DOJ Asks Judge to Reject New Jersey’s ICE Mask Law as Courts Split State by State

Listen to this article7:44

Civil Rights · Immigration · Courts · September 17, 2026

Seven states passed laws in 2025-2026 requiring ICE agents to show their face and identification while working; the Justice Department has sued at least four of them.^[1]
Federal judges have blocked the mask bans in Virginia and New York so far; New Jersey’s case is still open, with the Justice Department asking the court this week to reject it outright.^[2]^[3]
New Jersey argues its law is different: the burden on officers is “modest,” it says, and the exceptions are broad enough that the government can’t point to a single instance where an agent would actually have to violate it.^[4]

Every state that has told ICE agents to take off the mask and show a badge has ended up in federal court against the Trump administration, and so far the administration is winning. California went first in 2025. Washington, Oregon, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia and New York followed in 2026. The Justice Department has sued at least four of them, arguing the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause means a state cannot tell federal officers how to do their jobs. Two judges have already agreed. A third is weighing New Jersey’s case right now, and Connecticut’s sits before a fourth judge who heard arguments and hasn’t ruled yet.

The Story So Far

California’s “No Secret Police Act” started this fight in 2025, banning face coverings for federal and local law enforcement and requiring visible name or badge numbers. A federal judge blocked the mask provision in February 2026 but let the identification requirement stand — until the Ninth Circuit reversed that part too in April, ruling that the badge-visibility mandate likely violates the Supremacy Clause.^[5]

Seven more states passed similar laws anyway. The Justice Department sued New Jersey on April 29, Connecticut on May 18, and both Virginia and New York in June.^[1] The government’s argument is consistent across all four suits: masks protect officers from doxxing and harassment, inconsistent state rules create dangerous hesitation in the field, and under the Supremacy Clause none of that is a state’s call to make.

Video: ABC7 New York on the ruling blocking New York’s law.

1. Virginia and New York: Blocked, Twice

Virginia’s law fell first. Senior U.S. District Judge Robert Payne, appointed by George H.W. Bush, blocked it hours before it would have taken effect on June 30, finding the state was “likely to suffer irreparable injury” nowhere — it was the federal government whose “valid laws and practices in a domain of federal authority are undermined.” Payne also cited “evidence that enforcement of the mask/identity statute would expose federal employees to real risk of physical harm.”^[6] Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said his office “strongly disagrees with Judge Payne’s order and will continue defending this important law.”^[6]

New York’s law went down next. U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino, an Obama appointee, granted a preliminary injunction on August 4, writing that “the Supreme Court has clearly held that the United States may perform its functions without conforming to the police regulations of a state” and that states “have no power … to impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress.”^[7]

“Masked agents do not make New York safer.”

— New York Attorney General Letitia James, after the ruling^[7]

Assemblymember Tony Simone, who sponsored the New York law, called the loss “only one small step in the legal battle” and said he was “confident that the state will win an appeal.”^[7] Notably, D’Agostino did not block everything: New York’s separate provisions barring local cooperation with ICE and barring contracts between ICE and state facilities survived and took effect August 25.^[7]

2. New Jersey Says Its Law Is Different

New Jersey is making a narrower argument than Virginia or New York did. In a motion filed this week asking U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb to dismiss the case outright, the state argued the government “can’t identify an instance where a federal agent’s conduct would violate New Jersey’s law” because the law’s exceptions are so broad, and that it “imposes only a modest burden on officers while not interfering with their federal duties.”^[4] The Justice Department’s September filing countered that enforcing the restrictions would itself “obstruct federal law enforcement operations” — obstruction alone, in its view, is enough to strike the law down.^[4]

New Jersey has one win already this month, though on a related but distinct question: a federal judge dismissed a separate DOJ lawsuit over Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s executive order barring ICE from nonpublic state property, ruling that order constitutional. The mask-law case is a different lawsuit before a different judge and remains undecided.^[8]

3. Connecticut: Still Waiting

Connecticut’s law goes further than most of the others — beyond the mask and badge requirements, it gives the state’s Inspector General authority to investigate, and potentially prosecute, deadly use of force by federal agents.^[9] U.S. District Judge Vernon D. Oliver heard more than two hours of arguments on whether to block the law and had not ruled as of this writing. Connecticut’s Assistant Attorney General Timothy Holzman urged him to follow a since-reversed California district court decision that had upheld that state’s ban; Attorney General William Tong said the state “will vigorously defend the law.”^[9]

What’s Disputed or Unconfirmed

The full list of states sued. Sources reviewed for this piece disagree on the fourth defendant: some report New York, others report Pennsylvania, alongside the confirmed New Jersey, Connecticut and Virginia suits. We have not independently confirmed which is correct.
New Jersey’s odds. Its “modest burden, broad exceptions” argument hasn’t been tested by a ruling yet — it may succeed where Virginia’s and New York’s broader defenses failed, or it may not.
Eventual outcome. Every ruling so far is preliminary. None of these cases has reached a final judgment, and appeals are expected regardless of who wins at the district court.

How to Verify This Yourself

The Ninth Circuit’s California ruling and the Virginia and New York district court opinions are public filings, searchable via CourtListener.
DOJ’s original New Jersey complaint is posted at justice.gov — a primary source.
The American Immigration Council tracks every state’s law and its legal status at americanimmigrationcouncil.org.

What You Can Do Right Now

If you live in one of these states, the mask and ID requirements are currently unenforceable in Virginia and New York regardless of what your state’s law says, pending appeal.
Follow the New Jersey and Connecticut dockets if you want to see how a narrower legal argument fares against the same Supremacy Clause claim that has won twice already.
Contact your state attorney general’s office if you have a view on whether to keep defending these laws through appeal.

Kemetic Minds Analysis

Two rulings do not make a trend, but they rhyme: federal courts keep finding that a state cannot make a federal officer choose between following state law and following federal orders, no matter how the state frames the requirement. New Jersey’s bet is that “modest burden, broad exceptions” reads differently to a judge than “you must remove your mask.” Whether that distinction holds is the real test still ahead, in New Jersey and in Connecticut, of how much room states actually have to regulate federal agents operating inside their borders.

References

American Immigration Council. (2026, July 8). States Advance ICE Masking Bans, Data Protections, and Immigration Enforcement Guardrails in 2026. americanimmigrationcouncil.org ↩
Courthouse News Service. (2026, June 30). Judge blocks Virginia ICE mask ban on eve of implementation. courthousenews.com ↩
amNewYork. (2026, August 4). Federal judge blocks New York state law banning ICE agents from wearing masks in state. amny.com ↩
New Jersey Monitor. (2026, September 16). Feds ask judge to reject NJ law restricting ICE agents from wearing masks. newjerseymonitor.com ↩
CalMatters. (2026, April). 9th Circuit rejects CA law requiring ID for immigration agents. calmatters.org ↩
Courthouse News Service. (2026, June 30). See citation 2 above (Judge Payne ruling and Attorney General Jones quote). ↩
amNewYork. (2026, August 4). See citation 3 above (Judge D’Agostino ruling and official reactions). ↩
The Philadelphia Inquirer. (2026, September 5). New Jersey can block ICE from entering state property, a federal judge ruled. inquirer.com ↩
Yahoo News / Hearst Connecticut Media. (2026, September). Connecticut’s mask ban for federal agents is now in a judge’s hands. yahoo.com ↩

Civil Rights Sep 17, 2026DOJ Asks Judge to Reject New Jersey’s ICE Mask Law as Courts Split State by State