Which States Have Laws Requiring ICE Agents to Show Identification or Restrict Masks? A 50-State Legal Guide

Eight states have enacted statewide laws: California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Virginia and Washington. California counts once even though it passed two separate laws (SB 627 on masks and SB 805 on identification), which is why this guide has nine state-law sections for eight states.

Enactment is not the same as enforceability against federal officers. Federal courts have preliminarily blocked mask or identification laws in California, New York and Virginia, and a Philadelphia ordinance, and the Justice Department has sued over laws in Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Denver and Milwaukee, where cases are pending. Oregon and Washington have enacted laws, and no federal suit against either appears in the Justice Department’s October 2026 lists of challenged jurisdictions.

The 50-State Count

Category	States	Count
Statewide law enacted	California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Virginia, Washington	8
Bill introduced, no statewide law enacted in this survey	Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin	25
No statewide measure identified	Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, Wyoming	17
Total		50

A University of Wisconsin Law School analysis found mask-related legislation in at least 33 states by May 2026. That is the 8 enacted states plus the 25 with bills. It does not mean 33 states have operative mask bans.

Practical Status Table

Jurisdiction	Law	Enacted	Federal challenge	Court status	Practical effect on federal officers
California	SB 627 (masks)	Sept. 2025	Yes	Preliminary relief Feb. 9, 2026 as applied to federal officers	Not enforceable against covered federal officers
California	SB 805 (identification), § 10	Sept. 2025	Yes	Ninth Circuit injunction pending appeal (Apr. 22) and Oct. 14 opinion directing a preliminary injunction	Not enforceable against federal agencies and officers
Connecticut	SB 397 / Public Act 26-14	May 2026	Yes (May 15, 2026)	Pending; check docket for interim orders	Unclear; verify before relying
Maryland	SB 1 / HB 155, Ch. 612	May 2026	Yes (Oct. 1, 2026)	Pending	Unclear; verify before relying
New Jersey	P.L. 2026, c. 3	Mar. 2026	Yes	Pending	Unclear; verify before relying
New York	Civil Rights Law §§ 101–102 (via S9005-C)	May 2026	Yes	Preliminary injunction Aug. 3, 2026	Not enforceable against federal officers under the order
Oregon	HB 4138, Ch. 66	2026	None identified	None	Enacted; legal status untested
Virginia	HB 1482, Ch. 1131	2026	Yes	Preliminary relief Aug. 2026; appeal reported	Blocked or limited; verify scope
Washington	SB 5855, Ch. 115	Mar. 2026	None identified	None	Enacted; legal status untested
Denver, CO (city)	City ordinance	Mar. 2026	Yes (Oct. 8, 2026)	Pending	Unclear; verify
Philadelphia, PA (city)	Bill No. 260060	2026	Yes (June 2026)	Blocked July 2, 2026	Not enforceable against federal officers
Milwaukee, WI (city)	Ord. 251797	Apr. 2026	Yes	Pending	Unclear; verify

Verified Facts and Caveats

Confirmed by multiple news reports and Justice Department announcements:

• The Justice Department sued Maryland on October 1, 2026 and Denver on October 8, 2026, and has also sued New York, Virginia, Connecticut, New Jersey, California, Philadelphia and Milwaukee over similar policies.
• Courts have preliminarily blocked laws in California, New York (August 3), Virginia (August) and Philadelphia (July 2). Cases against Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and Milwaukee were still pending as of October 8.
• The Ninth Circuit’s October 14, 2026 ruling concerns California’s SB 805 identification provision only.

Caveats:

• Bill numbers, chapter numbers, signing dates and ordinance numbers below come from state legislative records and secondary summaries. Confirm each against the official source before citing it.
• A complaint is not a court order, and a preliminary injunction is not a final judgment.
• Court orders can be narrow. Read the order for which provisions, parties and officers it covers.
• Other laws (general criminal statutes, other identification rules, local ordinances and federal rules) may still apply even where no mask or ID law is on the books.

ID Requirements vs. Mask Restrictions

These are related but legally separate. An identification law may require visible agency insignia, a name or badge number, or verbal identification before a detention or arrest. A mask law addresses concealing the face, usually with exceptions for undercover work, tactical teams, medical masks and hazardous environments. A state can have one without the other, and courts examine what each statute actually regulates, which officers it covers and whether applying it to a federal officer interferes with federal operations.

