Justice Department Sues Portland and St. Paul Over Bans on Masked Federal Agents, a Day After the Ninth Circuit Sided With It on California

The Justice Department sued Portland, Oregon, and St. Paul, Minnesota, on Oct. 15 to stop both cities from enforcing local laws that bar federal officers from covering their faces on duty and require them to wear visible identification. The suits ask federal judges to declare the ordinances unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause as applied to federal officers, including ICE and CBP personnel, and they were filed one day after the Ninth Circuit, whose rulings bind the court hearing the Portland case, struck down a similar California identification law.

The two complaints make the same argument, but they are not the same case. Portland is defending its law under a published appellate decision that already rejects its best defenses. St. Paul is in the Eighth Circuit, which has not ruled on the question, and its ordinances carry criminal penalties that Portland’s do not.

Portland walks into a precedent its own officials saw coming

The Ninth Circuit’s Oct. 14 opinion in United States v. California held that a state cannot directly regulate how federal officers identify themselves, even when the same rule binds its own police, and that the size of the burden on federal work is irrelevant. The federal court in Oregon is bound by that ruling, and the Portland complaint cites it.

According to KPTV’s account of the complaint, the city attorney, Mayor Keith Wilson and at least one council member warned before the May vote that the city would likely lose a court challenge. The complaint also lays out a short standoff: on Oct. 9 the Justice Department wrote that federal officers would not comply and asked for assurances the city would not enforce the law against them, and on Oct. 12 City Attorney Robert Taylor replied that Portland still intended to enforce it and that legal objections could be raised in any city enforcement suit. With the government on record that its officers will keep masking, the open question is how quickly a judge decides whether the city can do anything about it.

St. Paul’s misdemeanor penalty raises the stakes

St. Paul’s two ordinances, adopted in February, make a willful and knowing violation a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, jail or both, with each day counted as a separate offense. The St. Paul complaint cites no Eighth Circuit authority; it leans on Supreme Court precedent, the Ninth Circuit’s California ruling, a Seventh Circuit decision and several district court rulings. A Minnesota judge is free to weigh those authorities differently, though the Ninth Circuit’s published opinion is the most detailed appellate treatment of the question so far.

A criminal penalty also changes what a confrontation would look like. If a city prosecutor ever charged a federal agent under the ordinance, the agent could move the case to federal court and claim Supremacy Clause immunity, the same fight now playing out in the Minnesota assault case against an ICE agent.

What stays in place for residents

Both suits seek relief only as to federal officers, so the ordinances would keep applying to Portland and St. Paul police whatever the outcome. Federal immigration officers are not left with no identification duty: a federal regulation, 8 CFR 287.8(c)(2)(iii), requires an immigration officer making an arrest to identify himself or herself as an officer authorized to make it, and to state the reason for the arrest, as soon as it is practical and safe. That is a spoken statement, not a visible badge.

“Under the Supremacy Clause of our Nation’s Constitution, states and localities cannot regulate the Federal Government,” Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. said, adding that the department “will never tolerate the doxxing or harassment of federal officers.” On the other side, St. Paul council member Cheniqua Johnson said when the ordinances passed, as quoted in the complaint, “Hiding their face shouldn’t be an option.” The ordinances’ supporters frame the issue as accountability, the ability of residents to know who is arresting a neighbor. The government frames it as officer safety and the constitutional line between federal and local power.

The Justice Department has now sued California, Denver and these two cities over similar rules, and the Denver case could give the Tenth Circuit its first look. Cities still writing such laws face a distinction the recent rulings have drawn sharply: rules limiting local cooperation with federal enforcement have generally survived in court, while rules telling federal agents what to wear or display have not.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

• U.S. Department of Justice: Justice Department files complaints against St. Paul and Portland challenging mask bans (Oct. 15, 2026)
• Complaint, United States v. City of Portland, D. Or. No. 3:26-cv-02260 (Oct. 15, 2026)
• Complaint, United States v. City of St. Paul, D. Minn. No. 26-4498 (Oct. 15, 2026)
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: United States v. California, No. 26-926 (Oct. 14, 2026)
• KPTV: DOJ sues Portland over mask rules for federal officers (Oct. 15, 2026)
• 8 CFR 287.8: Standards for enforcement activities

About the Author

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds a LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Deigo and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts