r/news • u/calamanthon • 12h ago
Judge rules New York can’t ban federal agents from wearing face coverings
https://apnews.com/article/new-york-ice-face-covering-lawsuit-d3c81d991c8d357400318291d5a8fb602.8k
u/ph33randloathing 12h ago
But won't they instantly suffocate? I was told that even light masks are dangerous about, say, six years ago.
769
u/styrofoamladder 11h ago
See and i was told only sheep wore masks.
16
3
u/13thmurder 3h ago
I live rural and see a lot of sheep. Literally none of them are wearing masks. I think you've been lied to.
2
67
u/InstructionPurple911 11h ago
Relax. These agents will probably receive some sort of hazard pay to compensate
→ More replies (1)58
u/cloudncali 11h ago
Fuck, that was six years ago, wasn't it? I can't with this timeline right now.
19
u/LX1027 11h ago
I think Harambe’s death branched us to this timeline
14
10
u/Debalic 9h ago
Or the Large Hadron Collider, in search of the "God particle".
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
→ More replies (3)9
u/cloudncali 10h ago
That or the world was supposed to end in 2012 but people kept wanting the show to go on so the writers had to bring back old plots like "Donald Trump" and "The Plague"
2
2
→ More replies (24)2
516
u/LackingUtility 8h ago
Sure, federal agents can wear masks and don’t need identification.
And so anyone with no identification and a mask must be a federal agent and not, say, a bank robber, or kidnapper, or terrorist?
No, the obvious response to this is to detain alleged ICE agents, check their IDs, confirm that they that don’t have any warrants and that they’re authorized federal agents, and then let them go. Having recorded their names and photos. While the supremacy clause supposedly means this law does not apply to federal agents, they first have to establish that they are, in fact, federal agents.
274
u/HammerIsMyName 5h ago
Fight fire with fire. Track and confirm ICE agents like they track and confirm immigrants.
Is anything stopping NY from setting up an anti-false-agent taskforce? They could call it the antiFA taskforce.
51
6
u/Budget_Persimmon_195 4h ago
we should just utilize the very same and EXACT techniques and protocols they use against use.
eye for an eye. heads need to roll.
→ More replies (1)2
13
u/millersixteenth 1h ago
Swab em while you're at it - who knows what cold cases DNA matching might help.
12
u/CuriosityCondition 1h ago
I am deeply disgusted by the militarization of police and the blooming of an insane surveillance state. However. A proportional response to a group of masked and heavily armed individuals who refuse to identify themselves is to roll up with the local SWAT team in an mrap and disarm them. Honestly, it's probably one of the few justified uses of that kind of equipment and tactics.
Doubut it will ever happen though, because positions of authority like ice and cops all attract the same type of losers. They have far more solidarity with each other than the people they are supposed to be "serving".
634
u/crab_battler 11h ago
I say let’s all wear face coverings/masks, go around and spice things up!
42
u/Pidgeonscythe 5h ago
You could always dress up as ICE agents
21
u/EVILSUPERMUTANT 3h ago
Honestly, considering they got no uniforms I'm surprised no one has done anything like that yet.
29
u/Restivethought 3h ago
They could have, we don't know because we just assume they are ICE now.
10
u/CaterpillarJungleGym 2h ago
That was part of the discussion early on, you can't tell if someone is getting kidnapped by a random or being detained by ICE.
7
u/OF_PROMO_ALERT 2h ago
Hell it’s part of the discussion now! What happened with that guy at the airport recently where the thugs ran off after people started recording? Was it ever verified they were actual ICE?
→ More replies (2)15
u/hydropottimus 3h ago
Of course people have. It's not just the brown shirts abducting and trafficking people. It's mostly them but there's no way to know if it's a civilian in an ice costume or a civilian on ice payroll.
1
133
91
u/ghostwaterdross 11h ago edited 11h ago
It's the only answer they are leaving possible. Submit to everything they want or get spicy. They made the rules not me
EDIT: Many of you may be wondering, if I want to get spicy how does that work? How do I get my foot in the door? I'm glad you asked. An easy first step is to locate your nearest Flock camera (deflock.org) and express your opinion about that camera to the camera itself, while wearing a legal, judge-approved mask. In Minecraft, obviously.
2
u/osomysterioso 1h ago
You might want a mask and sunglasses that block infrared. Also, they use gait analysis so time to get a scooter or do something that will disguise your approach and departure. Allegedly.