What Federal Law Already Requires

Under 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(iii), an immigration officer making an arrest must identify themselves as an immigration officer authorized to make the arrest and state the reason for the arrest, as soon as practical and safe. Federal law does not impose a universal rule that every ICE agent remain unmasked, nor one that requires a visible name and badge number at all times. The constitutional dispute is whether states can add their own requirements to federal officers performing federal duties.

The Eight States, State by State

1. California (two laws)

SB 627, the No Secret Police Act (mask law). Signed September 20, 2025. It restricts face coverings that conceal an officer’s identity, with exceptions for undercover work, tactical operations, certain medical masks and hazardous conditions. Violations are an infraction, with potential misdemeanor liability for repeats. Its original wording exempted California state officers.

• Verified: On February 9, 2026, the district court granted preliminary relief against enforcing it as applied to federal officers, finding that the state-officer exemption likely discriminated against the federal government.
• Caveat: Reports indicate the law was amended in 2026. Check the current text and whether the exemption was removed.

SB 805, the No Vigilantes Act (identification). Signed September 20, 2025. Section 10 (Penal Code § 13654) requires covered nonuniformed officers to visibly display agency identification and a name or badge number during specified enforcement duties.

• Verified: The Ninth Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal on April 22, 2026 and on October 14, 2026 directed a preliminary injunction against enforcing Section 10 against the United States, federal agencies and federal officers.
• Caveat: The injunction is preliminary and limited to Section 10 as applied to federal actors.

2. Connecticut

Senate Bill 397, “An Act Concerning Democracy and Government Accountability,” became Public Act 26-14 in May 2026. It is an omnibus measure that restricts certain face coverings and disguises worn by covered peace officers (including relevant federal officers) while interacting with the public and addresses identification and use-of-force rules. The mask restriction is a Class D misdemeanor (up to a $250 fine, 30 days, or both).

• Verified: The Justice Department sued on May 15, 2026, and the case was pending as of October 8.
• Caveat: Use the enacted text, not an earlier bill version, for exact requirements, and check the docket for any interim order.

3. Maryland

SB 1 / HB 155 (“Public Safety – Law Enforcement Officers – Face Coverings and Identification”) was approved May 26, 2026 as Chapter 612.

• Verified: The Justice Department sued Maryland, Prince George’s County and Montgomery County on October 1, 2026. The case was pending.
• Caveat: No final judgment or complete interim order was confirmed. Do not describe the law as either fully enforceable or fully blocked without checking the docket.

4. New Jersey

The Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act (P.L. 2026, c. 3) was signed March 25, 2026 by Governor Mikie Sherrill. It covers federal, state, county and municipal officers. It generally prohibits wearing a mask or disguise when interacting with the public in official duties, with exceptions (undercover or tactical work, retaliation threats, non-concealing face protection, medical masks and specified hazard situations). Before detaining or arresting someone, an officer must provide identification by uniform with agency insignia, photo ID, a badge or number, or by stating their name and agency, with exceptions for investigative or safety concerns.

• Verified: The Justice Department has sued, and the case was pending as of October 8.
• Caveat: A lawsuit is not an injunction. Check the docket for the current order.

5. New York

The Face Covering Act (Civil Rights Law § 101) and Identification Act (§ 102) were enacted through Subpart F of S9005-C, part of the budget signed May 27, 2026, effective June 26, 2026. They restrict concealing facial identity during public interactions and impose identification duties, with criminal penalties (reported as up to 15 days for a first offense and up to one year for later offenses).

• Verified: On August 3, 2026, Judge D’Agostino of the Northern District of New York preliminarily enjoined enforcement in United States v. Russo, No. 1:26-cv-01360, reasoning that the acts directly regulate federal officers in violation of the Supremacy Clause. This matters because New York’s laws applied to all officers, so the ruling rests on direct regulation, not only discrimination.
• Caveat: The order stays in effect until final judgment or later order. Separate New York bills (S8462 / A8908) are different proposals.

6. Oregon

HB 4138 (Chapter 66 of 2026) addresses officer identification and limits facial coverings during specified activities. It requires agencies to adopt facial-covering policies and requires officers to display identifying information such as a name or ID number and the agency name, and allows injunctive relief for certain violations. Exceptions apply to specified protective and operational circumstances.

• Verified: No Oregon-specific federal suit appears in the Justice Department’s October lists.
• Caveat: The absence of a suit does not make the law immune from later challenge. Oregon is within the Ninth Circuit.

