a revised version of the law that lacks the state exemption.

The players

Gavin Newsom

The Governor of California who must decide whether to support a revised version of the mask ban law that applies to all law enforcement, including state officers.

Scott Wiener

A California state senator who wrote the original bill banning law enforcement from wearing masks, without an exemption for state officers.

California State Sheriffs' Association

A law enforcement union that opposed the original mask ban law, arguing that officers may need to wear masks for legitimate reasons.

California Highway Patrol

A large state law enforcement agency with 6,600 officers, which has worked closely with Newsom and was exempted from the original mask ban law.

U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder

The federal judge who ruled that California's mask ban law is unconstitutional because it exempts state law enforcement.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The issue at hand is a federal agents period, full stop. To the extent we want to have a debate about local and state masking, that's a different conversation.”

— Gavin Newsom, Governor of California (latimes.com)

“It is unacceptable that government agents, guns in hand, have seized our neighbors while wearing masks under the pretense of protecting themselves when they are, in fact, hiding from public accountability and sowing fear to intimidate the American people.”

— Gavin Newsom, Governor of California (latimes.com)

“That is a huge, hugely important ruling. It essentially gives California the easy-peasy legal roadmap for banning masks — simply add state officers back in, and send it back to Newsom's desk.”

— Scott Wiener, California State Senator (latimes.com)

What’s next

The judge's ruling gives California a clear path forward to revise the mask ban law to include state law enforcement. Newsom must now decide whether to support this revised version of the law, which could risk backlash from law enforcement unions but would strengthen transparency and accountability for all officers, including federal agents.

The takeaway

Newsom's decision on the mask ban law will have significant implications for the ability to monitor and hold federal immigration agents accountable in California. This case highlights the delicate balance between law enforcement concerns and the public's right to transparency, as well as the political risks Newsom may face in taking a stand on this issue.