On Monday of this week, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder knocked down a new California statute, known as the “No Secret Police Act,” which was signed into law last fall.
This first of its kind bill prohibited ICE agents, and other federal law enforcement officers, from wearing masks during their operations in the state of California.
According to Judge Snyder—who was nominated in 1997 to a seat on the United States District Court for the Central District of California by President Bill Clinton—the “No Secret Police Act” violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, because it “unlawfully discriminates against federal officers” by not applying its directives equally to all law enforcement officers working in the state of California.
(For those who would like to familiarize yourself with the Supremacy Clause, and what it means, you can find that right here.)
Yet, while the No Secret Police Act was knocked down by the court, it appears that the judge’s only objection to the No Secret Police Act, was the fact that the law only applied to ICE and other federal agencies, not local law enforcement as well.
That conclusion was further validated by the fact that, when it came to another new state law, SB 805, known as the No Vigilantes Act, Judge Snyder liked that new law just fine, and gave it the judicial go-ahead.
The No Vigilantes Act
Senator Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), who is the author of the No Vigilantes Act, had this to say about the judge’s two rulings.
“While I’m disheartened by the judge’s ruling against Senator Scott Wiener’s SB 627, the No Secret Police Act, the fact that U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder upheld SB 805, the No Vigilantes Act,” said Perez, “is a major legal victory for California and a stinging defeat for the Trump Administration.”
Fixing the No Secret Police Act
On Monday, after Judge Snyder’s rulings came in, Senator Scott Wiener, the author of SB 627, the No Secret Police Act, released a statement acknowledging Snyder’s ruling against his law, and then explained how he and his office had quickly fixed the problem by adding state officers to the statute, which meant no law enforcement officers, ICE prominently included, were exempt.
(As WLA readers may remember, Senator Wiener is the co-author of a similar statute, The No Kings Act, which has passed in the state senate, and is expected to pass in the state’s democrat-dominated assembly, then be signed into law. (See photo above.)
“It is a vindication that California has the right to pass laws requiring all law enforcement operating in our state to display identification,” wrote Snyder in Monday’s press release.
“As the Trump Administration conducts its cruel and fascist war on immigrants, California won in court today,” he wrote, “In addition to requiring all law enforcement to display identification, SB 805 already bans bounty hunters from conducting any immigration enforcement.”
Like Senator Pérez, Wiener viewed the two federal court rulings as “a huge win,” despite the fact that one of the rulings, slapped down an element in his bill.
“The Court ruled that California has the power to protect our community by banning officers, including federal agents, from wearing masks and thus inflicting terror and shielding themselves from accountability,” he wrote. “It is hard to overstate how important this ruling is for our efforts to ensure full accountability for ICE and Border Patrol’s terror campaign.”
No Kings
In his announcement. Snyder also made sure to mention one of his related bills, the No Kings Act.
“We will ensure our mask ban can be enforced,” he said, “and we will further pass our No Kings Act, SB 747, to allow lawsuits against federal agents who violate people’s rights.
Fighting a fascist regime, he said, “means fighting with every ounce of leverage you have and throwing every single obstacle you can in its path. That’s what we did here and what I will continue to do until ICE is finally abolished. States have limited tools to fight back against the federal government, but I will always use whatever tools are available to me to stand up against this violent and despicable assault on civilians.
”We will unmask these thugs and hold them accountable. Full stop.”
In the public interest
With both her rulings—despite the Supremacy Clause reference—when it comes to the bottom line, Judge Snyder appears to be firmly on board with the content of both of the two new California laws in question.
“The Court finds that these Acts serve the public interest,” she wrote, “by promoting transparency which is essential for accountability and public trust. Moreover, the Court finds no cognizable justification for law enforcement officers to conceal their identities during their performance of routine, non-exempted law enforcement functions and interactions with the general public.”
This story is far from over. So….stay tuned.