New York’s attempt to force federal immigration agents to operate without masks has been halted in court, exposing a sharp divide between state demands for transparency and Washington’s claim to exclusive control over federal law enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the state’s mask and identification requirements. The ruling follows similar decisions involving laws in California, Virginia and Pennsylvania, and means local officers cannot arrest ICE agents for violating New York’s restrictions.¹

The state framed the law as a public-safety measure, arguing that masked agents without clearly visible identification can create dangerous encounters. Gov. Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James said they still believe “masked agents do not make New York safer” and are considering an appeal.¹ Their position emphasizes accountability and rejects the use of state and local resources to support federal immigration operations.

The federal government and conservative supporters of the ruling took the opposite view: whatever the merits of unmasked enforcement, states cannot dictate how federal agencies conduct official duties. The court agreed that New York’s provisions likely violate the Constitution’s supremacy clause, stating that “New York cannot impose its own uniform requirements on federal agents simply because it disagrees with how the Federal Government is exercising its authority.”²

But the decision was not a complete victory for ICE. D’Agostino allowed New York’s separate ban on local participation in 287(g) agreements to remain in effect, finding that cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement is voluntary. Hochul and James welcomed that result, arguing that “New York taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for any collaboration with ICE.”¹

The split ruling preserves the central conflict: federal agents retain operational control, while New York can still decide whether its own police and funding will assist them.