U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino issued a preliminary injunction that said state officials can’t prohibit law enforcement officers – including immigration agents – from wearing masks while on duty. However, D’Agostino’s 51-page preliminary ruling let stand a new state prohibition on 287(g) cooperation agreements between local police departments and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This mixed decision reshapes what New York law enforcement can and cannot do in immigration matters.
What changed
In a 51-page decision, U.S. District Judge Mae A. D’Agostino granted in part and denied in part a motion by the U.S. Department of Justice for a preliminary injunction against New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James.
On the mask ban (blocked): Judge D’Agostino ruled that the federal government is likely to succeed on its claim that New York’s “Face Covering Act” and “Identification Act” violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. D’Agostino found the challenged provisions were likely unconstitutional because they interfere with federal law enforcement operations across multiple agencies. The ruling applies not only to Immigration and Customs Enforcement but also to the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
On 287(g) agreements (upheld): Set to take effect Aug. 25, 2026, the Termination Act prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies, correctional facilities, and detention centers from entering into, renewing, or maintaining agreements with federal authorities under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 287(g) allows local police to be deputized to perform federal civil immigration enforcement functions. Judge D’Agostino rejected those arguments, holding that federal immigration law does not compel state or local governments to assist in civil federal enforcement.
Why it matters
This ruling creates a split outcome that practitioners must understand:
Local law enforcement cannot enforce mask/ID rules. Monday’s preliminary ruling means local police officers can’t arrest ICE agents for covering their faces in public settings. If you represent immigrants in New York, you cannot advise them to report masked ICE agents to state police and expect enforcement—the state has been enjoined from prosecuting that violation. Any memo you draft highlighting officer-identification protocols for ICE operations is now blocked pending full trial.
The 287(g) ban survives. New York counties participating in 287(g) agreements will face legal liability as the August 25 deadline approaches. D’Agostino said New York’s ban on the cooperation agreements could go forward because the state showed the new law was an “appropriate means of furthering New York’s legitimate interests in protecting public welfare and choosing how state and local resources are expended.” Last month, James sent letters to a dozen localities in New York ordering that they cancel their cooperation agreements. Republican leaders in some of those counties have said they won’t comply. Counsel representing immigrant defendants in those counties should prepare for conflict: clients arrested by ICE may argue dual prosecution/cooperation violations, but the state’s refusal to cooperate is now legally protected from federal override.
Supremacy Clause reasoning is broad. The judge determined that only the federal government holds the authority to establish policies governing how its own law enforcement agents conduct operations. This logic extends beyond New York. Other states (California, New Jersey, Washington) with similar mask bans now face similar constitutional challenges; this ruling provides DOJ with persuasive precedent.
Way forward
-
If you represent immigrants in New York: Do not rely on state mask-violation complaints to establish credibility or due-process arguments. The injunction suspends enforcement until trial; use ICE affidavits and FOIA requests for agent identification instead.
-
If you advise a New York police department on 287(g) participation: The ban is preliminarily upheld. Counsel your client to prepare for termination of agreements by August 25, 2026, or risk state liability. Audit current MOUs with ICE now.
-
If you work in employment-based or family-based immigration: Track this case for appellate developments. A final ruling on Supremacy Clause versus state police authority could affect other state laws (identity-verification requirements, search warrants, bail conditions) that intersect federal immigration enforcement.
-
If you represent asylum applicants testifying about ICE conduct: The mask ban is enjoined, so agent identity may remain obscured in statements. Emphasize corroborating evidence (dispatch records, vehicle identifiers, facility logs) instead.
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice. Fola Forms is a software company, not a law firm. We do not provide legal advice, and nothing in this article creates an attorney–client relationship. You must consult with a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction to understand how this ruling affects your specific matter. Immigration policy and case law change frequently; verify all citations and reasoning against the court’s full decision linked above before relying on any statement in this article.