7. Virginia

HB 1482 (Chapter 1131 of the 2026 Acts) prohibits covered state and federal officers from wearing face coverings that conceal their faces during official duties and requires visible identifying information and agency name. Exceptions include clear shields, N95 and surgical masks, protective respirators, SWAT and specialized duties, and certain undercover or surveillance assignments. Violation is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

• Verified: The Justice Department sued, and a court granted preliminary relief in August 2026.
• Caveat: An appeal to the Fourth Circuit was reported. Check the scope of the injunction and the appeal.

8. Washington

SB 5855 (Chapter 115 of the 2026 Laws), effective March 19, 2026, generally prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings when interacting with the public in official duties, including federal officers authorized to carry firearms and make warrantless arrests who enforce criminal, customs or immigration laws. Exceptions include clear shields, medical and hazard protection, undercover operations, SWAT gear and required safety equipment. Officers must be reasonably identifiable by displayed uniform information, and the law creates a civil cause of action for people detained in violation of covered provisions.

• Verified: No Washington-specific federal suit appears in the Justice Department’s October lists.
• Caveat: Confirm the bill number against the official record, since summaries differ. Washington is within the Ninth Circuit.

Related AllAboutLawyer.com Coverage

• Trump Administration Sues Denver Over Law Enforcement Mask Ban
• Can ICE Agents Be Required to Identify Themselves?
• Can States Regulate Federal ICE Agents?
• Did the Ninth Circuit Permanently Ban California’s ICE Identification Law?
• Which ICE Agent Just Knocked? How to Tell ERO from HSI at Your Door

Local Ordinances (Not Statewide Laws)

• Denver, CO. Approved March 2026. It bars law enforcement officers, including federal agents, from wearing masks or face coverings while interrogating, detaining or arresting people, and requires visible identification (reported as readable from at least 25 feet). It applies to all law enforcement, a design meant to avoid discrimination claims. The Justice Department sued October 8, 2026 and asks for a declaration that it is invalid as applied to federal officers. DHS said it would not comply. Verify the ordinance number against the city record.
• Los Angeles County, CA. An ordinance adopted in late 2025 and effective January 2026, separate from SB 627 and SB 805. The sheriff’s department reportedly said it would not enforce it against federal officers during litigation.
• Philadelphia, PA. Bill No. 260060. The Justice Department sued in June 2026, and the ordinance was blocked July 2, 2026.
• Milwaukee, WI. Ordinance 251797 (April 2026), challenged by the Justice Department and pending. It is separate from the proposed Wisconsin statewide bill.
• St. Paul, MN. A local ordinance (Ord. 26-7), separate from any Minnesota statewide law.

The 25 States With Proposals but No Enacted Statewide Law

State	Bill identified	Status
Alaska	HB 250	Proposal; no enacted law verified
Arizona	HB 2475	Proposal; no enacted law verified
Colorado	HB 26-1275	Postponed indefinitely (Denver acted separately)
Florida	SB 316 / HB 419	Failed to advance
Georgia	SB 389	Proposal; no enacted law verified
Hawaii	HB 2540 / SB 3322	Proposals; no enacted law verified
Idaho	SB 1246	Proposal; no enacted law verified
Illinois	HB 4086	Proposal; no enacted law verified
Iowa	SF 2108	Proposal; no enacted law verified
Kansas	HB 2658	Proposal; no enacted law verified
Massachusetts	HD 4886	Proposal; confirm final status
Michigan	HB 4760	Proposal; no enacted law verified
Minnesota	HF 3412 / SF 3590	Proposals; St. Paul acted separately
Mississippi	SB 2086	Died in committee
Missouri	HB 2520, SB 1638, HB 3353	Proposals; no enacted law verified
Nebraska	LB 854	Proposal; no enacted law verified
New Mexico	HB 208	Postponed indefinitely
Ohio	HB 691	Proposal; no enacted law verified
Oklahoma	SB 1234	Proposal; no enacted law verified
Pennsylvania	HB 1880	Proposal; no enacted law verified; would set a $5,000 civil penalty per violation
Rhode Island	H 7211 / S 2608	Proposals; no enacted law verified
Tennessee	SB 2011 / HB 1442	Failed to advance
Utah	SB 136	Did not advance
Vermont	S 208	Failed a House vote on May 29, 2026 (81 to 51; 99 votes needed)
Wisconsin	AB 441	Proposal; Milwaukee acted separately

An introduced bill is not law. Confirm each bill’s final status on the official legislature website. Florida also has a separate, older general anti-masking statute that is not an officer-identification law.

The 17 States With No Statewide Measure Identified

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming. This means the survey found no new 2025–2026 statewide mask or identification measure aimed at federal immigration officers. It does not mean no other law could apply to an officer’s conduct. Maine and Nevada attorneys general joined a multistate call for federal identification legislation.

