New Jersey Bans Masked Police Encounters, Codifies Limits on ICE Cooperation

TRENTON, N.J. — Federal immigration agents who arrive in New Jersey wearing balaclavas and refusing to identify themselves are now, at least on paper, breaking state law.

On March 25, Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed a three-bill package that bars most law enforcement officers from covering their faces while interacting with the public, restricts how closely state and local agencies may cooperate with civil immigration enforcement, and creates new limits on how personal data can be collected and shared with federal authorities.

The measures build on New Jersey’s existing “sanctuary-style” policies and move them into statute, hardening what had largely been executive-branch directives into law. They also put the state on a collision course with the Department of Homeland Security, which has already called similar mask rules in Washington state unconstitutional and signaled it will not follow them.

“This legislation makes clear that New Jersey will not tolerate masked roving militias pretending, or even claiming, to be well-trained law enforcement agents,” Sherrill said at a bill signing ceremony in Newark. “These bills underscore that here in New Jersey, we still follow the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. My focus as governor remains on keeping the public safe.”

Turning a directive into hard law

The new laws cap a yearslong effort by immigrant-rights groups and Democratic lawmakers to codify New Jersey’s 2018 Immigrant Trust Directive, an attorney general order that limited how much state and local police could assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in civil immigration cases.

That directive, issued by then-Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, barred officers from stopping or detaining people solely based on suspected immigration violations, sharply restricted participation in immigration raids and ended so-called 287(g) agreements that deputized local officers to perform civil immigration duties. The Trump administration and several county sheriffs sued, arguing the state was obstructing federal enforcement, but federal courts largely upheld New Jersey’s authority to decide how its officers are used.

Advocates pushed to move the directive into statute to prevent a future attorney general or governor from rescinding it with the stroke of a pen. In the last days of his term in January, former Gov. Phil Murphy signed only one part of an earlier three-bill package — the Safe Communities Act, which directs the state to treat schools, hospitals, shelters, churches and other “sensitive locations” as off-limits for immigration arrests in most circumstances.

Murphy declined to sign the more sweeping privacy and cooperation bills, allowing them to die without his signature. At the time, he cited concerns that the legislation differed from the existing directive and might invite new legal challenges that could put the underlying policy at risk.

Sherrill, a Democrat and former member of Congress who took office Jan. 20, revived the measures and added the mask restrictions. Her signature on March 25 effectively enshrined the Immigrant Trust Directive and a new “privacy firewall” in state law.

What the new laws do

1) Limits on face coverings and identification

The first law prohibits law enforcement officers operating in New Jersey — including federal agents — from covering their faces while interacting with the public, with several exceptions. Under the statute, officers must keep their faces visible and present official identification before arresting or detaining someone.

Exceptions are carved out for undercover work, specific safety situations and medical masking. The exact contours of those carve-outs will be tested as agencies implement the law, but the statute is written to apply generally to all officers, not just ICE.

2) Codifying the Immigrant Trust Directive

The second law writes key parts of the Immigrant Trust Directive into the state code. Among its provisions, it:

• Bars state, county and municipal officers from stopping, questioning or detaining individuals solely because of their actual or perceived immigration status.
• Limits voluntary assistance to federal immigration authorities, including participation in civil immigration sweeps and sharing of nonpublic information, except under specified circumstances such as criminal investigations or court orders.
• Prohibits state and local agencies from entering new 287(g)-style agreements with federal immigration authorities.

3) A “privacy firewall” for sensitive personal data

The third law, described by sponsors as a Privacy Protection Act, restricts when state and local agencies and health care providers can request or collect information such as immigration status, citizenship, country of birth, Social Security numbers and certain tax identifiers. It also tightens rules around disclosing driver’s license records and automatic license plate reader data, particularly to federal agencies.

Supporters say the changes are designed to prevent routine interactions — getting a driver’s license, visiting an emergency room, applying for benefits — from feeding databases that can be used for immigration enforcement.

