As the federal government has pursued President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration policy, images of masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents seizing people off of the streets have become a potent symbol of the administration’s disregard for democratic and legal norms. While government officials claim that ICE agents must mask to protect themselves from violence and harassment,1Michael Sainato, ICE Chief Says He Will Continue to Allow Agents to Wear Masks During Arrest Raids, The Guardian (July 20, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/20/ice-agents-masks [https://perma.cc/9FEV-DXHS]. critics maintain that the practice helps immigration officials dodge accountability and actually makes them less safe.2NOTUS, Democrats Say Masked ICE Agents Could Create Bigger Safety Issues, San José Spotlight (July 15, 2025), https://sanjosespotlight.com/democrats-say-masked-ice-agents-could-create-bigger-safety-issues [https://perma.cc/V774-JSY7]; Walter Olson, ICE Agents Routinely Mask Up When Seizing People—That’s Wrong, Cato Inst. (May 12, 2025), https://www.cato.org/blog/ice-agents-seizing-people-now-routinely-wear-masks-thats-wrong [https://perma.cc/X6J8-49SQ]. Responding to these concerns, lawmakers across the country have introduced legislation intended to prevent ICE agents from covering their faces while on duty.
Four of these bills, introduced by congressional Democrats,3Immigration Enforcement Identification Safety Act of 2025, S. 2594, 119th Cong. (2025); VISIBLE Act, S. 2212, 119th Cong. (2025); No Secret Police Act of 2025, H.R. 4176, 119th Cong. (2025); No Anonymity in Immigration Enforcement Act of 2025, H.R. 4004, 119th Cong. (2025). are unlikely to advance through a Republican-controlled Congress. Indeed, some congressional Republicans are attempting to provide ICE agents with greater anonymity.4See Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act, S. 1952, 119th Cong. § 2 (2025) (making it a felony to share the name of an ICE agent with the intent of obstructing an immigration enforcement operation). For a discussion of why the Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act would violate the First Amendment, see Noah C. Chauvin, The Unconstitutional Attempt to Criminalize Naming ICE Agents, 73 UCLA L. Rev. Discourse (forthcoming 2026) (manuscript at 5–11) (on file with author). Legislative efforts in several Democrat-controlled states and localities, however, are much more likely to bear fruit (one such bill has already been signed into law5Soumya Karlamangla, California Bars ICE Agents From Wearing Masks in the State, N.Y. Times (Sep. 20, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/us/california-ice-agents-masks-law.html [https://perma.cc/3FG8-L64B].)—but could be quickly struck down by the courts as violations of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.6U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. But that does not mean that states are entirely powerless to confront this problem.
This essay proceeds in four parts. Part I provides a brief summary of the Supremacy Clause and the ways in which it has been used to strike down state laws purporting to regulate federal activity. Next, Part II details the efforts by state lawmakers to prohibit federal law enforcement officers from masking and explains why those bills, if enacted, would be unconstitutional. Part III outlines five alternative steps state and local officials can take to discourage ICE from masking. Finally, Part IV provides best practices for state and local lawmakers seeking to legislate in this area.
