JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES MARYLAND AND TWO COUNTIES OVER MASK BAN AND IDENTIFICATION RULES FOR FEDERAL OFFICERS

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against the State of Maryland, Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown, the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission, Prince George’s County and Montgomery County, challenging state and local laws that restrict federal law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings and impose identification requirements during official duties.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The federal government is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Maryland Senate Bill 1, Prince George’s County Code § 18-124 and Montgomery County Code § 35-13E.

The Justice Department argues that the challenged laws directly regulate federal law enforcement operations in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That position is an allegation advanced by the federal government in its civil complaint and has not yet been resolved by the court.

Maryland’s SB-1 was passed by the General Assembly on April 13, 2026, and signed by Gov. Wes Moore on May 26. The law took effect Oct. 1 and applies facial-covering and identification requirements to federal, state and local law enforcement officers operating within Maryland.

Under SB-1, covered officers generally may not wear facial coverings while performing official duties unless an authorized exception applies. The law also requires officers to display identification on the outermost layer of their clothing.

The Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission is responsible for establishing requirements governing the size, placement, visibility and legibility of identification worn by officers.

SB-1 also requires officers to verbally disclose identifying information upon request while performing official duties, subject to exemptions for certain plainclothes, nonuniformed and undercover operations.

Violations of the Maryland requirements can result in civil penalties of up to $1,500. The federal complaint also states that violations can be treated as police misconduct under Maryland law.

Prince George’s County adopted a separate ordinance that also applies to federal officers operating within the county.

Under Prince George’s County Code § 18-124, law enforcement officers generally may not wear facial coverings while interacting with members of the public during official duties, subject to specific exceptions.

The county law also requires officers to display their name and agency-issued identification number without obstruction.

Violations can carry substantially stronger penalties than the statewide provisions. According to the federal complaint, an officer convicted of violating the Prince George’s County ordinance can face up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.

Montgomery County adopted its own measure, known as the Unmask ICE Act.

The Montgomery County ordinance prohibits covered law enforcement officers from wearing masks or facial coverings while interacting with the public during official duties unless an exception applies.

Officers are also required to wear identification on the outermost layer of their clothing and, upon request, verbally provide identifying information while performing official duties.

Exceptions apply to certain plainclothes, nonuniformed, undercover and covert operations.

Montgomery County also established a complaint process through which members of the public or county police officers can report suspected violations.

The Justice Department argues that decisions involving federal officers’ uniforms, protective equipment, identification practices and operational procedures fall under federal authority rather than state or local control.

Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. said the Department’s position is that states and local governments do not have constitutional authority to regulate the federal government or dictate how federal officers perform their duties.

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said the federal government, rather than state or county governments, determines which equipment federal officers may wear while carrying out official operations.

Officer safety is also a central part of the federal government’s case.

The complaint alleges that federal officers have faced harassment, doxing, threats and attempts to identify them through photographs, facial-recognition technology and information posted online.

Federal attorneys argue that facial coverings and restrictions on displaying personal identifiers can protect officers and their families from being identified and targeted.

The complaint describes incidents involving federal personnel whose personal information was allegedly exposed online, including information concerning officers’ family members.

One incident cited by the federal government occurred in Hyattsville, Maryland, in September 2026, when an individual allegedly filmed federal officers conducting surveillance and later posted video footage online.

The Justice Department also argues that mandatory identification requirements can interfere with surveillance, undercover work and other operations involving gangs, organized criminal networks, transnational criminal organizations and suspected terrorists.

According to the complaint, federal agencies require operational flexibility to decide when an officer should disclose identifying information, when facial coverings are necessary and how officers should present themselves during particular enforcement actions.

Federal attorneys further argue that penalties imposed by state and county governments could discourage officers from carrying out lawful federal enforcement activity when state or local rules conflict with federal policies or operational requirements.

The Maryland lawsuit is part of a broader Justice Department effort challenging state and local laws that federal officials contend interfere with federal law enforcement operations.

Attorney General directives issued in 2025 instructed the Civil Division and other Justice Department components to identify state and local laws, policies and practices that obstruct federal immigration enforcement or other lawful federal operations and to pursue legal action when warranted.

According to the Justice Department, Maryland is the eighth state it has sued over what the Department characterizes as unlawful regulation of federal agents. The Department has also pursued cases involving New York, Virginia, Connecticut, New Jersey, California, Philadelphia and Milwaukee.

The federal government maintains that courts considering comparable mask-ban and identification requirements have granted preliminary relief against enforcement of similar provisions.

Those earlier rulings do not determine the outcome of the Maryland case. The constitutionality of Maryland’s statewide law and the Prince George’s and Montgomery County ordinances will now be addressed through federal litigation.

The United States is asking the court to declare the challenged provisions unconstitutional as applied to federal law enforcement officers and prohibit Maryland, Prince George’s County and Montgomery County from enforcing the disputed requirements against federal personnel.

---

---

U.S. Department of Justice — Complaint, United States of America v. State of Maryland, Anthony G. Brown, Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission, Prince George’s County, Maryland, and Montgomery County, Maryland, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, filed October 1, 2026. (Free Download)

---

---

---

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General — Sanctuary Jurisdiction Directives, memorandum dated February 5, 2025. (Free Download)

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

🔥 NOW AVAILABLE! 🔥

‎👉 Eclipsera – Apple Music

---

---

---

---

---