this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
142 points (100.0% liked)

News

36327 readers
3889 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Judge rules that law discriminates against federal government because it does not apply to state authorities

A federal judge on Monday blocked a California law from going into effect that would ban federal immigration agents from covering their faces, but they will still be required to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number.

California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings under a bill that was signed by Gavin Newsom, the governor, in September, following last summer’s high-profile raids by ICE officers in Los Angeles.

The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in November challenging the law, arguing it would threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing, and violence. The Department of Justice claimed the law violated the constitution because California would be directly regulating the federal government. The agency argued that federal officers should be able to choose a whether to wear a face covering.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Xanthobilly@lemmy.world 104 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

These losers fought tooth and nail to not wear a mask during Covid just so they could fight tooth and nail to wear one to cover up their fascist, traitorous thuggery. This time we must not forgive or forget. They must face justice.

[–] ajmaxwell@lemmy.world 51 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Cool. Make it apply to all law enforcement. That's a-ok with me!

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That’s what they’re going to do.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 weeks ago

It's what they should have done in the first place.

Given how predictable this was and that state police already don't wear masks, leaving them out is either rank incompetence or deliberately provoking this court decision.

[–] Zier@fedia.io 35 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The KKK wore masks to protect their identity, this is exactly the same thing. ICE are the new KKK. They must be unmasked, defunded & prosecuted for their crimes against Humanity!

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 8 points 3 weeks ago

some of thier friendsa family should be encorauged to out thier ICE pig family friends.

[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago

If you gotta wear a mask, you know you're doing wrong. But no worries, fuckers, the January 6th traitors were still identified.

"I wAZ OnLy FoLoWINg OrDeRzzz." isn't going to save you

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Wait why didn't they make it apply to State authorities too? God damn Gavin Newsom.

[–] NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

The worst part is, this did apply to state law enforcement up until the final revision when they decided to change it:

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB627/id/3267892

~~(e)For the purposes of this section, “law enforcement agency” means any agency, department, or other entity of the state or any political subdivision thereof that employs a peace officer as described in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, and any federal agency that enforces local, state, or federal laws.~~

(2) “Law enforcement agency” means any of the following:

(A) Any entity of a city, county, or other local agency, that employs a peace officer described in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code.

(B) Any law enforcement agency of another state.

(C) Any federal law enforcement agency.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB627/2025

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Can he not rectify it with a new ban that applies across the board?

Fully expect him to throw his hands up and cheerfully announce that he pretended to try.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 11 points 3 weeks ago

threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing, and violence.

Good. Fuck 'em.

[–] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 weeks ago

MASKS are ~~TYRANNY!~~ PATRIOTIC!

-Republicans!

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Btw she was appointed by Bill Clinton. Since people so often care about that stuff with judges.

[–] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

But the emails.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago

The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in November challenging the law, arguing it would threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing, and violence.

But what did they claim was wrong about it?

[–] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago

So we've won the element of needing them to wear visible identification at least. Would be good to have that AND ban face coverings across the board. Treat as 2FA. FFS, we already need to provide 2FA for many things why not law enforcement?

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I'm sure there's a different interpretation that makes it totally constitutional for ICE thugs to always show their faces.

but they will still be required to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number.

A small win. We need to fight tooth and nail for every little thing now, things that should be normal.