Late last week, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a controversial bill, SB 627, that prohibits law enforcement officers, including federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), from wearing masks during public interactions. This legislation, part of a broader legislative package, allows exceptions for clear plastic shields and medical masks but imposes misdemeanor penalties for violations.

California has the authority to dictate practices of state and local police; however, the state's power to impose these rules on federal employees, such as ICE agents, is constitutionally questionable. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution may prevent such state-level mandates from affecting federal operations without explicit federal consent.

Supporters of the bill, including Newsom, argue that the law is constitutionally sound as it applies uniformly to both state and federal officers. They suggest that unless ICE can prove that masks are essential for their duties, the regulation should stand. Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at UC Berkeley, voiced a supportive opinion, stating that the bill does not exclusively target federal agents and thus should not be seen as overstepping state powers.

However, the situation is more complex. Legal experts point out that even non-discriminatory laws that directly regulate federal activities are constitutionally suspect unless there is a clear indication from Congress that such regulations are permissible. Historical precedents, such as the Supreme Court's decision in the 1890 case of In re Neagle, affirm the federal government's supremacy in matters of federal enforcement, shielding federal officers from state-level prosecutions while they perform their duties.

The recent bill raises significant legal questions about the extent to which state laws can affect federal operations. While California seeks to enforce transparency and accountability among law enforcement by restricting mask usage, the federal government's autonomy and ICE's operational strategies may exempt them from such state mandates.

The debate hinges on whether the federal government has implicitly or explicitly allowed its employees to be subjected to state regulations like those imposed by SB 627. Without such consent, the state's regulation of federal officers remains constitutionally dubious. Legal scholars and political analysts will be watching closely as this issue potentially makes its way through the courts, testing the boundaries of state power over federal agencies.