Bondi claims win in ICE mask ban fight; court ruled on different case
US Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi claimed a victory against California on Friday, citing an appeals court ruling that she said blocked the state’s ban on immigration officials and other law enforcement officers from wearing masks.
“The 9th Circuit issues a COMPLETE stay blocking California’s mask ban on federal law enforcement,” Bondi wrote on social media site X, calling the Feb. 19 ruling a “key victory.”
But Bondi appeared confused about which case the court would decide this week.
A federal judge in Los Angeles blocked California’s first-in-the-nation mask ban 10 days ago, on Feb. 9.
At the time, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder said she was “forced” to block the law because it covers only local and federal officers and is exempt from state law enforcement.
The state did not object to this decision.
Instead, on Wednesday, the law’s author, Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), introduced a new mask bill without the problematic distinction for state officials.
With the initial legal challenge resolved and the new bill still pending in the legislature, there is no reason for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the mask ban.
The decision Bondi cited includes a separate California law requiring law enforcement officers to present identification while on duty.
Snyder had previously ruled that the “No Vigilantes Act” could not go into effect because it did not exempt state police; The Department of Justice appealed this decision to the 9th Circuit.
The appeals court is set to hear the matter early next month. By then, the court had issued an injunction stopping the state law from taking effect.
Issuing a temporary administrative injunction is a common procedural move that allows judges to freeze the status quo until the court has a chance to weigh the law and reach a decision.
Thursday’s order indicates the case is far from over, setting a hearing for March 3 in the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals in Pasadena.
Bill Essayli, who runs the US attorney’s office in Los Angeles, also celebrated in a post on X, calling Thursday’s decision “another significant win for the Department of Justice.” He also suggested that the precautionary measure somehow covers the mask issue.
A U.S. Department of Justice spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The law requiring officers to show identification is less controversial than the mask ban. But he may still face an uphill battle in the appeals court. A three-judge panel will hear the case, including two judges nominated by President Trump and one judge nominated by President Obama. Judge Mark Bennett of Hawaii, one of Trump’s appointees, has previously signaled skepticism about the administration’s immigration enforcement policies.
At issue in the ID case is whether California law interferes with or controls the operations of the federal government, actions prohibited by the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause. Snyder decided that the identification law was more akin to highway speed limits that applied equally to everyone; This decision was a decision that the appeals court could reject.
The decision isn’t expected before mid-March and won’t affect state lawmakers’ efforts to pass a revised mask mandate.
Recent polls show more than 60 percent of Americans want U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and other federal agents to be unmasked. More than a dozen states are pursuing laws similar to California’s.
In Washington, congressional Democrats have made a mask mandate for ICE a key issue in the ongoing partial government shutdown and have vowed not to fund the Department of Homeland Security until it is signed into law.
Legal experts say the issue cannot be resolved until it reaches the Supreme Court.
