Banned masks in Washington state
Executive summary
Washington’s Legislature has moved to bar law enforcement officers from wearing face‑concealing masks during public interactions through Senate Bill 5855, a proposal that cleared the State Senate and would cover local, state and federal officers operating in the state, including ICE agents [1] [2]. This measure is distinct from pandemic-era public‑health mask rules—those statewide mandates were largely repealed in 2022 and ended in remaining settings in 2023—yet SB 5855 has already triggered questions about federal preemption, officer safety, and legal exposure [3] [4] [5].
1. What the Senate approved and what the bill would do
The State Senate passed Senate Bill 5855, which prohibits law enforcement from wearing face‑concealing masks while interacting with the public and requires officers to be identifiable by a clearly displayed name or other identifying information, and it gives people detained by unlawfully masked officers a private right of action including compensation and attorney fees [1] [6] [2].
2. Scope, carve‑outs and practical limits of the ban
SB 5855 is written to exclude clear face shields, medical masks, respirators used in hazardous conditions, helmets for transport, and limited exceptions such as undercover work or certain tactical operations, while specifically targeting items like balaclavas, tactical masks and ski masks that obscure identity [6] [5] [2].
3. Why lawmakers pushed the ban—accountability, fear and recent incidents
Supporters frame the ban as a response to a wave of masked federal immigration enforcement actions and recent ICE arrests where agents wore coverings, arguing anonymous policing undermines trust, terrifies immigrant communities and discourages reporting of crime; lawmakers and the governor publicly cited such incidents in backing the legislation [7] [8] [6].
4. Safety, doxxing and the federal government’s position
Opponents and federal prosecutors warn the ban could imperil officers and their families by exposing them to doxxing and retaliation; the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington urged legislative caution at committee, citing a reported surge in doxxing and threats to officers [5] [7]. The federal government has already challenged a similar California law in court, arguing mask bans conflict with federal law and operational needs—an argument likely to be raised if Washington’s law becomes final [9] [7].
5. Legal questions and preemption risks
Legal experts and prosecutors told the Legislature the bill “could run afoul of the U.S.” because states attempting to regulate federal law enforcement raise preemption issues; California’s experience—its ban took effect while the Department of Justice filed suit—illustrates that courts will likely be asked to decide how far states can regulate the conduct of federal agents in their jurisdictions [10] [9].
6. Politics, votes and the partisan split
The Senate passage reflected a partisan divide—Senate roll calls and floor debate showed Democrats largely in favor, framing the bill as accountability legislation, while many Republicans opposed it on public‑safety grounds and argued it sends the wrong message to law enforcement; reporting notes a Senate vote margin and that Republicans largely opposed the measure [11] [10].
7. How this differs from the pandemic mask era and next steps
This proposal is a narrow public‑safety/accountability measure targeting officer anonymity and should not be conflated with COVID‑19 public health mandates, which were mostly repealed in March 2022 and the final statewide healthcare and corrections mask orders ended in 2023—SB 5855 now moves to the House and will face the twin gauntlets of legislative negotiation and potential federal litigation if enacted [3] [4] [2].