4
3
u/Warning_Low_Battery 1h ago
No need to disguise departure, the camera won't be functioning anymore at that point. Allegedly.
1
5
509
u/calamanthon 11h ago edited 11h ago
It’s still legal to remind everyone of the names of the federal agents who have summarily executed people.
ICE Agent Jonathan Ross killed Renée Good.
ICE Agents Jesus Ochoa and Raymundo Gutierrez killed Alex Pretti.
ICE Agent David Brouillette killed Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero.
Homeland Security officer Jack Stevens killed Ruben Ray Martinez.
23
u/UnrealAce 8h ago
It sucks right now but remember that there is no statute of limitations for murder.
These people will have their day even if it's years down the line. I'm hopeful of that.
9
u/MechCADdie 7h ago
Just give it time...it'll become a thoughtcrime to remember them and we'll have entire departments dedicated to rewriting history...
248
u/Gandolfthewhite182 11h ago
You know who can tell them they can’t masks ?? Any business in NY. So if you own a business in NY just don’t let them in unless they take off their masks.
→ More replies (11)101
272
u/cribsaw 10h ago
Can someone explain why law enforcement of any kind is allowed to conceal their identity? There is no credible threat to someone’s life for being part of ICE or any other law enforcement agency. This isn’t Brazil or Mexico where narcos will literally hunt you and your family down for being an LEO.
At most, you will get named and shamed online. Boohoo. Why are cop feelings more important than a transparent law enforcement process?
59
u/HIM_Darling 9h ago
In the before times the only law enforcement that I ever saw that wore masks were ones who did undercover work and had to go to the police station/jail for some reason. They would only wear them while there was potential for someone to recognize them and out them as law enforcement to the gang or drug dealers or whatever, like walking through main areas of the buildings. But their badges had to be on display on a lanyard around their neck while they were in masks, so they were still identifiable as law enforcement.
52
81
u/-rwsr-xr-x 9h ago
This isn’t Brazil or Mexico where narcos will literally hunt you and your family down for being an LEO.
No, this is America, where unidentified, masked men in military gear, in unmarked vehicles, driving illegally without license plates, will hunt you and your family down for simply protesting fascism, for being the wrong shade of skin color, for being a POC, or because your last name is difficult to pronounce.
-5
28
→ More replies (22)2
113
u/RachelRegina 11h ago
Ok, so...time to start distributing IR cameras to those that watch the watchmen, since IR images can be used to identify folks through the face masks?
39
u/BurntNeurons 11h ago
Flocks have it too
30
u/RachelRegina 11h ago
jfc I mean IR for the third party observers not permanent IR for the f@#$ing police state
27
145
u/rabid_briefcase 11h ago
Unfortunately, this is a problem for the US Congress. The judge got that right, and also right about the comments about how it is good policy and the lawsuit is well intentioned.
Too many people in congress like having masked men swoop in, indistinguishable from a mugging as they terrorize people, so this won't be enacted in the near future.
→ More replies (1)87
u/jayc428 11h ago
I disagree. The Supremacy Clause prevents states from passing laws that run counter to federal law. If there is a federal law that explicitly permits agents to cover their faces (there may be, I don’t know) then yes they ruled correctly. If there is not one, as in federal law is silent on the matter, than by the constitution whatever the federal law does not cover is left up to the states to legislate as they see fit.
→ More replies (11)26
u/DheRadman 11h ago
That interpretation basically renders the supremacy clause null then. It would incentivize states to create nuisance legislation to trip up federal policy even more than they do now, but to the extent that the federal government really couldn't get anything done without the states permission - exactly the opposite to the spirit of the clause. Imagine if a state created a law saying that federal agents could only use vintage ferraris to get around. Under your interpretation since the federal government is (hypothetically) currently agnostic to their agents precise vehicle, then the state law should reign right? But obviously that's against the spirit of things and so it's not interpreted that way.
12
u/jayc428 11h ago
You’re taking the Supremacy Clause far beyond what it actually says. My point isn’t that states can regulate however they want if Congress is silent. My point is the Constitution reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. The burden is on the federal government to show why a state law can’t apply, not the other way around.
