Federal judge blocks California law banning law enforcement agents from wearing masks

A federal judge on Monday blocked a California law from going into effect that would ban federal immigration agents from covering their faces. However, the agents will still be required to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number.

California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings under a bill signed in September. The legislation followed a summer marked by high-profile raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in Los Angeles.

The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in November challenging the laws, arguing they threatened the safety of officers who faced harassment, doxing, and violence. The administration also claimed the laws violated the Constitution because the state was directly regulating the federal government.

Judge Christina Snyder issued the initial ruling because the mask ban, as enacted, did not apply to state law enforcement authorities, thereby discriminating against the federal government. This ruling could have national implications as states grapple with how to handle federal agents enforcing the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Despite blocking the law for federal agents, Judge Snyder left open the possibility of future legislation banning federal agents from wearing masks if applied universally to all law enforcement agencies. She wrote, “the Court finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks.”

The ruling is set to take effect on February 19.

### Background on the California Law

Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill in September, banning some law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings. Originally slated to go into effect on January 1, the law was put on hold due to the lawsuit.

In addition to exempting state law enforcement officers, the bill included exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a mask would jeopardize an operation. Judge Snyder sided with the federal government, which argued that these exemptions were discriminatory against federal agents.

Governor Newsom also signed into law a separate measure requiring law enforcement to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number while on duty. This measure was also challenged by the federal government but was upheld by the judge.

### Reactions and Next Steps

California State Senator Scott Wiener, who proposed the original bill to ban facial coverings, announced on Monday that he would immediately introduce new legislation to include state police in the law.

“ICE and Border Patrol are covering their faces to maximize their terror campaign and to insulate themselves from accountability,” Wiener said in a news release. “We will ensure our mask ban can be enforced.”

### Court Hearing Details

At a January 14 hearing, Judge Snyder repeatedly asked the government’s lawyer, Tiberius Davis, to explain why banning masks would impede federal law enforcement if officers rarely wore masks before 2025.

Davis cited claims from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security indicating a multifold increase in assaults and threats against federal officers. He also referred to an incident in Los Angeles where three women allegedly livestreamed while following an ICE agent home and posted the address on Instagram.

“There is real deterrence on the officer’s safety and ability to perform their duties,” Davis said.

In response, Cameron Bell, an attorney with the California Department of Justice, challenged these claims, stating there was no concrete evidence that federal agents could not perform their duties without facial coverings. Bell referenced accounts from U.S. citizens who, upon detention by federal agents, believed they were being kidnapped.

“It’s obvious why these laws are in the public interest,” Bell said.

### Broader Legal Implications

The federal government also argued in legal briefs that allowing California’s legislation could embolden other states to impose similar unconstitutional restraints.

Davis cited a July 2025 statement from Governor Newsom during an online interview discussing the mask ban bill: “It appears that we don’t have the legal authority for federal agents but we do for other law enforcement authorities.”

In December, Los Angeles County supervisors voted to enact a local ordinance banning law enforcement from wearing masks, which went into effect January 8. However, the sheriff’s department stated it would not enforce the ordinance until after the court ruled on the statewide mask ban. The Los Angeles Police Department also announced it would not enforce the mask ban.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-blocks-californias-ban-on-federal-agents-wearing-masks-but-requires-badges-be-clearly-seen/

Editorial: Philly voters joined national rejection of Trump’s GOP

Democrats swept major races in Philadelphia, the suburbs, statewide judicial contests, and in New Jersey in the first general election since President Donald Trump returned to the White House.

In Philadelphia, District Attorney Larry Krasner defeated Republican challenger Pat Dugan by approximately 52 percentage points, easily securing a third term. Krasner captured 75.9% of the vote compared to Dugan’s 24%. For City Controller, Democratic incumbent Christy Brady defeated Republican challenger Ari Patrinos by more than 72 percentage points, winning 86.14% of the vote compared to Patrinos’ 13.79%.

