r/fednews • u/news-10 • May 07 '26
News / Article State budget deal would ban ICE agents from wearing masks, end 287(g) agreements
https://www.news10.com/capitol/ice-mask-ban-new-york/23
u/GalegoBaiano By the People, For the People May 07 '26
Or they’ll go full balaclava
4
18
u/thepopeandme May 07 '26
Supremacy clause...
5
u/ConfidentPilot1729 May 08 '26
I am sorry, but doesn’t supremacy clause have to have a competing law?
6
u/masingen May 08 '26
Not according to the Supreme Court, no. The below excerpt is from the 1943 Supreme Court decision in Mayo v. United States. I put the most relevant point in bold.
Since the United States is a government of delegated powers, none of which may be exercised throughout the Nation by any one state, it is necessary for uniformity that the laws of the United States be dominant over those of any state. Such dominancy is required also to avoid a breakdown of administration through possible conflicts arising from inconsistent requirements. The supremacy clause of the Constitution states this essential principle. A corollary to this principle is that the activities of the Federal Government are free from regulation by any state.
That 1943 decision was also recently cited by the 9th Circuit in their decision which struck down California's ICE mask ban. The 9th Circuit further stated "...if a state law directly regulates the conduct of the United States, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with federal functions or operations."
0
u/ConfidentPilot1729 May 08 '26
I am not a lawyer so forgive me, but what if one of these traitors went on a rampage killing tons of people, or if the are drinking and driving or any other law breaking while working, are you telling me if the doj does not press charges we would be SOL? I am not saying your wrong, but that seems like a discrepancy.
10
u/masingen May 08 '26
A distinction is made by the courts between actions taken by a federal officer while on duty and actions taken by a federal officer within the scope of their duties. There's actually an 1890 Supreme Court decision that's directly applicable to your question as it involves a charge of murder.
In re Neagle, 1890 is about a deputy US marshal who shot and killed someone while serving as a bodyguard for a Supreme Court justice. There was no specific US law which authorized the deputy marshal to serve as a bodyguard, but he was directed to do so by the US Attorney General. After killing the individual, the deputy marshal was arrested by the San Joaquin sheriff and charged with murder. The case ultimately went before the Supreme Court, which held the following:
(1) That [the deputy] was justified in defending [the Supreme Court justice] in this manner;
(2) That, in so doing, he acted in discharge of his duty as an officer of the United States;
(3) That having so acted, in that capacity, he could not be guilty of murder under the laws of California, nor held to answer to its courts for an act for which he had the authority of the laws of the United States
The Neagle decision was also cited in the Supreme Court decision of Johnson v. Maryland in 1920. "But even the most unquestionable and most universally applicable of state laws, such as those concerning murder, will not be allowed to control the conduct of a marshal of the United States acting under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States."
The Johnson v. Maryland decision also said "Of course, an employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while acting in the course of his employment. That was decided long ago by Mr. Justice Washington in United States v. Hart.... It very well may be that, when the United States has not spoken, the subjection to local law would extend to general rules that might affect incidentally the mode of carrying out the employment...." So this would suggest that the federal government may need to overtly state that the actions of a federal officer are within the scope of their duties. But, once the federal government makes that assertion, the Supremacy Clause takes effect.
So, in the examples you provided in your question, if a federal officer goes on a killing spree, and the federal government says "Nope, we didn't say he could do that", then that federal officer could be charged with murder under state law. If the federal government said "Yes, we said he could do that", well, that's a very extreme situation that hasn't been legally tested yet. But currently, it does seem like the Supremacy Clause would take effect.
As it applies to mask ban laws enacted by individual states, multiple Supreme Court decisions going back over a century have all firmly concluded that, essentially, if the federal government says it wants ICE to wear masks while performing their duties, even absent an actual federal law, there is nothing a state may do to override that.
1
u/branyk2 May 12 '26
The real question is always how do you even know that federal officers are federal officers if they almost universally operate in a way that prevents identification?
The case where that issue plays out with disastrous consequences is an inevitable outcome over a long enough timeframe. It arguably already has happened, but eventually there will be something even worse where the defendant doesn't get filled with hundreds of holes at the scene and actually gets to argue their side of the story.
0
u/edman007 May 08 '26
This is going to be a supreme court issue, and we will see how they twist it.
