California No Secret Police Act

As the new year begins, California has introduced new legislation signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom. The No Secret Police Act, or Senate Bill 627 (SB-627), was the first law enacted in the United States to specifically prohibit law enforcement officers from concealing their identities while on duty.

The existing law makes law enforcement officers identify themselves during official duties. This comes as a direct response to federal immigration laws and enforcement actions, particularly those involving masked federal agents. 

The state law aims to enhance transparency and safety in interactions between the public and law enforcement—specifically, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Here is an overview of the new Act, which took effect on January 1, 2026.

About California’s No Secret Police Act Regarding Masked Federal Law Enforcement Agents

California has taken an unprecedented step in challenging federal law enforcement agencies’ tactics by enacting the nation’s first policy that bans officers from concealing their identities with masks.

The new Act amends and builds upon the existing legal framework regarding ICE methods by establishing stricter rules that prohibit local law enforcement officers from concealing their identities while performing state or federal duties.

The law defines “law enforcement officers” as any individual designated as a peace officer who is employed by local, state, or federal agencies, including any person acting in a law enforcement capacity, officer, or agent.

Senate Bill 627 is the first of dozens of proposals at the local, state, and federal levels aimed at unmasking law enforcement officers acting with impunity. It represents a bold confrontation between state authority and federal power, setting the stage for a significant legal battle over the limits of each government’s jurisdiction.

The Consequences of Law Enforcement Agencies Violating the Law

The No Secret Police Act includes provisions for civil damages against federal agents who violate the law during operations. Therefore, victims of unlawful actions by masked law enforcement officers may seek civil damages of at least $10,000.

Additional Policies Applicable to Victims

If a law enforcement agency fails to correct identified deficiencies within 90 days, the complaining party would be authorized by the bill to seek a judicial determination of the exemption from a court of competent jurisdiction, as specified.

This bill imposes new duties on local law enforcement and other local agencies, establishing a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires that the state reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain state-mandated costs, and statutory provisions establish procedures for obtaining that reimbursement.

Historic Legislation Takes Aim at Masked Enforcement

On September 20, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 627 into law, making California the first state to prohibit local, state, and federal law enforcement from covering their faces during official operations.

The legislation, authored by State Senators Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Jesse Arreguín of Berkeley, took effect on January 1, 2026, marking the first time a local governing authority challenged the use of masks and deceptive tactics to enforce federal immigration and customs laws.

The law specifically bans the use of facial coverings, such as ski masks, balaclavas, neck gaiters, and similar extreme masking that conceals the law enforcement agency operating officers’ identities. The bill would also require all law enforcement personnel operating in California to be identifiable through visible faces and uniforms clearly displaying names or badge numbers.

Exempt personnel may apply to SWAT teams, officers wearing medical-grade masks like N95 respirators, wildfire protection gear during emergencies, and undercover operations. Notably, the law does not apply to the California Highway Patrol or National Guard troops.

Responding to the Operation of Local Law Enforcement Agencies on Public Safety

The legislation emerged as a direct response to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown and reports of masked federal agents conducting raids across California. Supporters of the bill argue these tactics have created an atmosphere of terror in immigrant communities, with videos circulating online showing agents in plainclothes, masks, and sunglasses detaining individuals from unmarked vehicles without proper identification.

The law specifically addresses ICE’s secret police tactics, which involve covert operations by masked ICE agents and have raised significant concerns about impersonation, lack of transparency, and authoritarian overreach. 

Beyond transparency concerns, proponents highlight serious public safety risks. The FBI has warned that masked federal operations have spawned dangerous copycat criminal activity. In early 2025, multiple states reported arrests for ICE agent impersonations, including a South Carolina kidnapping case and a North Carolina sexual assault involving threats of deportation. 

The law also aims to bolster public trust in law enforcement. According to its authors, officers performing critically important work should be proud to show their faces and provide identifying information, which makes it easier for law enforcement to do their jobs effectively while making communities safer.

Federal Opposition and Safety Arguments Over ICE Agents

The Trump administration has mounted fierce opposition to the law, with the Department of Homeland Security calling on Newsom to veto the bill before its signing, as it jeopardizes officer safety. Federal officials argue that masks protect officers from death threats, doxing, and online harassment, particularly threats from sophisticated criminal organizations.

Acting ICE Director, Todd Lyons, defended the practice by stating he would not let officers “put their lives on the line, their family on the line because people don’t like what immigration enforcement is.”

DHS officials maintain that federal agents do identify themselves but wear masks to prevent retaliation from gangs and criminal networks. They have accused California lawmakers of dehumanizing federal officers and attempting to prevent immigration law enforcement.

In an initial attempt to override the bill, acting U.S. Attorney, Bill Essayli, instructed federal officers to disregard what he called a “dangerous and unconstitutional law,” making clear the federal government has no intention of complying. 

Various law enforcement organizations have also expressed opposition, citing concerns about hindering undercover operations and endangering officers.

Constitutional Clash and Court Intervention

The legal battle centers on fundamental questions of federalism and the limits of state power over federal operations. In November 2025, the Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, arguing that the law violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits states from regulating the federal government.

The federal lawsuit also claims the law discriminates against the federal government by exempting state police from its requirements while imposing restrictions on federal officers. On December 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder granted a temporary injunction, halting enforcement of the law pending further legal proceedings.

Broader Implications and Future Outlook for Federal Agents

The No Secret Police Act exists within a broader landscape of tension between California and the Trump administration over immigration enforcement. The state has maintained sanctuary policies prohibiting local police from assisting federal immigration operations, leading to multiple legal confrontations dating back to Trump’s first term.

California has also enacted companion legislation, including SB 805, which requires immediate identification of all law enforcement officers, restricts bounty hunter involvement in immigration activities, and establishes requirements for school notifications when immigration enforcement enters campuses. 

Additionally, the new California laws prohibit ICE access to schools and healthcare facilities without valid warrants. 

A policy would be considered compliant with the statutory provisions noted regarding exceptions unless it is challenged by a member of the public, an oversight body, or a local governing authority, enforcing the new requirements.

Potential Implications and Criminal Penalties

Any individuals found guilty of violating the new state law are subject to criminal penalties, including infractions and misdemeanors, for such violations. Therefore, any person found to have committed assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution while wearing a facial covering could be found liable for daños compensatorios. 

Criminal penalties will not apply to law enforcement officers if they were acting in their capacity as employees. The agency must also maintain and publicly post a written policy. However, the law includes civil penalties and imposes a specified civil penalty against certain officers for tortious conduct while wearing a facial covering.

The California Attorney General created an online portal for reporting incidents of federal misconduct, and a coalition of immigrant rights, labor, and civil rights organizations continues to support the legislation in December 2025.

The case represents a significant test of state versus federal authority in immigration enforcement. With dozens of similar proposals pending at the local, state, and federal levels across the nation, California’s experience may serve as a precedent for other jurisdictions grappling with these same tensions.

Abogado Jeff, abogado de accidentes automovilísticos

Our personal injury law firm, Abogado Jeff, abogado de accidentes automovilísticos, specializes in a wide range of personal injury cases. If you or a loved one is a victim of an incident, Jeff te tiene. For a free consulation, Contacte con nuestro despacho de abogados hoy.