Despite a well-funded campaign by conservative activists aligned with Trump to unseat three Democratic justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, all three justices up for retention were chosen to remain by voters.

In other judicial contests, Democrat Brandon Neuman won the Pennsylvania Superior Court race against Republican Maria Battista and Liberal Party candidate Daniel Wassmer. Alice DeBow retained her seat as well. For the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, Democrat Stella Tsai defeated Republican Matt Wolford, while Judge Michael Wojcik retained his seat.

Democrats also dominated in the suburbs. In Delaware County, Democrats maintained unanimous control of Delaware County Council. In Bucks County, Democrats swept all row offices, with Joe Khan elected as district attorney and Democrat Danny Ceisler ousting Republican Fred Harran in the sheriff’s race.

In New Jersey, Democrat Mikie Sherrill beat Republican Jack Ciattarelli in the governor’s race, a contest that drew national attention as a possible prelude to next year’s midterms.

Voter turnout was notably high in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In Philadelphia, 34% of registered voters cast ballots — the highest turnout for an off-year election in at least a decade, according to unofficial results posted by the City Commissioners office.

Polling and exit surveys indicated that President Trump was a major motivating factor behind Democratic victories across the region, statewide, and nationally, including the gubernatorial race in Virginia and the mayoral race in New York.

In New York, Democrat Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old Democratic Socialist, defeated former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who ran as an independent and was endorsed by Trump.

On Election Day, voters told the Tribune that dissatisfaction with the current state of government was a primary concern. As the Tribune reported, “While President Donald Trump was not on the ballot Tuesday, his policies and their effects were heavily on the minds of voters.”

Last Tuesday, Philadelphians joined voters nationwide in expressing opposition to Trump’s economic policies and the government shutdown, which polls indicate voters mainly blame on Trump and Republicans in Congress.
https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/editorial-philly-voters-joined-national-rejection-of-trumps-gop/article_bda7e02d-fdaa-4e4f-9ebd-e67a67779936.html

韓国最高裁長官と与党対立 「裁判官萎縮」証言拒否

国際
韓国最高裁長官と与党対立 「裁判官萎縮」証言拒否

2025年10月13日 17:31 (10月13日 17:33 更新)
※本記事は有料会員限定です。

【ソウル共同】韓国国会の法制司法委員会は13日、最高裁に対する国政監査を開き、チョ喜大長官が出席しました。

6月の大統領選前、現与党「共に民主党」候補だった李在明大統領に最高裁が有罪相当の判決を出したことを巡り、与党側と最高裁長官の間で対立が浮き彫りとなりました。

与党は「裁判官の萎縮」を問題視し、これに関する長官の証言を求めましたが、長官はこれを拒否しました。

(続きは有料会員限定となります。残り423文字)

※この記事は西日本新聞meによる配信です。クリップ機能は有料会員のみご利用いただけます。7日間の無料トライアル(1日37円)もございます。年払いならさらにお得です。
https://www.nishinippon.co.jp/item/1410761/

Kerala High Court Slams Centre Over Refusal To Waive Loans For 2024 Wayanad Landslide Victims

Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Wednesday expressed strong disappointment with the Central government over its refusal to waive loans of people affected by the 2024 Wayanad landslides.

The disaster, which occurred on July 30, 2024, decimated four villages, injured hundreds, claimed over 200 lives, and left 32 people still missing.

A Division Bench of the High Court criticised the Union government for what it described as “bureaucratic babble” and a failure to stand by the citizens of Kerala in a time of crisis.

During the hearing, the Bench told the Central government’s counsel, “Please tell the Union Government it has failed the people of Kerala. We had made it very clear that it is not a situation where the Union is powerless to act. By this affidavit, you’ve again shown that you are hiding behind this argument of powerlessness. Why is that being done?”

The Bench was responding to the Centre’s contention that there is no legal provision for waiving bank loans for natural disaster victims.

“This is just bureaucratic babble. It is not about whether the Union can act, but whether they are willing to act. If you are unwilling, have the courage to say it. Who are you trying to fool?” they asked.

