Cinema News: Newsom: Between a mask and a hard place

February 12, 2026 | View in browser

By Anita Chabria

Columnist

Hello and happy Thursday. I'm Times columnist Anita Chabria, filling in for Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner.

Today we have a bit of good news, maybe. It will depend on Gov. Gavin Newsom, and if he's willing to cross his friends (and potentially risk his presidential prospects) to protect his constituents — and democracy.

Before we get to the nitty-gritty of that political rock-and-a-hard-place, let's recap the grim moment we are in.

The immigration crackdown isn't continuing — it's expanding. The government is buying up warehouses to store detainees, citizens and undocumented immigrants alike, like undeliverable Amazon packages, tens of thousands of them apparently.

At the same time, MAGA Republicans don't just condone this frightening authoritarianism — they applaud it. At a congressional hearing this week, multiple Republicans thanked ICE and Border Patrol for their actions, despite recent polls that show about 60% of Americans disapprove of Trump's immigration and border policies.

Into that not-so-sunny situation dropped a federal court ruling this week that offers a ray of hope for at least unmasking federal agents and doing away with secret police.

Last session, California's Legislature passed two bills aimed at adding transparency to the immigration crackdown. Broadly, one bill required all law enforcement — local, state and federal — to have some kind of identifying number and agency on them.

The other forbade them (with many necessary exemptions) from wearing masks.

The feds sued to block both laws. In her ruling this week, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder upheld the identification law but said the law forbidding masks was unconstitutional because it contains an exception for state law enforcement — meaning it applies only to local and federal agents. That, she found, makes it a form of discrimination against the feds.

Hmm, strange, you say. Why would state law enforcement be exempted? Why would we write a law with such a specific carve out?

Protect your friends

The original bill written by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) did not exempt state law enforcement from the mask ban, to keep it clean and simple.

And, for the most part, California Highway Patrol officers, or local officers for that matter, do not unnecessarily run around in masks — so "it was never my goal to change how traditional policing happens," Wiener said.

While we have many small state law enforcement agencies (some agencies like the Lottery and the Franchise Tax Board have their own officers), the big one is the CHP — with 6,600 officers and an ongoing recruitment drive.

The CHP has worked closely with Newsom for years as the far right has attacked him and the state with their favorite trope that we are a lawless, crime-ridden hellhole. Specifically, the CHP has expanded its role in policing heavy-crime areas and retail theft rings, racking up significant successes in both curbing that kind of crime and taking guns and criminals off the street.

Good job, guys. Along with creating safer communities, that CHP involvement has also given Newsom a strong pushback to Trump, especially when Trump claimed we needed National Guard troops on the ground because crime was out of control.

But here's the thing about cops, local, state or federal. They really hate being told what they can and can't do, especially by super-lefty state senators like Wiener and, well, anyone.

Keep up with California

Your support helps us deliver the news that matters most. Subscribe to the Los Angeles Times.

Subscribe Now

In an opposition letter to the Legislature before the no-mask bill was passed, the California State Sheriffs' Assn. argued that "state and local law enforcement are being unnecessarily drawn into this dispute."

They came up with many valid reasons cops might need masks, like when they run into a burning building, wear a motorcycle helmet or scuba dive to a wreck.

But despite Wiener trying to address concerns, he said, law enforcement remained opposed. It's not entirely clear where the idea to take state officers out first came from, or why local was left in (there's quibbling on who pushed that change forward).

When the bill finally passed and landed on Newsom's desk, the union for Highway Patrol officers wrote to Newsom asking him to "send [it] back to the legislature so we can encourage more trust in solving a difficult problem and avoid an advent of an entirely new set of concerning issues."

That's polite word-salad for don't sign it. To his credit, Newsom did sign — promising that any needed exemptions not already in the bill would be added with so-called "clean-up" legislation.

Then he jumped on social media and Stephen Colbert's show to brag about it.

But now, with this latest ruling making it clear state officers must be included for it to work, Newsom seems to be backing down.

"Based on the court's decision, we should move in the opposite direction, and that is a federal mask ban," Newsom said recently, pushing the issue toward a Congress that clearly has no interest in doing anything.

"The issue at hand is federal agents, period, full stop," Newsom continued, once again tipping his hat to state authorities. "To the extent we want to have a debate about local and state masking, that's a different conversation."

The thing is, it's not. Based on what the judge said, if California adds state law enforcement back into the mask ban, then it would be legal. Newsom's office said he is interested in pursuing legislation, but it's not clear what that looks like.

So now Newsom has a choice — back new legislation by Wiener that does not exempt state forces, or take a pass on the profoundly important and real possibility of curbing secret police in America.

Because if our law holds, it will be copied. Notably, the federal government argued in court that if the California mask ban was allowed to stand, other states could be "emboldened" to pass similar laws.

What the judge said

It's not until page 20 of the 30-page federal court ruling that things go south for the Golden State — until then, the judge pretty much sides with the state's power to enforce the mask law.

Snyder wrote that the federal government failed to show that masking was "essential to federal law enforcement operations" and masks were "more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all."

And that while federal law supersedes state law, it's not absolute. Take traffic laws for example — it's reasonable and necessary that a federal officer stop at a red light under normal circumstances, right?

But, in the end, she ruled that California has the power to ban all officers from wearing masks — it just can't ban some. That is discrimination.

The judge wrote in a footnote that if it wasn't for this discrimination, she probably would not have granted the injunction to stop the law.

"That is a huge, hugely important ruling," Wiener said. It essentially gives California the easy-peasy legal road map for banning masks — simply add state officers back in, and send it back to Newsom's desk.

But it remains to be seen what Newsom will do. Will he continue to back away from including state officers and let the whole law die?

Or will he step up, take a stand unpopular with law enforcement (one with the potential to cause him grief in a presidential run) and push forward a huge piece of accountability that could not only be copied nationwide, but potentially be in place before the midterms when we fear these federal agents may be used to suppress the vote?

"It is unacceptable that government agents, guns in hand, have seized our neighbors while wearing masks under the pretense of protecting themselves when they are, in fact, hiding from public accountability and sowing fear to intimidate the American people," Newsom wrote last fall when he signed the original law.

Let's hope he still believes that is true.