A federal judge in Los Angeles struck down a key piece of California's legal offensive against immigration enforcement on Monday, blocking the state from forcing ICE agents to remove their masks during operations.

Judge Christina Snyder, appointed during the Clinton administration, granted a preliminary injunction against California's "No Secret Police Act" — finding that the law violated the Supremacy Clause by singling out federal officers.

As Fox News reported, the ruling hands the Trump administration another courtroom win in its escalating battle with Sacramento over immigration enforcement. Attorney General Pamela Bondi celebrated the decision on X: "ANOTHER key court victory thanks to our outstanding @TheJusticeDept attorneys."

What the court actually said

Judge Snyder's reasoning cut straight to the constitutional problem. The "No Secret Police Act" didn't apply its facial-covering ban to all law enforcement in California — just federal officers. That's textbook discrimination under the Supremacy Clause.

"However, because the No Secret Police Act, as presently enacted, does not apply equally to all law enforcement officers in the state, it unlawfully discriminates against federal officers."

The court also found that the practical justification didn't hold up:

"The Court finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks."

That line matters less than the constitutional one. The judge may believe masks aren't operationally necessary, but the reason she blocked the law wasn't function — it was discrimination. California wrote a law that targeted one category of law enforcement, and the Constitution doesn't allow that.

Separately, the court allowed California's "No Vigilantes Act" to remain in effect. That law requires all officers — federal, state, and local — to display agency affiliation and a personal identifier like a badge number. Because it applies equally, it survived the Supremacy Clause challenge. A narrower law, and a narrower result.

Newsom calls losing a 'win'

Governor Gavin Newsom, who signed both measures into law last September in response to federal enforcement operations in the state, responded to the ruling with a statement that requires careful reading:

"A federal court upheld California's law requiring federal agents to identify themselves – a clear win for the rule of law. No badge and no name mean no accountability."

Notice what he did there. The centerpiece of California's legal attack — the mask ban — just got blocked by a Clinton-era judge on constitutional grounds. But Newsom pointed to the surviving provision, the badge-number requirement, and declared victory.

This is the Newsom method: pass sweeping legislation designed to obstruct federal enforcement, lose the headline provision in court, then hold up whatever remains and call it a triumph. The "No Secret Police Act" was the marquee law. It was the one Sacramento built its rhetorical campaign around. And it's the one a federal judge just enjoined.

Calling that a "clear win" is like losing the Super Bowl and celebrating because you won the coin toss.

The real stakes behind the masks

Bondi framed the ruling in terms of officer safety — and the concern isn't abstract:

"These federal agents are harassed, doxxed, obstructed, and attacked on a regular basis just for doing their jobs. We have no tolerance for it."

California's argument was that these laws were routine safety regulations — the state compared them to speed limits and traffic rules. The court didn't buy it, at least not for the mask ban. And the comparison itself reveals a certain detachment from reality. Speed limits don't expose individual officers to targeted harassment. Traffic laws don't strip away the operational anonymity that protects agents conducting enforcement in hostile environments.

The state's legal filings insisted the challenged provisions were merely "a legitimate exercise of California's police powers" that only "incidentally affects" federal law enforcement. But a law specifically designed to unmask federal immigration agents during operations doesn't "incidentally" affect anything. It's the point.

A pattern Sacramento can't quit

California scheduled enforcement of both laws for January 1, 2026, then paused enforcement against federal agencies while the court weighed the DOJ's injunction request. That pause was telling — Sacramento knew the constitutional footing was shaky enough to warrant a tactical retreat before the judge even ruled.

This is the cycle: California passes aggressive legislation targeting federal immigration enforcement, wraps it in the language of civil rights and accountability, watches it collide with the Supremacy Clause, and then repackages the wreckage as progress. The state's political leaders get the press conference. Federal agents get the court order. And the underlying enforcement continues.

Monday's ruling won't be the last chapter. But for now, the scorecard is straightforward: a Clinton appointee looked at California's signature anti-enforcement law, applied the Constitution, and blocked it. Sacramento's legal strategy isn't just losing — it's losing on grounds that even its allies on the bench can't overlook.