California Gov. Gavin Newsom has become increasingly Orwellian in his declarations of success. Last week, Newsom was proclaiming the great success of his high-speed train to nowhere – a project delayed by decades, reduced to a fraction of the original plan, and set to cost tens of billions over budget.
This week, he is proclaiming victory after a court struck down his signature law requiring federal agents to unmask. The preliminary injunction issued Monday by Senior status Judge Christine Snyder against California’s No Secret Police Act was a victory for the Trump Administration. However, it should still appeal Judge Snyder’s flawed decision. In other words, the Administration won for the wrong reason.
Snyder, an Obama appointee, faced two laws passed in September 2025 with great fanfare in California: the Secret Police Act and the No Vigilante Act. As their titles indicate, they are not serious efforts at legislating but unconstitutional acts designed to pander to the politics of the moment.
In the oral argument, some of us were concerned over the curious position staked out by Judge Synder.
DOJ counsel Tiberius Davis tried to explain how such state laws usurp federal authority and violate the Supremacy Clause. He drove that point home by asking “Why couldn’t California say every immigration officer needs to wear pink, so it’s super obvious who they are? The idea that all 50 states can regulate the conduct and uniforms of officers … flips the Constitution on its head.”
That would seem an unassailable point, but not to Judge Synder. She asked, “Why can’t they perform their duties without a mask? They did that until 2025, did they not? How in the world do those who don’t mask manage to operate?”
I remarked at the time that the court seemed to miss the central point. The question is not whether the federal government can continue to function under limitations imposed by various states, but whether those states have the authority to impose such conditions.
I do not believe that they do.
Nevertheless, Judge Synder came to the right conclusion for the wrong reason. She enjoined the mask requirement, but did so on the basis that California exempted its own officers.
“Even though the United States has failed to demonstrate that the facial covering prohibition of the No Secret Police Act unduly interferes with federal functions, the court acknowledges that it is nonetheless an incidental regulation on law enforcement officers. The intergovernmental immunity doctrine prohibits imposing such a regulatory burden, albeit minimal and incidental to operations, in a discriminatory manner against the federal government.”
By adopting this narrow basis, the court was able to enjoin the No Secret Police Act while rejecting an injunction against the No Vigilantes Act and certain other provisions of the No Secret Police Act. I think the court is wrong and should be reversed.
Snyder rejected the rationale of the federal government that these masks are being used to protect ICE agents from “doxing,” even though various agents have been targeted and threatened. Synder waved off the concern and said that the government had not shown by such masking is essential to carrying out such functions. Her opinion relies on broad, unsupported assumptions. Because officers are facing these security concerns, she concludes that they will continue regardless: “Security concerns exist for federal law enforcement officers with or without masks. If anything, the court finds that the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”
It is a bizarre rationalization. The court is simply imposing its judgment on what will make officers safer, rather than emphasizing whether these agencies have the discretion to make such judgments in the execution of federal law. Yet the court still enjoins the law because it discriminates between federal and state officers. (Not surprisingly, Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, the author of the mask ban, immediately declared that they would amend the law to add state law enforcement).
The Court then upheld a state requirement that federal officers cannot conceal their identities in a discussion more befitting a legislative committee than a court:
“The Court finds that these Acts serve the public interest by promoting transparency, which is essential for accountability and public trust. Moreover, the Court finds no cognizable justification for law enforcement officers to conceal their identities during their performance of routine, non-exempted law enforcement functions and interactions with the general public.”
In my view, Judge Snyder twists the analysis into knots to try to preserve as much of these laws as possible while giving the Administration the minimum level of deference.
Under the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, the Supreme Court has mandated in cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 317 (1819), that “the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional law enacted by congress to carrying into execution the powers vested in the general government.” A state cannot intrude into this authority absent a “clear and unambiguous” authorization from Congress, Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486, U.S. 174, 180 (1988).
