|
The ruling comes after a federal judge earlier this year blocked
a similar law in California that was enacted after the Trump
administration aggressively worked to increase immigration
arrests.
For the Northern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Mae
D’Agostino wrote that while New York "appears to be
well-intentioned in its pursuit of transparent policing," that's
not what the court is deciding.
“The issue now before the Court is about constitutionality—not
transparency or preferable policy decisions,” she wrote.
The federal government has shown a likelihood that the measures
go against the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which
bars state governments from regulating federal law enforcement,
D’Agostino wrote.
The measures were included in a slate of law enforcement
policies as part of the state budget bill that was signed into
law by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul in May.
Hochul and New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a
statement following the judge's decision that they "stand firm
in our belief that masked agents do not make New York safer and
our offices are reviewing all legal options at this time.”
New York's face coverings and identification measures took
effect in June, according to the ruling.
California became the first state to ban most law enforcement
officers from wearing facial coverings under a bill that was
signed in September following a summer of high-profile raids by
immigration officers in Los Angeles.
When the law was blocked, the decision was expected to have
implications nationwide for other states that have pursued their
own measures to place restrictions on immigration agents.
In May, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit
against Connecticut over a new state law that prohibits federal
agents from wearing masks.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights
reserved |
|
