Baltimore County bill to ban ICE masks faces legal questions

First, the Baltimore County Council passed a pair of immigrant protection bills in early February known as the Trust Act.

Weeks later, it approved an emergency ban on immigration detention centers after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement opened a legal office in Hunt Valley.

Now, a proposed mask ban marks the council’s latest attempt to push back against President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda — and renews questions over local governments’ authority to regulate federal agencies.

The measure, introduced by Democratic Councilman Izzy Patoka, would prohibit federal, state and local law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings while interacting with the public, except during medical emergencies, fires or certain tactical operations.

It also requires officers to visibly wear identification, including their name or badge number and the agency they represent.

Patoka, who is running for county executive, said at a council work session Tuesday afternoon that masks have enabled ICE agents to intimidate communities and evade accountability amid Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

“We see it on the news every night,” Patoka said. “They are clearly, in my opinion, trying to create terror and fear.”

The bill requires approval from five of the seven council members to pass. During Tuesday’s debate, lawmakers from both parties questioned whether Patoka’s proposal is legal.

Democratic Councilman Julian Jones, who is also running for county executive, raised concerns that under the U.S. Constitution, a county mask ban would be superseded by federal law.

Meanwhile, Republican Councilman Todd Crandell said he would vote against the bill, arguing that the council can’t restrict the activities of federal law enforcement and accusing Patoka of political grandstanding.

“I think that what you’re doing is trying to get headlines for an election year issue that simply does not exist in Baltimore County,” Crandell said. “This body cannot oversee or put restrictions on a federal agency. It’s completely outside of our purview.”

Crandell added that the measure would mostly affect the Baltimore County Police Department, which “does not wear masks [and] does not plan to wear masks.” He called Patoka’s proposal “an insult to our very well-performing police department.”

In written testimony, County Executive Kathy Klausmeier’s administration recommended tabling the measure until the state legislative session concludes in April.

The testimony included an analysis from the Baltimore County Office of Law, which said the bill “may risk legal exposure” and be “vulnerable to a challenge” because it includes federal officers.

A growing number of state and local governments have proposed mask bans as a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive — and occasionally deadly — immigration enforcement tactics.

In Maryland, state lawmakers have also considered banning law enforcement officers from wearing masks in most circumstances, though Attorney General Anthony Brown’s office has warned that it may be difficult to enforce and is “likely unconstitutional.” The measure has passed the state Senate but not the House of Delegates.

Legislatures in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties also introduced mask bans. The Baltimore City Council, meanwhile, removed a mask provision from a broader immigration bill designed to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Courts recently began weighing in on the legality of mask bans.

In February, a federal judge struck down a California mask law because it exempted state law enforcement, not because the state lacked authority to regulate the federal government. The judge upheld California’s measure requiring federal law enforcement to show identification.

The Baltimore County Council is scheduled to vote on its mask proposal at its regular meeting Monday night.

Banner reporter Pamela Wood contributed to this article.

This article may be updated.