Bondi says he’s winning the battle to ban ICE masks; the court ruled in different cases
US Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced a victory against California on Friday, upholding an appeals court ruling that she said blocked the state’s ban on immigration agents and other law enforcement officials wearing masks.
“The 9th Circuit has now issued a COMPLETE strike on California’s ban on law enforcement officers’ masks,” Bondi wrote on social media site X, calling the Feb. 19 as “an important victory.”
However, Bondi seemed confused about which case the court is issuing this week.
A federal judge in Los Angeles blocked California’s first mask ban in the country 10 days earlier, on February 9.
At the time, US District Judge Christina A. Snyder said she was “compelled” to block the law because it only covered local and state officials, while exempting state law.
The state did not contest that decision.
Instead, on Wednesday, the author of this law Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced a new mask bill without the issue of recording government officials.
With the first legal challenge already ruled out and a new bill pending in the legislature, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has no reason to revisit the mask ban.
The decision Bondi appeared to be referring to involves a separate California law that requires law enforcement officers to show identification while on duty.
Snyder previously ruled that the “No Vigilantes Act” could go into effect because it did not exempt state police, a decision the Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit.
The appeals court will consider the matter early next month. Until then, the court issued an order temporarily suspending the country’s law from taking effect.
Issuing a temporary administrative injunction is a common procedure, which allows judges to put things on hold until the court has a chance to weigh the law and make a decision.
Thursday’s order remanded the case to the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena for March 3, indicating that the case is far from over.
Bill Essayli, who heads the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, also celebrated in a post on X, calling Thursday’s order “another important achievement for the Department of Justice.” He also suggested that a specific order affected the case of the mask.
A spokesman for the US Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The law requiring officers to show identification is less controversial than the mask ban. But it could still face a backlash in the appeals court. A three-judge panel will hear the case, which includes two judges appointed by President Trump and one by President Obama. One of Trump’s nominees, Judge Mark Bennett of Hawaii, has previously expressed skepticism about the administration’s immigration enforcement policies.
At issue in the ID case is whether the California law interferes with or restricts the operation of the federal government, actions prohibited by the supremacy clause of the US Constitution. Snyder ruled that the ID law is too similar to highway speed limits, which apply equally to everyone, a decision the appeals court rejected.
A decision is not expected before mid-March, and will not directly affect the push by state lawmakers to pass a revised mask ban.
Recent polls show that more than 60% of Americans want US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and other federal agents exposed. More than a dozen states are pursuing laws similar to California’s.
In Washington, Democrats in Congress have made the ICE mask ban a key issue in the ongoing partial government shutdown, vowing not to fund the Department of Homeland Security until the law is enacted.
Legal experts say it is possible that the matter will not be resolved until it reaches the Supreme Court.