Snyder finds that the California laws discriminate but do not constitute direct regulation of the federal government. She does so through a “functionalist” approach that avoids bright lines of supremacy. She simply dismisses the objections, saying the federal government has not shown that wearing masks is “essential” to carrying out these functions. Consider that approach for a second. A wide range of state regulations on federal officers could be deemed permissible, since federal officers can still functionally carry out arrests. States could dictate everything from uniform requirements, such as masks, to vehicle conditions to verbal commands or warnings.
The opinion is spotty in its analysis and sweeping in its implications. It is, in my view, ripe for reversal either before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court.
Here is the opinion: a 30-page decision: United States v. California
Interesting. I made two consecutive replies to the commenter who wanted to do away with all state courts in favor of a single, Federal, jurisdiction. My comment cited the requirement to amend the Constitution to accomplish that, and also made reference to the ****C**o**n**v**e**n**t**i**o**n****o**f****S**t**a**t**e**s**** initiative. The first comment was acknowledged as submitted, but after 5 minutes, did not appear. So I submitted a second comment, reworded slightly. Submission of that comment was also acknowledged, but it did not appear, either. Three hours later, I still see neither comment. Both comments were very civil; neither contained anything that could conceivably be construed as insults or profanity (even by an “AI” bot). Furthermore, this is far from the first time I have experienced comments on that same subject matter being suppressed here. Is that WordPress’ work? Turley’s administrative team? I completely agree with the premise that this blog is Jonathan Turley’s property, and that he (or his assignee) is free to manage it as he believes appropriate. Nevertheless, I think it is undeniably curious that a blog authored by a Professor of Constitutional Law, who so fervently champions free speech, should so consistently nuke any mention of a popular and important political initiative that has a direct bearing on the Constitution. Wouldn’t you agree?
Turley’s argument is just him being upset that a “bright line” was not set. He’s also trying to dismiss the judge’s legitimate point about the masking. ICE and CBP can still do their jobs without one. The doxing issue is just part of the hazard of the job. It’s a public exposure that is perfectly within the law and for accountability.
If a ban on masks were to be enforceable it would force those agents to behave more lawfully and professionally because their anonymity is what allows them to be cruel and lawless. Just as it allows anonymous posters to be racist and bigoted without suffering consequences.
By being exposed ICE and CBP agents will have to behave more appropriately and restraint themselves from getting too aggressive. It can also expose bad hires like fired cops for abuses, former Proud Boys members, criminals, and likely those who are members of Hispanic and asian communities. It would create a sense of shame once exposed. That is what they are trying to prevent. Because it would expose their shoddy hiring practices and poor vetting. Two things that can put DHS on the spot for its incompetence and lawlessness.
Another point that refutes Turley’s argument. Body cameras supposedly a state could require ICE agents to wear body cameras for accountability and accuracy of their claims. They have been lying a lot you know.
Get a job
“By being exposed ICE and CBP agents will have to behave more appropriately and restraint themselves from getting too aggressive.”
Because if they are too aggressive in your view, you’ll kill them and their families, right?
That’s the sole purpose of this law — identifying law enforcement targets to harass, intimidate and kill.
Just be honest.
Difficult to survive as a civilization when so many judges appear to be activist imbeciles intoxicated with actual power.
Absurd. A party can not appeal a case they won. There is no controversy to allow for standing.
The US didn’t win part of the case re required disclosure of names during discussions.
That is not the law. A party that has lost on some points and won on others is entitled to appeal.
Bondi is pretty notorious for showing up to R functions pretty liquored up with pool boys in tow.
Wonder if she had some nips this morning and has vodka in her water bottle before the hearing?
Just arrest every Nazi interfering with ICE
Definitely. Now what’s your plan?
Tin Soldiers And Waltz Be A Coming
O.J. was guilty AND Fuhrman lied. Woke don’t get it.
Still wrapping my head around mandated mask wearing which proved useless in the pandemic to mandatory identity exposure to officers performing their job with family threatened, while it is common for the DEA.
