A federal judicial authority on Monday temporarily suspended significant sections of a New York state statute that sought to prohibit federal immigration agents from wearing facial coverings and compel them to display identification clearly while performing their official functions.
U.S. District Judge Mae D'Agostino, presiding in the Northern District of New York, granted a preliminary injunction. This action prevents the state from enforcing the two aforementioned stipulations as a legal challenge against the law continues through the courts.
Federal Authority Upheld
In her decision, Judge D'Agostino determined that the contested provisions were likely unconstitutional. She reasoned that they intrude upon federal law enforcement operations, which include those conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The judge emphasized that only the federal government possesses the authority to establish the operational guidelines for its law enforcement agencies. Consequently, she stated that New York lacks the power to dictate the manner in which federal agents carry out their official responsibilities.
New York cannot impose its own uniform requirements on federal agents simply because it disagrees with how the Federal Government is exercising its authority.
Following the court's decision to block the mask prohibition, Governor Kathy Hochul and New York Attorney General Letitia James expressed their disapproval. They indicated that their offices are currently exploring further legal avenues.
While the court enjoined enforcement of New York’s mask ban, we 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.
287(g) Provision Remains Intact
However, Judge D'Agostino opted not to block another distinct provision within the law. This part prevents local New York law enforcement agencies from engaging in specific federal immigration enforcement tasks under the framework of 287(g) agreements.
The judge noted that federal law dictates that participation by state and local agencies in civil immigration enforcement initiatives is entirely voluntary.
The State's refusal to cooperate in the immigration context—a possibility contemplated by the relevant federal statutes—does not constitute discrimination against the federal government.
Governor Hochul and Attorney General James welcomed this aspect of the ruling. They reiterated their stance that New York taxpayers should not be obligated to finance local collaboration with federal immigration authorities.
As we have said from the start, New York’s ban on 287(g) agreements is legal and will keep our communities safe. Local law enforcement should be focused on local matters, and New York taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for any collaboration with ICE.
