Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
QuickTake:
Legal experts are at odds over the constitutionality of state proposals to limit federal agents’ wearing of masks, which are popping up in legislatures across the nation. In Oregon, two legislators want to refer a state constitutional amendment to voters.
An Oregon Republican and Democrat have joined forces on an effort to prevent law enforcement officers from covering their faces, despite concerns about the untested legal theory they are invoking to do it.
Reps. Cyrus Javadi, R-Tillamook, and Tom Andersen, D-Salem, announced Sunday, Aug. 31, that they plan to ask voters to amend the Oregon Constitution to ban what the lawmakers call “secret police” — that is, law enforcement officers wearing face coverings to conceal their identity.
The lawmakers are planning to introduce a bill in the 2026 session that would place the constitutional amendment on the ballot for voters later in that year.
Oregon law already considers impersonation of a peace officer a low-level felony. In the wake of 2020’s nationwide racial justice protests, state lawmakers passed legislation, in 2021, mandating that local law enforcement officers working crowds in large cities must display their first and last name along with their identifying numbers.
Javadi and Andersen’s measure, however, does not delineate between local, state and federal law enforcement. It requires all officers to wear uniforms with their names and identifying badge numbers, exempting SWAT teams and undercover officers.
The two lawmakers say that wearing masks — as Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents have done at recent raids — erodes trust in government, with no recourse for the public to identify agents who conduct arrests or detainments.
“This isn’t just a thing against Democrats. This is a thing against everybody in our state — Democrats, Republicans, your political affiliation makes no difference — and no administration, by whatever stripe they are, should ever be doing this stuff,” Andersen told the Capital Chronicle.
“I don’t think there’s any disagreements that there will be challenges,” he added. “We’ll have to litigate that.”
ICE has argued during the Trump administration’s mass crackdown on illegal immigration that its officers need to be able to wear masks in order to do their jobs and avoid harassment. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security reported a 830% increase in assaults on officers in July, saying agents’ family members were doxed and targeted in the Portland area. The agency’s leadership has stood by the policy allowing officers to mask, despite growing criticism from immigration activists and law enforcement watchdogs.
The Oregon proposal would likely impose civil liabilities on law enforcement officers who wear a mask, a softer approach than is being taken by state legislatures in California, Michigan, Tennessee and New York, which are currently considering making masking for law enforcement a misdemeanor.
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, introduced federal legislation in July prohibiting immigration enforcement officers from using face coverings and establishing an internal disciplinary process for violations.
“Battling these authoritarian acts by Donald Trump and his minions in our communities demands pushback on every level,” Wyden said in a statement. “I’m gratified to see these two Oregon legislators spotlighting this issue at the state level with a bipartisan lens that reflects the best of the Oregon Way.”
But legal experts are debating the viability of the state-level measures, and whether a state’s right to ensure the welfare and safety of its citizens can override the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution’s supremacy clause ensures federal law takes precedence over state law.
Other more legally viable options for states include allowing local law enforcement to verify federal agent identities or conditioning cooperation upon not wearing masks, according to Noah Chauvin, an associate professor of law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law.
Oregon’s sanctuary law already prohibits state and local law enforcement from helping enforce federal immigration law without a court order.
“If it makes it a crime or otherwise prohibits federal law enforcement from wearing masks when doing their normal operations, then that’s going to have supremacy clause problems, because it’s going to be a direct regulation of the manner in which the federal government is pursuing its mission,” Chauvin said.
Andersen said he was willing to consider making changes to state law and cooperation with federal authorities as a potential alternative but stressed the importance of challenging the Trump administration’s immigration policy. In Beaverton, for instance, masked ICE agents apprehended a father outside of his children’s school in late July, aligning with a recent shift from longstanding federal policy preventing immigration enforcement in churches, schools and hospitals.
The homeland security department did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the legislation. In a June post on X responding to a similar bill in California, the agency called the effort “despicable.”
“While ICE officers are being assaulted by rioters, a sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers,” the department wrote.
Constitutional amendments in Oregon require majority votes in both the House and Senate to receive a public vote on the ballot. It would then require a simple majority of voters to pass.
