U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino issued a preliminary injunction blocking New York’s ban on law enforcement wearing masks while on duty, but allowed a state prohibition on 287(g) cooperation agreements between local police and ICE to stand. The ruling splits New York’s enforcement restrictions in half and signals how federal courts may treat similar state-level immigration laws now in effect across multiple jurisdictions.
What changed
Governor Kathy Hochul and fellow Democrats enacted the restrictions in May in response to aggressive ICE tactics. New York’s law had two parts: a mask ban and a mandate to terminate 287(g) agreements (in which local police deputize as federal immigration officers).
Judge D’Agostino’s preliminary injunction said state officials cannot prohibit law enforcement officers—including immigration agents—from wearing masks while on duty. This stops enforcement of the mask portion immediately while the case proceeds.
However, D’Agostino’s 51-page ruling let stand the state prohibition on 287(g) cooperation agreements. That means New York counties can proceed with terminating agreements that allow local officers to enforce immigration law under federal delegation.
Why it matters
The split ruling creates immediate consequences for your clients and local practice:
-
ICE enforcement continues unmasked in New York: Federal agents can resume wearing masks without state penalty, undermining New York’s transparency effort. Clients arrested by masked agents cannot identify officers by sight or easily obtain badge numbers for complaints.
-
287(g) terminations proceed: Counties must follow through on ending police-ICE deputization agreements. This removes a major tool ICE uses to enforce immigration in local jurisdictions and reduces the number of local officers who can detain and transfer immigrants to federal custody.
-
Precedent risk nationwide: The Trump administration is challenging similar mask bans in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Virginia, as well as Philadelphia. D’Agostino’s reasoning on the mask portion may influence judges reviewing those laws, especially since a federal judge already struck down California’s mask ban by finding it unconstitutional because state officers had been exempted.
-
Conflict between state and federal law remains unresolved: The ruling is preliminary—the case will continue on the merits. State officials may appeal or amend the law to apply equally to all law enforcement before a final judgment.
Way forward
-
Document all arrests by masked agents: Obtain body-camera footage or witness descriptions; request ICE records of which officers participated. Note the absence of identifying information at the time of arrest for removal defense proceedings.
-
Track 287(g) agreements: Verify which counties have terminated agreements and which have not. Clients in counties that end 287(g) cooperation face lower risk of state-police-initiated immigration contact, though ICE direct operations continue.
-
Monitor the underlying case: D’Agostino’s decision is preliminary. The case will return to court; a final ruling could reinstate or further restrict the mask ban. Check for updates in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Judge Mae D’Agostino’s docket).
-
Advise clients on federal vs. state enforcement: Clients should understand that New York’s restrictions on local police cooperation do not stop federal ICE enforcement. Counsel on warrant checks, recording rights, and safe houses.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Fola is not a law firm. Always consult a licensed immigration attorney for advice on your specific case. Immigration policy and court rulings can change without notice; verify all information against the primary source documents linked above and current agency guidance.