Unwrap it. Its simply using the law (lawfare) to prevent ICE personnel from their lawful duty; lets the crazies photograph them and then kill them and their families. But I’m just guessing.
mask wearing which proved useless
saved countless lives
When Turley says “some of us” he means those who were trained in R rhetoric in the Reagan Bush years who are giving Trump a reach around now.
Yes, when logic and analysis vs. feelings and pretzel thinking were in vogue. In other words, rational thought.
That rational thought has led directly to giving the best reach arounds and ball gargling for a wannabe dictator ever.
Envy
So call it ball envy. Whatever. Your choice.
Judges hiding behind walls and doors and armed security protecting their courthouses, appointed for life, have a god complex. They think they do not have to follow the law, or the Constitution, or anything else. All they need do is “feel” and rule based on their personal beliefs. Shame on these leftwing extremists.
THEY KICKBACK BUCKS TO THE LAWYERS who won, with their help.
re: Olly
You gave some very good points. Most Americans want violent criminals deported to their home country.
Trump’s unconstitutional implementation was the problem.
If there was an existing removal order and the immigrant wasn’t complying with the legal order, that is “probable cause” for ICE officials to apply for a judicial-warrant.
If that evidence existed, any judge would approve a judicial-warrant for ICE officials to target that individual immigrant.
Trump’s approach was essentially akin to a 18th Century “General Warrant” (fishing expedition) which is illegal in the United States since 1791. General Warrants helped cause the Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence – it’s a foreign concept of governing.
Trump even admitted that these were illegal fishing expeditions, naming one operation “Catch of the Day”. Had Trump had operated within the U.S. Constitution he would have been highly successful.
When any president practices foreign style “General Warrants” – officials pick up anyone with dark skin and dark hair including American citizens or legal immigrants following the law.
By contrast, Obama deported the most immigrants of any president (more than Trump, Biden or Bush) focusing on deporting violent criminals and immigrants already in prison for violent offenses.
I agree that no president gets to use general warrants or ignore the Fourth Amendment. If enforcement lacks particularized legal basis, courts should step in.
But that is a separate question from whether immigration enforcement itself is a federal power. It is. States do not get to regulate how federal law is executed simply because they disagree with policy.
My concern is structural. When immigration policy swings sharply between administrations, enforcement surges follow. That triggers backlash, and suddenly every action is framed as tyranny and every state resistance as virtue.
We need clarity on both principles at the same time. Federal officers must act within constitutional limits. And the Supremacy Clause still means what it says.
Without that civic understanding, every enforcement debate turns into a constitutional crisis.
Civics. Sure lets educate illegals while were at it. The DSA too eh?
Ever work for the federal government in any meaningful capacity, like DOJ, FBI, Congress? Answer: um… um…
Civics is not partisan, and it is not limited to citizens by party label. Understanding constitutional structure strengthens the country, not a faction. As for federal experience, I served 20 years active duty Navy. But constitutional principles do not depend on a résumé. They stand or fall on their merits.
If my argument is wrong, address the substance. If it is right, my employment history is irrelevant.
Anon,
You are flat out ignoring the history of administrative warrants. Sure SCOTUS has not ruled definitively on same but your description of the situation is false.
I think Trump needs to accelerate deportations. The Left’s corrupt and illegal flooding of our nation with illegal aliens needs to be met with an agressive and effective response to clean up the mess.
Lefties like Waltz and Frey need to be arrested, imprisoned, and charged with insurrection. Anti-ICE activism that crosses the line from protest to criminal acts needs to result in arrests. F the sanctuary principle.
Turley is correct – a bad ruling needs to be corrected, even if it nominally favors the federal government.
I don’t think judicial warrants have ever been required for federal authorities to remove illegal aliens with final removal orders. If I am wrong, please explain how.
ICE should not need a warrant to arrest ANYONE illegally in the U.S. any more than any law enforcement needs a warrant to arrest an escaped convict. The purpose of an arrest warrant is show to an independent authority, i.e. a judge that there is PROBABLE CAUSE an individual has committed a crime. Like the escaped convict by being out of prison is evidence beyond reasonable doubt he has committed the crime of escaping from prison, the illegal alien by his mere presence in this country is proof beyond doubt he has broken the law. Thus, all illegal aliens should be subject to being picked up and deported.
I-205 Warrants of Removal
I think Professor Turley is right about the structural issue, but I keep noticing something else. We keep starting these debates in the middle of the story.
Why are we at a point where federal immigration enforcement is this intense in the first place? Why are states and federal agents colliding at this scale?
When Congress fails to produce durable immigration policy and administrations swing sharply in opposite directions, the stress shows up downstream. States push back. Courts split the difference. The Supremacy Clause gets tested.
My concern is formation. If citizens do not understand that immigration enforcement is a federal power tied to national sovereignty, then every policy swing turns into a federalism crisis.
This case is not really about masks. It is about whether we still recognize constitutional hierarchy when political pressure rises.
Doesn’t help that all sides (but one much more than the others) does it’s damndest to obfuscate and mislead it’s followers into blindly believing whatever the hell they want; therefore, the narrative can be whatever they want. The new hotness is convincing AWFLs that the SAVE Act will forcibly prevent married women from voting due to discrepancies with their birth certificates.
OLLY,
Seems we have a highly uninformed or misinformed public. Just look at the comments here on the good professor’s blog. The willingly or perhaps unknowingly present misinformation, disinformation or outright lies. As noted, why? They seem to have this weird idea they are fighting against . . . something. What that is, they cannot say or resort to the “Nazi” rhetoric, while ignoring the fact ICE is enforcing immigration laws, as enacted by Congress. Any sane and rational person would say, “Well, then we have to change the law.” Nope. Just watch the videos of Good, Pertti, the mob that mobbed the IT guys eating lunch. The “checkpoints.” Democrats like Walz, Frey, and MSM have put it into Americans heads they are fighting against . . . nothing.
This does NOT help, GOP lawmaker shocked after anti-ICE sheriff was stumped by ‘fifth-grade civics’ question
‘I was not expecting to have to get into a fifth-grade civics lesson with a duly elected sheriff,’ a GOP lawmaker remarked after the hearing
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-lawmaker-shocked-after-anti-ice-sheriff-stumped-fifth-grade-civics-question?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Seems we have a highly uninformed or misinformed public.
So educate the dems and they’ll see the light of liberty, you’re saying?
Watching videos only titivates, not inform or convince the public.
And Fox News is not unbiased; they exacerbate the problem with obfuscation and lies; they spew, to enrage the public. And so , here we are.
Upstate, I think the deeper issue is formation, not party labels.
ICE enforces laws passed by Congress. If citizens dislike the outcome, the constitutional remedy is to change the law. That is basic civics.
But we now have a culture where enforcement of existing law is framed as oppression, and disagreement with policy is framed as moral resistance. That confusion does not happen by accident. It reflects decades of civic decline. The sheriff question is not about left or right. It is about whether public officials understand the structure of government at all. Who makes the law. Who enforces it. Who changes it. When that understanding fades, every enforcement action feels illegitimate to someone.
The solution is not louder rhetoric. It is rebuilding civic literacy so citizens know where authority actually resides.
OLLY,
I get what you are saying and agree. But we have a situation where people do not want to learn even basic civics. They just want to scream, yell, obstruct, make demands, assault people and LEOs. You cannot teach civics to irrational, emotional people. And some of these people are teaching children to “hate ICE.”
Upstate, I understand the frustration. It can feel like people do not want to learn even basic civics. But there were periods in our history when forming citizens was not optional. It was understood as necessary.
At the founding, Jefferson argued for education so citizens could recognize tyranny. Noah Webster wrote textbooks to cultivate republican character, not just literacy. In the early republic, sermons, town meetings, and local associations reinforced moral restraint and public responsibility. Tocqueville observed that Americans practiced self-government in daily life long before exercising it nationally.
In the 19th century, the common school movement tied education directly to forming republican virtue. Even into the mid-20th century, civics courses emphasized constitutional structure, jury duty, voting, and informed participation. The assumption was simple: liberty requires disciplined citizens.