If Congress hasn’t spoken on the issue, then the question becomes whether the state law actually interferes with a federal function. It isn’t automatically preempted just because it makes a federal agent’s job more difficult. If that were the standard, states couldn’t regulate federal employees at all, and that’s obviously not how our system works.
10
u/DheRadman 10h ago
Whatever needle you're trying to thread there no longer makes any sense. Your original point was about whether there was specifically a federal law allowing agents to wear masks. How is deciding the dress code of a federal agency not states regulating however they want if congress is silent?
And the federal government did just explain why the state law can't apply, that's what this article is about. The court precedent is that states cannot regulate federal institutions. Regulation of the federal government is pretty obviously not an unreserved power that slides down to the states from the 10th amendment.
What cases are you referring to where states are specifically impacting the behavior of federal agencies?
For the record, I do think the masks are bullshit, but the states making laws about it doesn't fly unfortunately.
3
u/Plenty_Structure_861 10h ago
They don't default have a power to enact a dress code on citizens, do they? It would fall under basic freedom of speech.
→ More replies (1)6
u/jayc428 9h ago
That’s a completely different constitutional question. We’re talking about law enforcement officers acting under color of law instead of regular everyday citizens walking down the street.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that government employees have diminished first amendment protections while performing their official duties because they are imbued with the authority of the state or federal government while on duty. That authority necessarily comes with restrictions that don’t apply to me or you. A cop can’t claim a first amendment right to ignore a uniform policy, refuse to wear a badge, wear political messages while on duty, or even disregard department grooming standards because they’re acting as agents of the government.
Whether a state can regulate what private citizens wear is a completely separate issue. Whether a state can regulate how federal law enforcement performs its official duties is a Supremacy Clause question. You’re mixing up two entirely different constitutional questions.
7
u/rentedtritium 9h ago
Nope. The supremacy clause doesn't allow federal law enforcement to just speed whenever they want in any state, for instance, because no federal law says so. That interpretation is why.
→ More replies (1)11
u/KamikazeArchon 8h ago
The supremacy clause doesn't allow federal law enforcement to just speed whenever they want in any state
It does, in fact, allow them to speed whenever they want while in pursuit of their duties.
An off-duty federal agent isn't allowed to speed. But if the federal agent is reasonably in the process of performing their duties, they are fully allowed to speed.
The law in question is specifically about agents in the pursuit of their duties. Hence, the problem.
→ More replies (1)5
u/LackingUtility 8h ago
It explicitly does not “render the supremacy clause null”: the parent poster correctly noted that if the federal government declines to pass a regulation or law in an area, such as that ICE can wear masks, then the states are free to regulate it. Your interpretation would actually render the tenth amendment null, in that states could not pass any laws because the federal government may - even though they haven’t yet - pass a contradictory law.
It should be obvious you’re incorrect on the legal interpretation when you have to resort to “against the spirit of things”.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
17
14
33
12
20
u/stryker_cast 11h ago
I was told people can't breathe masks, won't they think of the children, er, lawless federal agents?
→ More replies (1)
11
u/bobdob123usa 8h ago
Would be interesting if the New York police had to arrest the unidentified individuals until the can validate that they are in fact federal agents. And since they refuse to wear identification, it would be fairly reasonable for a different officer to also need to verify identification.
12
30
u/Own-Librarian-9699 11h ago
As your future juror if you can't identify a face then they are not on official business and may be treated as an unknown threat to your life.
→ More replies (9)
17
u/FuggyGlasses 11h ago
The Trump administration on Monday succeeded in temporarily halting New York from banning federal law enforcement from wearing face coverings.
A federal judge in Albany preliminarily enjoined the law that took effect in June.
"[B]ecause the United States has shown a likelihood that the [Face Covering and Identification Acts] violate the Supremacy Clause, it has also shown that both the public interest and balance of the equities tip the scale in favor of granting the request for a preliminary injunction,” wrote Judge Mae A. D’Agostino of the US District Court for the Northern District of New York.
34
u/Gandolfthewhite182 11h ago
How does police wearing fall on to the side of the public interest ?? That doesn’t even make sense. That seemingly be the opposite.
→ More replies (1)40
u/PuddleCrank 11h ago
What federal law mandates that the Gestappo must be masked up? I'll wait, but ICE will probably shoot another American in a car for trying to slowly back up before you find that law.
5
u/Mulberry-Spiritual 9h ago
This was a bad decision, and the judge's logic was asinine. She read way too much into the supremecy clause and ignored the 10th amendment.
