Protests occurred in Orange County, New York, last week against the establishment of a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center. Demonstrators expressed their opposition with signs reading phrases such as "No ICE Gestapo" and "Stop the ICE gulag." This protest is part of a larger trend, with an analysis from Princeton University indicating that immigration-related demonstrations reached record levels in 2025, largely in response to the Trump administration's deportation policies.
In addition to protests, Democratic-led states are increasingly using legal avenues to challenge federal immigration enforcement. Several states have enacted laws requiring federal immigration officers to display identification or limiting the use of face coverings during enforcement actions. The Justice Department has filed lawsuits against states including California, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and others, claiming these laws interfere with federal duties.
The Justice Department's complaint highlights that New York's recent legislation, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul, attempts to impose criminal laws on federal officers, which is against constitutional law. The Justice Department argues that face coverings are necessary for the safety of immigration agents and their families, while state officials argue that requiring identification enhances transparency and accountability.
The legal dispute centers on the balance of power between state and federal governments, with constitutional experts noting that the core issue is whether states can dictate how federal officers perform their duties. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal law is the supreme law of the land, preventing states from regulating federal officials.
Experts like Josh Blackman and Eugene Volokh argue that the ICE mask cases illustrate the limits of state power, as the laws specifically target federal officers rather than applying broadly. They reference historical Supreme Court cases that affirm federal immunity from state control in the performance of federal duties.
While both experts believe the states' laws are unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny, they suggest that these measures may serve a political purpose, allowing Democratic-led states to demonstrate opposition to federal immigration policies. They note that lawmakers sometimes enact laws they expect to be struck down to convey a message to voters.
Despite the political implications, the experts predict that courts will likely uphold existing principles of federal supremacy, maintaining the status quo in the relationship between state and federal governments.