California has once again positioned itself at the forefront of legislative innovation, enacting a first-of-its-kind law to curb the use of concealed identities by law enforcement officers while on duty. Signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, the “No Secret Police Act ,” or Senate Bill 627 (SB-627) , is set to take effect on January 1, 2026, and explicitly prohibits officers from obscuring their identities with masks or other facial coverings.
This landmark legislation is a direct response to growing concerns about federal immigration enforcement tactics, particularly those carried out by masked federal agents, and seeks to enhance transparency and public safety in interactions between the public and law enforcement within the state.
Redefining Law Enforcement Transparency
SB 627 represents an unprecedented challenge to federal law enforcement agencies operating within California’s borders. It amends and builds upon existing legal frameworks concerning U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) methods, establishing stricter rules that prohibit both local and federal law enforcement officers from concealing their identities while performing state or federal duties.
The law broadly defines “law enforcement officers” to encompass any individual designated as a peace officer employed by local, state, or federal agencies, as well as any person acting in a law enforcement capacity, officer, or agent.
This move sets the stage for a significant legal battle over the limits of state versus federal jurisdiction, and experts across the legal field, including those at Attorney Jeff , have noted its potential to become a pivotal precedent in intergovernmental relations.
Accountability and Civil Penalties
The No Secret Police Act includes stringent provisions for civil damages against federal agents who violate the law. Victims of unlawful actions by masked law enforcement officers may seek civil damages of at least $10,000 .
Furthermore, if an agency fails to correct identified deficiencies within 90 days, the complaining party is authorized to seek a judicial determination of an exemption from a court.
The bill also imposes new duties on local law enforcement and other local agencies, thereby establishing a state-mandated local program, for which the state is constitutionally required to provide reimbursement.
Legislative Origins and Prohibited Tactics
Authored by State Senators Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Jesse Arreguín of Berkeley, SB 627 was signed into law on September 20, 2025. Its effective date marks a critical juncture where a local governing authority directly challenges the use of masks and deceptive tactics in the enforcement of federal immigration and customs laws.
The law specifically bans the use of facial coverings such as:
● Ski masks
● Balaclavas
● Neck gaiters
● Other extreme masking techniques
It mandates that all law enforcement personnel operating in California must be identifiable through visible faces and uniforms clearly displaying their names or badge numbers.
Key Exemptions to the Rule
However, the legislation does include certain exemptions. These apply to:
● SWAT teams
● Officers wearing medical-grade masks (e.g., N95 respirators)
● Wildfire protection gear during emergencies
● Undercover operations
Notably, the law does not apply to the California Highway Patrol or National Guard troops.
The Driving Force: Immigration Raids and Public Safety
The impetus for this legislation arose as a direct response to the previous administration’s immigration crackdown and numerous reports of masked federal agents conducting raids across California.
Supporters of the bill argue that these tactics have fostered an “atmosphere of terror” within immigrant communities, citing online videos showing agents in plainclothes, masks, and sunglasses detaining individuals from unmarked vehicles without proper identification.
Beyond transparency concerns, proponents highlight serious public safety risks. The FBI has warned that masked federal operations have inadvertently spurred dangerous copycat criminal activity. Early in 2025, several states reported arrests for ICE agent impersonations, including a kidnapping case in South Carolina and a sexual assault in North Carolina involving threats of deportation.
Federal Opposition and Safety Concerns
Unsurprisingly, the previous federal administration mounted fierce opposition to the No Secret Police Act. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) urged Governor Newsom to veto the bill, claiming it jeopardized officer safety. Federal officials contend that masks are crucial for protecting officers from death threats, “doxing,” and online harassment from sophisticated criminal organizations.
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons defended the practice, stating he would not allow officers to “put their lives on the line… because people don’t like what immigration enforcement is.” DHS officials accused California lawmakers of dehumanizing federal officers and attempting to prevent the enforcement of immigration law.
The Constitutional Clash: Supremacy and Injunctions
The legal battle over SB 627 centers on fundamental questions of federalism. In November 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, arguing that the law violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. 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 while imposing restrictions on federal officers. On December 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder granted a temporary injunction, halting the enforcement of the law pending further proceedings. This ongoing dispute highlights the complex interplay of state and federal authority.
Broader Landscape of California Sanctuary Policies
The No Secret Police Act exists within a broader landscape of tension concerning immigration enforcement. California has long maintained sanctuary policies, leading to multiple legal confrontations. Companion legislation includes:
● SB 805: Requires immediate officer identification and restricts bounty hunters.
● Campus Protections: New laws prohibit ICE access to schools and healthcare facilities without valid warrants.
Enforcement and Reporting Misconduct
Individuals found guilty of violating the state law are subject to criminal penalties, including infractions and misdemeanors. Any person committing assault, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution while wearing a facial covering could be held liable for compensatory damages.
The California Attorney General has created an online portal for reporting incidents of federal misconduct, supported by a coalition of immigrant rights and civil rights organizations as of December 2025.
This case represents a significant test of state versus federal authority. With dozens of similar proposals pending across the nation, California’s experience may serve as a crucial precedent for other jurisdictions grappling with these same tensions.