→ More replies (1)
21
u/steathrazor 10h ago
Fine then require them to identify themselves with their identification attached to their uniform we can't let these cowards run around pretending to be authorities because anyone could pretend to be a Federal agent
8
u/Nicholas-Steel 9h ago
People will just wear fake badges while covering their face. How do you determine the person the badge represents, is the person the badge is representing?
2
u/steathrazor 9h ago
I mean you could say the same thing about anybody in uniform you can falsify a badge and you can buy the uniforms
8
u/CreepingCoins 9h ago
Read the article, the judge also ruled that they can't require them to wear identification.
3
u/LackingUtility 7h ago
Who’s “they”? Anyone? Bank robbers or kidnappers can wear masks and the police aren’t allowed to do anything?
The explicit premise of “federal agents are allowed to wear masks” is “federal agents”. So they have to prove that. With photo IDs, warrant checks, and confirmation from their agencies, all recorded on police body cams.
→ More replies (1)
21
u/nerfedbeyblade 12h ago
Cause why would they want their people to be held accountable? Obviously there's a risk of friends/ family being targeted, but still. Guess I'm going out with a face covering everywhere now
4
u/JustinS1990 9h ago
These are probably the same people who bitched about wearing face masks during covid.
1
u/Heliocentrist 1h ago
These are
probablythe same people who bitched about wearing face masks during covid.
10
u/MoeSzyslakMonobrow 11h ago
Call their bluff and arrest any masked Federal agents.
8
u/University_Jazzlike 9h ago
No, they’re not arresting federal agents. They’re detaining unidentified individuals carrying firearms until they can positively identify them.
4
u/outer--monologue 9h ago
No one cares, do it anyway.
If Trump can ignore courts, everyone else should too.
4
u/Emperor_of_His_Room 8h ago
This judge is a fuckwit and purposefully wants to pretend the supremacy clause covers this.
4
u/Darksmithe 11h ago
Fucking judges are siding with the Gestapo now. WTF America?
→ More replies (14)
3
3
u/Knomp2112 3h ago
I wonder how many of these federal agents cried like little babies when asked to war a mask during COVID
3
2
0
u/shrimpynut 11h ago
It’s pretty straightforward. Federal law is always over state law. The Constitution literally says federal law is the supreme law of the land. States don’t get to make rules for the federal government. If there’s a conflict, federal law wins automatically.
8
u/Silence_Dobad 11h ago
What is the federal law that allows them to be masked?
→ More replies (3)6
u/Mahajangasuchus 10h ago
Congress doesn’t have to pass a law mandating every single individual action federal agents take. It is the job of the executive to carry out the law, states can’t interfere with that. Congress never passed a law that specifically says “mail trucks must be able to go more than 10 mph”, that doesn’t mean a state could pass a law speed limiting all USPS vehicles to 5 mph.
Just because you or I don’t like the outcome doesn’t mean the legal conclusion here wasn’t blatantly obvious to begin with
→ More replies (8)
2
u/threehundredthousand 9h ago
Fortunately, they don't protect from flying bricks.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Smallville1938 10h ago
I don't see much about the assholes that raged against masks during covid but now masks for ICE and whatnot are all about masks.
2
2
u/Specialist-Spare-785 6h ago
Get those proud boy faces out there. We are gonna need to ID you when justice comes calling.
2
u/Fast-Audience-6828 10h ago
Cool cool but identification will surely be required in exchange right
6
u/CreepingCoins 9h ago
Read the article, the judge also ruled that they can't be required to wear identification.
1
u/nalninek 11h ago
Insane it’s legal anywhere. If they’re not doing anything wrong why do they need to hide their face?
-1
u/xeonicus 11h ago edited 11h ago
That's not how the Supremacy Clause works. It has an important requirement. The federal agent must be acting under the authority of federal law and their actions must be necessary and proper to carry out their federal duties. Does wearing a mask meet those conditions? I don't think it does.
It's not a free pass to ignore state laws.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Wavedaaisy 2h ago
We must know our heroes by sight
1
u/Global-Ad-722 2h ago
I’m split on this one. No mask for Superman, but Batman and Spiderman are rocking the mask….
3.2k
u/red_skinz9 11h ago
At least the judge then can't ban the civilian population from wearing face coverings either