“People should not have to choose between seeing a doctor or a judge and risking deportation,” said ACLU of New Jersey Executive Director Amol Sinha in a statement praising the package. “By limiting data sharing and codifying the Immigrant Trust Directive, New Jersey is making it safer for all residents to participate in public life.”

Federal pushback and legal questions

Homeland Security officials have already signaled they view the new mask restrictions as unlawful. When Washington state enacted a similar law earlier this month, DHS called that statute “irresponsible, reckless and dangerous” and said, “To be crystal clear: we will not abide by this unconstitutional ban.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has argued that agents increasingly rely on masks and anonymity because of growing threats. In statements and testimony, the agency has cited sharp percentage increases in assaults, vehicular attacks and death threats targeting officers in recent years. Those figures have not been independently audited but are central to ICE’s argument that visible identities put agents and their families at risk of harassment or violence.

Legal experts say any challenge to New Jersey’s law is likely to turn on two competing constitutional doctrines.

On one side is the anti-commandeering principle, under which the federal government cannot compel states to enforce federal regulatory programs or use state resources to carry out federal policy. New Jersey leaned on that doctrine to defend the Immigrant Trust Directive and is expected to do the same with its statutory successor, arguing that the state is simply choosing how to deploy its own officers and data.

On the other side is the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, which limits states’ ability to regulate the federal government directly. DHS is expected to argue that New Jersey cannot dictate what federal agents wear or how they identify themselves because that intrudes on federal operations and policy.

New Jersey officials counter that the mask and ID requirements are neutral rules of general applicability that cover all law enforcement officers in the state, not just federal immigration agents, and are justified by public safety and accountability concerns.

“The Constitution does not require New Jersey to turn its police into extensions of ICE, nor does it bar us from requiring transparency from anyone exercising police powers on our streets,” one senior state law enforcement official said, speaking on background because litigation is pending.

The Justice Department has already sued the state over a February executive order by Sherrill restricting civil immigration arrests on nonpublic state property, such as state offices and courthouses. The new statutes are expected to be folded into that broader legal fight or spur additional lawsuits.

Support and concern at home

In New Jersey, the package has drawn support from immigrant-rights groups, faith organizations and some law enforcement leaders who say clear separation from civil immigration enforcement helps build trust.

“Crime victims and witnesses are more likely to come forward when they know a traffic stop or a call to 911 won’t suddenly turn into an immigration case,” said Johanna Calle, director of the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, which helped spearhead the bills.

Republican lawmakers and some law enforcement unions have taken the opposite view. They argue that limiting cooperation and data sharing with federal authorities undermines public safety and risks repeating the kind of information silos criticized by the 9/11 Commission.

“These laws block state, county and local law enforcement from coordinating with federal agencies that are trying to remove dangerous individuals from our communities,” Assembly Minority Leader John DiMaio said. “They put politics ahead of safety and set up costly court fights the state is likely to lose.”

Some police representatives have also raised practical concerns about the mask ban, warning it could complicate undercover work or crowd control, or expose officers to retaliation if their identities are easily captured and circulated online.

A test with national implications

New Jersey is at least the 10th state to adopt laws limiting local contracts with ICE, but it is among the first to pair those limits with explicit mask restrictions and a detailed privacy firewall.

California enacted its “No Secret Police Act” last year, curbing masked and unmarked operations by certain state agencies, and Washington’s recent law mirrors some of New Jersey’s language on face coverings and identification. At the federal level, Democratic senators have introduced proposals such as the VISIBLE Act, which would require immigration agents to display clear identification and restrict the use of plainclothes operations.

For now, New Jersey’s laws do not prevent ICE from operating in the state. Federal immigration agents can still carry out arrests under federal authority, seek judicial warrants and pursue criminal investigations, with or without local help. What the new framework does is narrow the circumstances under which state and local agencies may voluntarily assist and make it harder for ICE to act anonymously or tap certain state data sources.

Whether those lines hold will be decided in court — and potentially by the Supreme Court — in the months and years ahead. The outcome will shape not only how immigration enforcement looks in New Jersey but how much power any state has to dictate what law enforcement officers, federal or otherwise, can do on its streets.