Over time that shifted. Civic education became procedural instead of philosophical. Knowledge of structure replaced reflection on first principles. Eventually civic expression became performative. Signaling replaced study. Outrage replaced formation.
So yes, the frustration is real. But if our republic rises or falls on the capacity of its citizens for self-government, then rebuilding that capacity is not optional. It is necessary.
My entire approach on this blog has shifted toward that formation question. I wrote Awakening a Forgotten Republic to set the table. My next project is intended to move from reflection to action and put formation into practice.
We either recommit to forming citizens capable of self-government, or we accept permanent civic volatility. I am not ready to accept that.
Assuming the government isn’t sending boys ten thousand miles away to satisfy the ego demands of an idiot who cheated to get elected by stuffing a vote collection box and whose inner circle included enforcers.
How many had to die in foreign jungles before the people had a chance to reject that monster, though he quit first due to the right to protest his ass off?
Remember, we’re dealing with wokers: unemployed, middle-aged, white women, spoiled, pot smoking soap opera devotees.
PRISONS work
Well said, Olly. Just my opinion, but the reason that immigration enforcement is so “intense” now is because Democrats see this issue as the one to bring down the Trump Administration, both in the mid-terms as well as in 2028. The opposition appears to be unusually well organized and very well financed. I started my law enforcement career in the Border Patrol in 1975 and learned that it was Congressional Democrats, and their friends in Labor Unions, that scuttled the very successful Bracero Program that allowed Mexicans to enter the U.S. legally to work the growing seasons and then return home. Amazing how much is changed. Greg
Greg, I appreciate the history. I actually had to look up the Bracero period after your comment, so thank you for that reference.
It reinforces something important. Immigration policy has swung back and forth for decades depending on political coalitions, labor interests, business pressures, and electoral strategy. That volatility is part of the larger problem. When immigration becomes primarily a political weapon instead of a policy problem to be solved, enforcement intensity will always track political cycles. One administration tightens. The next loosens. Then tightens again. That creates instability and constant backlash.
I try to step back from which party benefits. The deeper issue is that Congress has failed to produce durable immigration policy for a generation. That vacuum guarantees executive swings and state resistance.
Until that structural instability is addressed, every enforcement surge will be interpreted as strategy rather than governance.
OLLY
As you say, it is important to recognize constitutional hierarchy, especially when political pressure rises.
Look no further than the good citizens serving as grand jurors in Washington DC, who rejected the political attempt to indict Senator Mark Kelly and the other 5 Democrat lawmakers who dared to remind service members of their constitutional duty to refuse to obey illegal orders.
Jeanine Pirro, in a blatantly political move, attempted to indict patriotic veterans who simply re-stated the Constitution and reminded service members of the duty imposed on them by their oath to uphold it.
Thankfully, good, loyal, patriotic citizens recognized this crisis of federal overreach and responded accordingly by rejecting this blatantly unconstitutional and political attempt to criminalize speech.
We should also give thanks that Jeanine Pirro is completely incompetent. It serves to negate her malevolence.
I agree that constitutional hierarchy matters, especially when political pressure is high. That cuts both ways.
Grand juries serve as an independent check in our system. If they declined to indict, that is part of the constitutional process working as designed. But it does not automatically mean federal authority was illegitimate, nor does it automatically mean political heroism occurred. It simply means the legal threshold for indictment was not met.
The oath issue is also important. Service members swear to uphold the Constitution, not an individual. At the same time, determining whether an order is lawful is not a matter of personal political judgment. There are established military and legal channels for that.
My concern is broader than personalities. When every prosecutorial decision is framed as tyranny and every refusal as patriotism, we blur the line between legal process and political narrative.
Constitutional hierarchy requires restraint at every level. Federal officials must stay within lawful authority. Elected officials must avoid inflaming constitutional language for political theater. Citizens must resist turning every dispute into a crisis.
The health of the system depends on all three.
Excellent
Come on Man! We can all see that horse-faced judge has more hairspray on her brain than her helmet head!
