NEWARK, N.J. — The Department of Justice sued New Jersey on April 29 over a law that bans masked policing statewide, naming Governor Mikie Sherrill and Attorney General Jennifer Davenport as defendants in a federal case that tests whether a state can strip federal agents of anonymity during operations. Case 3:26-cv-04755, filed in U.S. District Court in Newark, asks a judge to void the statute under the Supremacy Clause.
The suit lands five weeks after Sherrill signed S3114 into law as the Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act on March 25. Meanwhile, Davenport’s office has not posted an enforcement directive to its public portal since January 13, despite the statute’s explicit command that the Attorney General “shall issue guidelines or a directive necessary to effectuate the provisions of this act.”
The law requires every law enforcement officer in New Jersey, whether federal, state, county or municipal, to show identification and remain unmasked during operations. Exemptions exist for undercover work, specific threats of retaliation, medical necessity with documentation, and protection from smoke or weather emergencies. But the statute does not specify who decides when an exemption applies, or what penalty awaits officers who ignore the rule.
An early version of the bill, introduced by Sens. Vin Gopal (D-11th) and Benjie Wimberly (D-35th) included a $1,000 fine and a disorderly-person penalty carrying up to six months in jail. The Senate Judiciary Committee stripped those provisions before advancing the final substitute, leaving the burden of interpretation on an Attorney General who has yet to act.
Federal lawyers argue the Supremacy Clause kills the law outright. They claim ICE agents face what the complaint calls an “unprecedented wave of harassment, doxing, and even violence,” and that forcing them to unmask creates what the twenty-four-page filing calls a “Hobson’s choice” between officer safety and prosecution. The DOJ also warns the mask ban will affect FBI counterterrorism surveillance, DEA narcotics raids and plainclothes operations statewide.
The filing cites 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(iii), a federal regulation granting immigration officers discretion on when to announce themselves, and argues that the New Jersey law’s hard requirement conflicts with that discretion. The complaint frames the law as a direct regulation of federal operations, not a neutral public-safety measure.
The mask-ban suit is the second federal action against New Jersey in just over nine weeks. On February 23, the DOJ sued to block Sherrill’s Executive Order 12, which bars ICE from nonpublic areas of state property. That case remains pending. The two lawsuits mark repeated Supremacy Clause litigation by the Civil Division against the Sherrill administration’s immigration policies.
ICE operated with masked agents in two documented cases after the law took effect on March 25. On April 1, masked agents arrested Rubiel Gabriel Nolasco in Jackson Township while local police watched and did not intervene. Jackson Police Chief Mary Nelson confirmed the operation but stated her department “does not participate in any federal immigration enforcement.”
On April 15, masked agents arrested Michele Mendoza in front of her two young children in Asbury Park. Video shows the children crying during the operation. Former Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno, a Republican who runs the Mercy Center in Asbury Park, said clients fled her facility after the April 15 arrest. Mendoza was released from detention after approximately eight hours at ICE’s Delaney Hall facility in Newark. She was not criminally charged and was not placed in removal proceedings, according to state lawmakers, who also alleged that Mendoza showed bruising they attributed to her handling by ICE agents.
No public record exists of any state or county officer arresting or citing a federal agent for masking. Not one of the twenty-one county prosecutors has issued public guidance on the law. Colonel Patrick Callahan and the New Jersey State Police have issued no public statement on the law, which encompasses the State Police under its statutory definition of state law enforcement.
This silence figures in the DOJ’s constitutional argument. Federal lawyers argue the law is void for vagueness because officers cannot know what conduct triggers prosecution, what penalty awaits them or which agency will deliver it. The complaint notes the statute lacks any explicit criminal penalty, a feature the legislature built in deliberately after stripping the fine and disorderly-person provision from the earlier draft.
Davenport fired back on April 29. “The Federal Government still cannot explain when its officials need to mask or forgo identification in violation of this law, or why they actually need to do so, particularly given the serious safety concerns inherent in anonymized policing,” she said in a statement posted to the Attorney General’s website. “New Jersey responded thoughtfully and carefully to these profound public safety concerns, and we look forward to responding in court,” she added.
The DOJ complaint counters that federal regulations and operational needs, including undercover work and officer-safety assessments, already govern when agents may mask.
The court Davenport referenced sits in the Third Circuit, which already ruled against New Jersey in 2025. In CoreCivic v. Governor of New Jersey, the appeals court affirmed an injunction blocking a state law that banned private immigration detention contracts, finding the state could not regulate federal immigration functions through commercial means.
