U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi declared a triumph against California on Friday, touting an appellate court ruling that she said blocked a state ban on immigration agents and other law enforcement officers wearing masks.
“The 9th Circuit has now issued a FULL stay blocking California’s ban on masks for federal law enforcement agents,” Bondi posted on the social media site X, calling the Feb. 19 decision a “key victory.”
Bondi, however, appeared confused about which case the court was ruling on this week.
A federal judge in Los Angeles blocked California’s first-in-the-nation mask ban 10 days earlier, on Feb. 9.
At the time, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder said she was “constrained” to block the law because it included only local and federal officers, while exempting state law enforcement.
The state did not appeal that decision.
Instead, on Wednesday, the law’s author Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced a new mask bill without the problematic carve-out for state officers.
With the initial legal challenge already decided and the new bill still pending in the legislature, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has no reason to revisit the mask ban.
The ruling that Bondi appeared to reference involves a separate California law requiring law enforcement officers to display identification while on duty.
Snyder had previously ruled the “No Vigilantes Act” could take effect because it did not exempt state police, a decision the DOJ appealed to the 9th Circuit.
The appellate court is set to review the matter early next month. Until then, the court issued an injunction that pauses the state law from taking effect.
Issuing a temporary administrative injunction is a common procedural move, allowing judges to freeze things in the status quo until the court has a chance to weigh the law and come to a decision.
Thursday’s order set a hearing in the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals in Pasadena for March 3, indicating the case is far from over.
Bill Essayli, who leads the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, also celebrated with a post on X, calling Thursday’s order “another key win for the Justice Department.” He too suggested the injunction somehow involved the mask case.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The law requiring officers to show ID is less controversial than the mask ban. But it may still face an uphill battle in the appellate court. A three-judge panel is set to hear the case, including two judges nominated to the bench by President Trump and one by President Obama. One of the Trump appointees, Judge Mark Bennett of Hawaii, has previously signaled skepticism over the administration’s immigration enforcement policies.
At issue in the ID case is whether California’s law interferes with or controls the operations of the federal government, actions prohibited by the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Snyder ruled that the identification law was more akin to speed limits on the highway, which apply equally to everyone, a decision the appellate court could reject.
A ruling is not expected before mid-March, and would not affect the push by state lawmakers to pass a revised mask ban.
Recent polls show more than 60% of Americans want U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and other federal agents unmasked. More than a dozen states are pursuing laws similar to California’s.
In Washington, congressional Democrats have made a mask ban for ICE a key issue in the ongoing partial government shutdown, vowing not to fund the Department of Homeland Security until one is enacted.
Legal experts have said the issue likely will not be resolved until it reaches the Supreme Court.
