Trump administration challenges Maryland’s ban on police using masks

The U.S. Department of Justice is challenging a new state law that prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing masks to conceal their faces while on duty.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Maryland on the same day the law took effect. The DOJ claims that the Maryland law does “exactly what the Constitution says they cannot: regulate how federal law enforcement agencies and their officers carry out their official duties in those jurisdictions.”

Passed late in the 2026 session, Senate Bill 1 was one of a number of bills passed in response to heightened immigration enforcement in Maryland and around the nation. The bill makes it a civil violation for police and other law enforcement officers to wear a mask while performing their official duties.

The legal challenge was not unexpected.

“I’m not surprised. We were thoughtful in how we constructed SB 1. It does not impede law enforcement’s ability to enforce the law, and it is constitutional,” said Sen. Malcolm Augustine (D-Prince George’s), the bill’s lead sponsor. “I just look forward to getting a positive result out of the courts that will uphold the fact that it is.”

The suit also targets Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, which passed similar legislation earlier this year, and the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission, which is charged with developing a uniform policy on face coverings to be used by police departments across the state.

New laws: No Kings, no trying youths as adults, no ‘dynamic pricing’ — and a prehistoric shark

Under the law, police are required to wear identification while on duty displaying the officer’s department, last name and badge number or other identifying number. They would be prohibited from wearing face coverings while on duty unless undercover, There would be some exceptions, for a facial shield, a medical mask, a gas mask and other specific gear.

The law expressly said it applies to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.

Officers who violate the law could get a citation with a fine of up to $1,500.

Prince George’s County Council approved a measure in April that “a law enforcement officer shall not wear a face covering while interacting with a member of the public in the performance of official duties in Prince George’s County.” The legislation was proposed and presented by Council Chair Krystal Oriadha, Council Vice Chair Eric Olson and councilmembers Wanika Fisher and Shayla Adams-Stafford.

In the same month, Montgomery County Council approved the “Unmask ICE Act” that would “prohibit federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from wearing masks or facial coverings while on duty in the County.” The legislation was sponsored by County Councilmember Will Jawando, who won the Democratic nomination for county executive in June.

Both measures added exceptions such as an officer conducting undercover operations or for safety or environmental protection.

Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) said in a statement Thursday that the law helps improve community trust of police and that he is confident it can survive a legal challenge.

“Nothing else matters if people don’t feel safe in their own communities,” Ferguson said. “We anticipated potential legal challenges and stand firmly behind the law’s intent. I look forward to the Attorney General defending this law that brings safety and trust to neighborhoods across the Maryland.”

But the Justice Department suit points to legal opinions by state and county legal officers that it said cast doubts on the constitutionality of the laws.

In an a letter on the law before it was signed by Gov. Wes Moore (D), Attorney General Anthony Brown said that while the law “is legally sufficient and not clearly unconstitutional,” applying it to federal officers “poses significant constitutional risk under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

“There is a high likelihood that a court would find that application of SB 1’s face-covering prohibition or identification requirement to federal law enforcement would violate the Supremacy Clause, and specifically, the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, because to do so would directly regulate the federal government,” Brown’s letter said.

The Justice Department makes much the same argument in its suit.

“These government lawyers working for the State of Maryland and Prince George’s County and Montgomery County were right about their constitutionality concerns, because courts across the country have enjoined materially similar state and local laws as unconstitutional direct regulations of the Federal Government,” the suit said. “This Court should join the growing number of other courts that are putting an end to this type of blatant unconstitutional regulation of the Federal Government.”

The suit says Brown’s office in July issued guidance confirming that the state law would apply to federal agents operating in Maryland. Brown’s office declined comment on the suit Thursday.

In a statement posted to social media Thursday evening, Jawando said he introduced the bill because “public safety depends on trust, and trust depends on knowing who is operating in our neighborhoods.”

“The Department of Justice’s lawsuit won’t change that,” Jawando’s statement said. “The Unmask ICE Act is a lawful exercise of the County’s authority to protect public safety within our borders, and we will defend it vigorously.”