The DOJ cites that precedent heavily, arguing the same intergovernmental immunity principle bars the 2026 law. It also cites a Ninth Circuit decision from April 22, 2026, in which a panel enjoined California from enforcing an identification requirement that applied to all law enforcement equally. Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote that the Supremacy Clause “prohibits States from enacting a law that directly regulates federal operations even if the law regulates state operations in the same manner.”
That distinction matters because California’s district court had actually suggested a non-discriminatory mask ban might survive constitutional scrutiny, while the Ninth Circuit killed the ID rule on direct-regulation grounds alone. New Jersey’s law avoids the discrimination flaw by covering everyone. But it faces the direct-regulation theory that killed California’s ID rule, and the DOJ complaint exploits both angles while also pressing the narrower claim that the law conflicts with specific federal regulations.
The dispute extends beyond the courthouse. Department of Homeland Security Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis called the New Jersey law “despicable” on March 25 and said DHS “will not comply.” Chief Andrew Caggiano of the Montville Township Police Department, president of the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, supported the mask bill in Senate testimony. But he was non-committal when Senator Jon Bramnick (R-21st) asked whether it should apply to ICE agents “jumping out of vans.”
Senator Holly Schepisi (R-39th) warned on the Senate floor that the bill could get federal agents targeted. Bramnick backed the mask bill in committee but abstained on the companion Immigrant Trust Directive, creating a split Republican position on the broader package. Senator Britnee Timberlake (D-34th) backed the companion measures, saying local police departments should not participate in civil rights violations.
Amy Torres, executive director of the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, testified against the bill as written, saying that “half measures won’t stem ICE.” Torres cited fifty-two DHS violations since December 5, 2025, in her February 19 testimony, which came one day after the DOJ admitted to the violations in federal court.
Come
May, the law is real paper with no cop behind it. ICE has
operated with
masks
on at least two occasions.
The
Attorney General still has not written the rules. And
the
only place this statute currently faces legal action is in a federal
courthouse in Newark, where the Department of Justice is trying to
strike it down.
Related Articles
• ICE Defies New Jersey Mask Ban as Sherrill’s Legal Threats Prove Empty
• Sherrill Signs ICE Mask Ban, Sanctuary Bills Into Law
• DOJ Sues NJ Gov. Mikie Sherrill Over ICE Executive Order 12
• Sherrill: Trump ICE Plan for Newark Airport Skirts Federal Law, Agents Lack Training
Sources
• U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, "Complaint, United States v. New Jersey, Case 3:26-cv-04755," (Apr 29, 2026)
• Office of the Governor, State of New Jersey, "Press Release," (Mar 25, 2026)
• Office of the Attorney General, State of New Jersey, "Statement," (Apr 29, 2026)
• Office of the Attorney General, State of New Jersey, "AG Directives Portal," (Feb 5, 2026)
• Politico, "DOJ Sues New Jersey Over Law Banning Masks for ICE Agents," (Apr 30, 2026)
• CBS News, "DOJ Sues New Jersey Over Law Banning Masks for ICE Agents," (Apr 30, 2026)
• The New York Times, "DOJ suit coverage," (Apr 30, 2026)
• Asbury Park Press, "Trump Sues NJ and Sherrill," (Apr 29, 2026)
• NJ 101.5, "NJ Woman Arrested by Masked ICE Agents in Asbury Park," (Apr 16, 2026)
• Insider NJ, "Senate Judiciary Committee Advances Mask Bill," (Feb 19, 2026)
• Courthouse News, "DOJ court-order violation coverage," (Feb 18, 2026)
• New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, "Board Roster," (2026)
• WHYY, "bill passage coverage," (Mar 25, 2026)
• The Hill, "DHS Calls New Jersey Mask Ban ‘Despicable,’" (Mar 26, 2026)
• NBC Philadelphia, "DHS non-compliance coverage," (Mar 25, 2026)
• NJ.com, "DHS non-compliance coverage," (Mar 25, 2026)
• Politico, "Ninth Circuit Blocks California ID Law for Federal Officers," (Apr 22, 2026)
• Justia, "CoreCivic v. Governor of New Jersey, 145 F.4th 315 (3d Cir. 2025)," (2025)
• Asbury Park Press, "Jackson Township arrest coverage," (Apr 9, 2026)
• New Jersey Legislature, "S3114/SCS for S3114 and 3216/A1743 (2026 Session)," (2026)
• New Jersey Senate Democrats, "Press Release on S3521," (Mar 23, 2026)
• New Jersey Monitor, "Trump Administration Sues New Jersey Over Mask Ban," (Apr 30, 2026)
• Law360, "Feds Sue To Block NJ Law Banning Masks For ICE Agents," (Apr 30, 2026)
• Bloomberg Law, "NJ Law Enforcement Officer Facemask Ban Illegal, DOJ Alleges," (Apr 30, 2026)