Gavin Newsom LOSES BIG As U.S. Attorney Directs Federal Agencies to IGNORE California’s Mask Ban

In a devastating blow to Gavin Newsom, U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli has just officially directed all federal agencies to ignore his new ban on masks.

Essayli rightfully pointed out that California’s mask ban is unconstitutional and gave Newsom a lesson on the Supremacy Clause.

Check it out:

Governor Newsom is confused about his role under the U.S. Constitution. He oversees California, not federal agencies. He should review the Supremacy Clause.

California's law to "unmask" federal agents is unconstitutional, as the state lacks jurisdiction to interfere with federal… pic.twitter.com/9ZWlFRxHMi

— Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli (@USAttyEssayli) September 26, 2025

Governor Newsom is confused about his role under the U.S. Constitution. He oversees California, not federal agencies. He should review the Supremacy Clause.

California’s law to “unmask” federal agents is unconstitutional, as the state lacks jurisdiction to interfere with federal law enforcement. I have directed federal agencies to disregard this state law and adhere to federal law and agency policies.

The Supremacy Clause, of course, is a provision in the Constitution that designates federal law as the “supreme Law of the Land” over state laws.

Newsom rules California, not the federal government.

He has no authority to dictate what federal agents can or cannot do.

Essayli spoke to Newsmax more about this:

California’s new law aimed at unmasking federal immigration agents has no effect on federal operations, acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli told Newsmax Friday, stressing that the state has no jurisdiction over federal authority.

“We have the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution,” Essayli said on Newsmax’s “National Report.”

He continued, “The system of government was set up so the federal government could operate unhampered or unaffected by all 50 states passing their own regulations. If every state started passing its own framework of rules for the federal government, it would be a total mess and unworkable.”

The push from California Democrats follows calls nationwide to strip ICE agents of anonymity. But Essayli said federal officers conceal their identities for safety reasons, pointing to a recent attack on an ICE facility in Dallas.

ADVERTISEMENT

Gov. Gavin Newsom, in an appearance with late-night TV host Stephen Colbert, claimed masked officers were “disappearing” people without oversight, but Essayli rejected that characterization.

“I think he’s completely out of line,” he said. “The rhetoric is reckless. People are not being disappeared or kidnapped. They are being arrested by federal agents in compliance with the federal law and the Constitution.”

He added that courts, including the Supreme Court, have already upheld the federal government’s operations.

Essayli warned that Newsom’s words have dangerous consequences.

“This is what the left does when they don’t get their way,” he said. “They lay out the matches and the gasoline, and they turn up the rhetoric, and they hope that somebody comes and does what they want them to do — which is exactly what happened in Texas. This rhetoric has to stop.”

Not only did Essayli direct every federal agency not to comply with California trying to ban agents from wearing masks to protect their identities, but he also promised to arrest any official who tries to enforce it!

🚨 BREAKING: US Attorney Bill Essayli just ordered federal agents to IGNORE Gavin Newsom’s law banning the use of masks

Essayli also said he will ARREST any official who impedes federal law enforcement by attempting to force the removal of masks

ANOTHER NEWSOM LOSS

Protect ICE… pic.twitter.com/pfDGH9tp14

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) September 26, 2025

You can read Essayli’s full memorandum here:

On September 20, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law SB 627 that makes it unlawful for local or federal law enforcement to wear masks during their duties, with some exceptions. Although the law is facially generally applicable, the Governor made clear he was targeting federal law enforcement officers who wear masks during immigration enforcement operations in order to protect their safety and their families’ safety. The new law takes on January 1, 2026.

State Laws that Purport to Control the Actions of Federal Law Enforcement Officers Are Unconstitutional

The law is well-settled that, under the Supremacy Clause, state officials cannot control the actions of federal law enforcement officers and an attempt to do so is unconstitutional. See, eg. United States v. Missouri, 660 F. Supp. 3d. 791, 808 (W.D. Mo. 2023) (“While Missouri cannot be compelled to assist in the enforcement or otherwise interfere with its operations.”), aff’d, 114 F.4th 980 (8th Cir., 2024). “An act cannot simultaneously be necessary to the execution of a duty under the laws of the United States and an offense to the laws of a state. On the contrary, the obligations imposed by federal law are supreme, and where any supposed right or claim under state law would impede an officer from performing his duties, it must relent.” Denson v. United States, 574 F.3d 1318, 1347 (11th Cir. 2009), abrogated, Martin v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 1689, 1701 (2025).

Indeed, even were the law truly generally applicable, it has long been clear that “even the most unquestionable and most universally applicable of state laws, such as those concerning murder, will not be allowed to control the conduct of a marshal of the United States acting under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States.” Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U.S. 51, 56-57 (1920) (state could not require federal postal employee to obtain a state driver’s license to deliver the mail; the law “does not merely touch the Government servants remotely by a general rule of conduct; it lays hold of them in their specific attempt to obey orders and requires qualifications in addition to those that the Government has pronounced sufficient”) (citing Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S., 1 (1890)); see also Ohio vs. Thomas, 173 U.S. 276, 284 (1899) (federal official could not be prosecuted for serving margarine to inmates without complying with state posted notice requirement before doing so); see, e.g., Martin, 145 S. Ct. at 1703 (noting that, under Supreme Court precedent, “federal law will sometimes preempt a state criminal law when it conflicts with a federal officer’s duties–and do so even in the absence of express federal legislation overriding the state law in question”); Morgan v. California, 743 F.2d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The purpose of affording federal officers habeas relief from state criminal prosecutions is to prevent states from nullifying federal laws by attempting to impede enforcement of those laws. Habeas relief is deemed proper when the state criminal prosecution is intended to obstruct enforcement of unpopular federal laws.”) (citations omitted.)

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Should Continue to Abide by Federal Law and Agency Policies When Conducting Enforcement Operations

Because California cannot direct and impede the actions of federal law enforcement, and federal law enforcement has determined that protecting the identity of federal law enforcement officers is necessary in some circumstances for their safety while enforcing federal law, I direct federal law enforcement to continue to comply with federal law and follow their agency policies on the appropriateness of wearing masks when conducting federal law enforcement operations. Any state official or private individual that unlawfully interferes or impedes federal law enforcement operations should be referred to my office for prosecution.