thebeave
Contributor
Court rulings cast doubt on California mask ban for federal officersOut of curiosity, what part of the Constitution might you think this violates? What rights would an ICE agent claim is being violated when he sues the state of California?If you mean the new mask law, that has been signed into law, but that does not necessarily mean it is constitutional at the federal level. Or do you have evidence it is?
Does the federal government, in particular ICE, have a mandated policy that he must wear a mask and wear no uniform or identifying insignia? I could imagine if that were ICE policy then we might have a conflict between federal and state law.
Also, this:Newsom and any other critics of ICE tactics are delusional if they believe federal officers will be arrested and prosecuted for wearing masks after SB 627 takes effect. State and local authorities have no power to arrest federal officers for official actions, no matter how questionable they may be, which was made clear by a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a U.S. marshal fatally shooting a former California Supreme Court justice in 1889 and a 1972 shooting death of a suspected drug dealer in Humboldt County.
Absent Federal Consent California Cannot Regulate ICE’s Use of Masks
Late last week, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a package of bills, including one (SB 627) that seeks to presumptively prohibit all law enforcement officers—both federal and state—operating in the state from covering their faces (i.e., wearing masks) when engaging with members of the public. The measure contains various exceptions, including clear plastic shields, medical masks, and various types of protective eyewear. Violations of the law would be punished as misdemeanors. In the space below, I explain why SB 627 (and most of the other bills Governor Newsom signed that implicate similar analyses and are likely to suffer a similar fate) would at this time seem to be constitutionally dead on arrival.
Last edited: