But Rules That Agents Can Keep Wearing Masks
By Hank Russell
A state district court allowed Governor Kathy Hochul to uphold her statewide ban on local governments and law enforcement agencies from entering into agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but denied her motion to have ICE agents remove their masks while in New York.
On August 3, the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York ruled against the federal government, which sought a preliminary injunction blocking New York’s ban on 287(g) agreements between local law enforcement agencies and ICE. As previously reported in Long Island Life & Politics, Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James sent letters to 12 local law enforcement agencies ordering them to end their 287(g) agreements with ICE
effective August 25 under the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act. Two of the agencies that received letters include the Nassau County Police Department and the Nassau County Sheriff’s Office.
LILP previously reported that, In the letter, the state is requiring these agencies to “submit information to our office” by August 14 “regarding the status of your Section 287(g) agreement, including any ongoing activities pursuant to that agreement and steps you have taken to comply with the termination requirement.”
It was also previously reported in Long Island Life & Politics that Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman entered into an agreement with ICE in which the NCPD and the county sheriff’s office would work together with the agency. Blakeman pointed out that, since the agreement with ICE and through the coordination of the Nassau County Police Department and the county Sheriff’s Department, more than 2,000 criminal illegal aliens were arrested. Among the crimes they were arrested for were attempted rape, attempted murder, rape, carjacking, drug dealing and gang activity.
Hochul said that such agreements erode trust between immigrant communities and local institutions, and make residents less likely to report crimes, seek help, or cooperate with law enforcement, LILP also previously reported.
In her decision, District Judge Mae A. D’Agostino wrote that the federal government needed to “show that the state is “[reneging] on its obligations” and “altering the contract for its own benefit. … At the present juncture, the United States has failed to present any evidence which suggests the Termination Act was self-serving reneging.”
“As we have said from the start, New York’s ban on 287(g) agreements is legal and will keep our communities safe,” James and Hochul said. “Local law enforcement should be focused on local matters, and New York taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for any collaboration with ICE.”
But in the challenge to the face mask ban, D’Agostino ruled in favor of the feds.
“New York appears to be well-intentioned in its pursuit of transparent policing,” she wrote. “[T]he issue now before the Court is about constitutionality—not transparency or preferable policy decisions. There is a constitutional proscription on direct state regulation of federal agency operations. Whether federal law enforcement agencies have chosen to carry out such operations in a sufficiently transparent manner is an important question. But that question is not for this Court to answer at the present time.”
In their response, Hochul and James said, “While the court enjoined enforcement of New York’s mask ban, we stand firm in our belief that masked agents do not make New York safer and our offices are reviewing all legal options at this time.”
LILP reached out to Blakeman’s office for comment, but did not hear back as of press time. LILP also reached out to the White House, which referred this reporter to ICE. LILP did not hear back from ICE as of press time.