On February 9, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of California law prohibiting federal law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings in the performance of their duties. The preliminary injunction will take effect on February 19, 2026; the State had previously agreed to not enforce the law until the District Court made a decision regarding the federal government’s request for a preliminary injunction. All other provisions of Senate Bill 627 (the “No Secret Police Act”), requiring agencies to post facial covering policies online, and Senate Bill 805 (the “No Vigilantes Act”), requiring officers to display identification on-duty, remain in effect.
The “No Secret Police Act” prohibits “law enforcement officers” from wearing facial coverings while performing their duties, subject to enumerated exceptions such as undercover work, SWAT operations, assignments authorized by supervising personnel or court order, and safety-related circumstances. The definition of “law enforcement officer” under SB 627 includes peace officers, as defined in California Penal Code section 830, employed by a city, county, or other local agency as well as any officer or agency of a federal law enforcement agency or any law enforcement agency of another state or any person acting on behalf of a federal enforcement agency or law enforcement agency of another state, but not law enforcement officers employed by the State of California. SB 627 makes a willful and knowing violation of this provision punishable as an infraction or a misdemeanor. The statute also provides that any law enforcement agency operating in California maintain and publicly post a written policy regarding use of facial coverings by July 1, 2026. “Law enforcement agency” under SB 627 is an entity of a city, county, or other local agency, that employes a peace officer described in California Penal Code section 830, any law enforcement agency or another state, and any federal law enforcement agency. This definition does not include California state agencies.
SB 805, the “No Vigilantes Act,” requires law enforcement officers operating in California to display identification that includes their agency and either a name or badge number to the public when performing enforcement duties, with certain exceptions, and makes a willful and knowing violation of this provision punishable as a misdemeanor. “Law enforcement officer” under SB 805 includes any peace officer as defined in California Penal Code section 830, and any federal law enforcement officer. This definition includes California state law enforcement officers. This Act also required law enforcement agencies operating in California to maintain and publicly post a written policy on the visible identification of sworn personnel. Under SB 805, a law enforcement agency is any state or local entity that employes a peace officer described in California Penal Code section 830, any law enforcement agency of another state, and any federal law enforcement agency. This definition includes California state agencies.
The District Court concluded that, with regard to SB 627, the federal government failed to demonstrate that the facial covering prohibition directly regulates the federal government. The District Court found that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks. However, because the No Secret Police Act, as presently enacted, is inapplicable to state law enforcement officers, the District Court determined that it unlawfully discriminates against federal officers in violation of the Supremacy Clause.
The District Court declined to enjoin enforcement of SB 805 or the remaining provisions of SB 627. The District Court concluded that SB 805’s visible-identification requirement does not meaningfully interfere with federal law enforcement or single out federal officers for unfavorable treatment. It declined to enjoin the policy statement requirement of SB 627 because those provisions do not contain penalties, and therefore in the District Court’s opinion there was no substantial and credible risk of prosecution of any federal agency.
Local agencies thus cannot enforce the ban on federal agents wearing face coverings. A preliminary injunction is an interim measure prohibiting enforcement of the statute during this lawsuit; it is possible, though unlikely, that the District Court could reach a different result in its final decision. The District Court is a trial court and could be reversed on appeal. Further, State Senator Scott Wiener has announced a bill that would make the facial covering ban applicable to California state law enforcement agencies, which would eliminate the factual basis for the preliminary injunction. Liebert Cassidy Whitmore will continue to monitor the status of this law.