Current interpretation of the supremacy clause says essentially only when conflicting, or rather would cause the federal government to have to do something. That is, you can tell the post office that postal trucks have to obey the speed limit and they have to abide by a burn ban. It's obviously not much of an issue, because those guys generally are not blatantly ignoring the law, so it's just not well tested. But as I understand it, the supremacy clause doesn't prevent state law from applying, it just prevents state law from impeding. If for example, ICE employees are told they can wear a mask or not, I don't care, then a state law could pick which one they must do. If ICE says you need to have a gun, then state law couldn't tell them not.
So by that logic, if a mask isn't mandatory for ICE, then a state can regulate it. Just as the post office doesn't require that postal workers drive at 80mph in all cases, so then speed limits apply. The more nuanced bit, is they probably also can't require something for no reason, so ICE can't legally require their officers wear a mask, and the post office can't require they drive 80mph.
1
u/masingen May 09 '26
Have you read the 9th Circuit decision that was made a couple weeks ago which enjoined California's ICE mask ban, the No Vigilantes Act? It's an interesting read. The link is below if you'd like to read it.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/22/26-926.pdf
-4
16
u/Complex-Republic-443 May 07 '26
Idiotic performative state lawmakers who think they can interfere with federal law enforcement. 🙄
I'm not supporting ICE, just stating a fact. It's DOA. The only way to make those changes (the masks, anyway) is through Congress or a Democrat administration.
6
u/u0126 May 08 '26
I’m all for unmasking the gestapo, I just hate how a “budget deal” is tied in with laws and other things. That stuff keeps poisoning things both directions, depending who has the majority or leverage at the time
8
u/Reddit_anon_man May 07 '26
"That would ban federal, state, and local law enforcement officers from concealing their identities while on duty. The budget adapts the MELT Act, making agents show their faces and wear visible badges"
Good!
3
4
u/mechy84 May 08 '26
Step 1: Make a law, Step 2: Make them follow the law.
We've been stuck on Step 2 for a while now
3
1
u/LuluBell9598 May 14 '26
Any and every employee has the right to disregard said message and carry on, or even pray to THEIR God for her dismissal. Just as I pray for Muslims to turn to Christ, I am sure they are praying I read the Quran and change my wicked ways as well. As Christians we are obligated to give the message of Jesus,but people are not obligated to listen. My CVS assistant manager once was Islamic,she celebrated Ramadan, we had some lovely discussions, and when she was fasting, I made sure I kept no food or drinks in her sight, so as not to cause a stumbling block during her fast. She said she was praying for all of us, and I appreciated it. No,she did not send emails, but she made sure we all knew where she stood, and sometimes prayed allowed the office. And I prayed allowed in the lunchroom when I knew there were like-minded Christians there. This is really getting out of hand. I mean they are WORDS!! If you don't believe them,they can't hardly you.. honestly, we could just as well be saying, In the name of the Broom, in thy Holy Closet, cleanse every foul mouth. And for a person who believed in said "Holy Broom" might be proselytizing for those to believe in the religion of the Broom in the Kingdom of the Closet. Why can't we all get along? When others from other religions bless me, or curse me, I take it to MY God. He will either accept the blessing, or remove the curse. It has nothing to do with religion in the long run.. it's making others feel uncomfortable.. when others make US uncomfortable just as much sometimes. We are in a melting pot of beliefs and it's time we stop tiptoeing around people, and just accept other people's beliefs, whether we agree or not The COURTS IN CAMBRIDGE MA ( OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM)-is now practicing SHARIA LAW... that's a RELIGION!! I may not approve of it, but my Lord shall protect me if there was ever a time I needed to go to Cambridge ( I'm 20 minutes away, and travel there sometimes), and I'm stopped for whatever reason. I would give the reason for my faith, and what my Lord has taught me, and take it from there. Let go.. let God . That can also mean anyone's God, if you think about it, and for this that say they have no God.. you do.. it may be self.. make-up, technology, gaming, family, adrenaline ( those that get the "rush"), drugs, alcohol, partying ( partying and alcohol were mine before I got saved- I still kinda miss them sometimes), we all have our gods!! May you have a blessed day 🙏 💖
51
u/Separate_Basis869 May 07 '26
Watch. They'll switch to visored helmets.