A successful appeal on the grounds that Prof. Turley recommends would no doubt be beneficial to the US as a whole, but it may be far too late to help save California (from itself) in any meaningful way. The people of that State have not only dug their own grave: one foot is on the bottom; and the other rests on rapidly crumbling earth…
California Has Become Uninvestable
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2026/02/09/california-has-become-uninvestable-n3811709
“California is still beautiful, but its glitz and glamour, forests and beaches, and still wonderful weather can no longer distract from the fact that it is run by a government class that has been pillaging the wealth and destroying the economic vitality of the state.”
Your source is Hotair? Definitely a primary source. You go fool.
So you don’t disagree with the quoted passage then, as your sole objection is the identity of the messenger.
Um… good thing you have telepathic powers.
If you disagree
Invest in California
But the fact is capital and people are fleeing a state that nature has made paradise
Good essay. The idea that states can regulate a federal function so long as a judge thinks that function can still be performed despite the regulation is destructive of federal authority. Even the 9th Circuit may see this. If not, SCOTUS should rectify things.
Talk about twisted. I had to read your explanation 17 times and I still don’t get it.
Anyway, what I want and need to say is, “Let’s get this animal who took Nancy Guthrie!” If everyone looks for clues/hints/behaviors that implicate this m. f., and reports them, he’ll lose his pathetic, twisted brain. Let’s drive this killer into such deep paranoia, he’ll beg to be caught.
Yes. He’s a killer. She could not have survived his attack. Not possible. Let’s get him, boys. Come on!
“I had to read your explanation 17 times and I still don’t get it. ”
That is a textbook case of the functional illiteracy produced by our public school systems. Also, re: Nancy Guthrie, are you privy to inside information on the case beyond the identification of a person of interest, or is your foaming-at-the-mouth rant just you flinging excrement at a wall and hoping for some adhesion?
Why care so much about a grandma, when I haven’t heard a peep from your ilk about the, what’s the number, at least 300k missing children since 2021?
Well said professor. Such mental gyrations in the court would be laughable if this was not so serious. I do hope that it is appealed. These actions remind me of the mental gymnastics carried out by a Federal District Court and a Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1965-1966 era when Julian Bond was not seated in the Georgia legislature despite the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. Both the district court and the appeals court upheld the legislature’s action. He was denied his seat because he did not support the Viet Nam war. Luckily the SCOTUS took the appeal on an expedited review and overruled by 9-0. These states’ action’s in Illinois, Minnesota, California and others remind me of those Jim Crow states that resisted Federal authorities. I hope, in time, they are brought to heel and their money sources are disrupted if not outright blocked. As far as I am concerned these states put the rest of us at risk, as well as law enforcement, by hindering legal application of emigration law. We and other states have lost too many citizens, and legal immigrants to actions by illegals both in and outside of state governments (ie state officeholders)
We gotta drop the multi-tier law structure. Waste of time, money, resources and there’s no need. The Federal government should be the only body controlling our laws. We shrunk in size.
Drop? We’re accepting proposals. Please post your plan. .
The constitution gives the policing power to the states
The federal government only has the power to enforce federal laws that operate in the legislate domain of federal power
Immigration is absolutely one of those
But ordinary criminal conduct is not
Unless that conduct involves legitimate federal activity
Ie you can not trespass on federal property
Or assault or obstruct federal officers
But ice can not enforce general laws like blocking streets unless they are blocking ice
As we have seen time and again jurists aren’t always the enlightened, high minded, unbiased arbiters of the meaning of the law they purport to be. You can make a pretty good guess who appointed them by the decisions they render. Yes there are Obama and Biden judges whose presence keeps the appellate courts and SCOTUS busier than they should be.
Here’s hoping the DOJ attorneys read Professor Turley’s e-letter!
You seem to think the DOJ is deaf, dumb and blind on all issues in it purview. If we have an all seeing and knowing federals government, how is that?
My opinion, Law is a messy business. so they have to pick their battles.