Why the Ninth Circuit Ruling Does Not Automatically Invalidate Other States’ Laws

The October 14 opinion concerns California’s SB 805 identification provision. A published Ninth Circuit opinion binds federal courts within the Ninth Circuit on the legal rule it applies, so its reasoning is highly relevant to laws in Oregon and Washington if they are challenged. Courts in other circuits (for example the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits) treat it as persuasive, not binding. Each court still must apply the rule to the specific law, exceptions and facts.

Courts have used two theories: direct regulation of federal operations, and discrimination against the federal government (as in the original SB 627 state-officer exemption). The New York ruling shows a law covering all officers can still be enjoined as direct regulation. Denver’s all-officer design will be tested the same way.

What Residents Should Know

A state mask law does not answer every question about an ICE encounter. A mask does not automatically mean impersonation, and a badge or vest does not automatically validate an arrest. Where it is safe, you can ask which agency the person represents, ask for identification and note names, badge numbers, vehicles, time and place. Do not physically obstruct officers. For the federal baseline and a fuller rights guide, see the related article below.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which states have enacted laws restricting masks or requiring ID for ICE agents?

California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Virginia and Washington. Their provisions and court status differ.

Why does the guide describe nine sections for eight states?

California enacted two laws, SB 627 on masks and SB 805 on identification.

Which laws are blocked right now?

Courts have preliminarily blocked laws in California, New York and Virginia, and a Philadelphia ordinance. Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Denver and Milwaukee cases were pending.

Does an enacted law automatically apply to ICE agents?

No. A court can block some or all of its application to federal officers.

Can states require ICE agents to show names or badge numbers?

States have tried, but courts have enjoined California’s and New York’s identification requirements as applied to federal officers. Other laws must be checked individually.

Do Oregon’s and Washington’s laws apply to ICE?

They are enacted and written to cover federal officers, and no federal suit against either appears in the Justice Department’s October lists. Their legal status is untested and could change.

What is the difference between a state law and a local ordinance?

A state statute is enacted by the legislature and has statewide reach. An ordinance applies in the city or county that adopted it.

Does the Supremacy Clause make ICE agents immune from all state law?

No. It limits direct state regulation of federal operations, not every state law.

Can I rely on a bill that has not become law?

No. Check that it was enacted and whether any court order affects it.

Sources and Legal Records

• University of Wisconsin Law School, analysis of state mask legislation and federal immunity: https://statedemocracy.law.wisc.edu/our-work/can-states-prohibit-federal-law-enforcement-from-masking-on-the-job
• Justice Department, October 8, 2026 announcement on Denver: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-complaint-against-city-and-county-denver-colorado-challenging-mask
• Justice Department, October 1, 2026 announcement on Maryland: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-complaint-against-state-maryland-prince-georges-county-md-and
• Justice Department, May 15, 2026 announcement on Connecticut: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-complaint-protect-law-enforcement-challenging-connecticut-mask-ban
• Ninth Circuit, United States v. California, No. 26-926: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/26-926/26-926-2026-10-14.html
• California SB 627: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB627
• California SB 805: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB805
• Connecticut SB 397 / Public Act 26-14: https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/cgabillstatus.asp?bill_num=SB397&selBillType=Bill&which_year=2026
• Maryland SB 1: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/sb0001?ys=2026RS
• New Jersey P.L. 2026, c. 3: https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2026/AL26/3_.HTM
• New York S9005-C: https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?Text=Y&bn=S09005&term=2025
• United States v. Russo, No. 1:26-cv-01360 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2026): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyndce/1%3A2026cv01360/154967/53/
• Oregon HB 4138: https://apps.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2026R1/Measures/Overview/HB4138
• Virginia HB 1482: https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB1482/text/CHAP1131
• Washington SB 5855: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?billNumber=5855&Year=2025&Initiative=false
• 8 C.F.R. § 287.8: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-287/section-287.8
• News reporting on the Denver suit and court rulings: Washington Times (October 8, 2026), UPI (October 9, 2026), Denverite (October 9, 2026), KDVR (October 9, 2026)

AllAboutLawyer.com provides general legal information, not legal advice, and is not a law firm. This is a research snapshot as of October 15, 2026. Federal litigation is active and a preliminary injunction’s status can change. Where this guide does not identify a court order, it does not imply none exists. Check each state’s current code, legislative history and the relevant court docket before relying on a rule in a specific situation.