The Court further emphasised that the government should be transparent about its position.

“Please tell your government that these kinds of tactics are not going to carry the day. If they have the courage, let them say that they are not willing to help. At least the people should know that in moments like these, the Union government has failed them,” said the court.

“Having said all this, we can’t be behaving like them. Our sense of Constitutional morality requires us to respect in regard the principle of separation of powers and therefore, we will not issue directions to the Union government. That is because of our magnanimity and as a body, an integral part of the State, which respects the Constitution. Enough is enough. We don’t need the Union’s charity,” it remarked.

The Court thereafter asked for a list of banks and financial institutions controlled by the Union.

It also noted that, as far as some of the state government-controlled banks are concerned, the loans are waived off.

Noting banks such as Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank, and some others, the Bench orally observed that it would implead those banks and issue notices to them while staying the recovery action for the time being.

“We will give them the opportunity to seek a modification of this interim order after filing a counter-affidavit, where they will say whether or not they will waive or not the entire loan. If they are not going to waive the loan, either entirely or partially, then let them give reasons as to why they are insisting on this despite this calamitous situation,” the court added.

The case was posted for further hearing after two weeks.

*Note: Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.*
https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/kerala-high-court-slams-centre-over-refusal-to-waive-loans-for-2024-wayanad-landslide-victims

Centre Approves Appointment Of 24 Judges To Allahabad High Court

**Centre Clears Appointment of 24 Judges to Allahabad High Court**

*New Delhi:* The Centre on Friday approved the appointment of 24 judges to the Allahabad High Court, following recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium.

A notification issued by the Union Ministry of Law and Justice stated, “In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint S/Shri (i) Vivek Saran, (ii) Vivek Kumar Singh, (iii) Smt Garima Prashad, (iv) Sudhanshu Chauhan, (v) Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, (vi) Smt Swarupama Chaturvedi, (vii) Siddharth Nandan, (viii) Kunal Ravi Singh, (ix) Indrajeet Shukla, (x) Satya Veer Singh, (xi) Dr Ajay Kumar-II, (xii) Chawan Prakash, (xiii) Divesh Chandra Samant, (xiv) Prashant Mishra-I, (xv) Tarun Saxena, (xvi) Rajeev Bharti, (xvii) Padam Narain Mishra, (xviii) Lakshmi Kant Shukla, (xix) Jai Prakash Tiwari, (xx) Devendra Singh-I, (xxi) Sanjiv Kumar, (xxii) Smt Vani Ranjan Agrawal, (xxiii) Achal Sachdev and (xxiv) Smt Babita Rani, to be Judges of the Allahabad High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.”

The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, met on September 1 and approved the proposal for elevation of advocates Vivek Saran, Adnan Ahmad, Vivek Kumar Singh, Garima Prashad, Sudhanshu Chauhan, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, Swarupama Chaturvedi, Jai Krishna Upadhyay, Siddharth Nandan, Kunal Ravi Singh, Indrajeet Shukla, and Satya Veer Singh to the Bench.

In a separate statement uploaded on the apex court’s website, the Collegium also approved the appointment of judicial officers Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, Chawan Prakash, Divesh Chandra Samant, Prashant Mishra-I, Tarun Saxena, Rajeev Bharti, Padam Narain Mishra, Lakshmi Kant Shukla, Jai Prakash Tiwari, Devendra Singh-I, Sanjiv Kumar, Vani Ranjan Agrawal, Achal Sachdev, and Babita Rani.

It is to be noted that the names of advocates Adnan Ahmad and Jai Krishna Upadhyay, though recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium, are yet to receive clearance from the Union government.
https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/centre-approves-appointment-of-24-judges-to-allahabad-high-court

Plea to remove Afzal Guru’s grave from Tihar Jail rejected

**Plea to Remove Afzal Guru’s Grave from Tihar Jail Rejected**

*By Snehil Singh | Sep 24, 2025 | 02:12 PM*

**Overview**

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the removal of the graves of convicted terrorists Mohammad Afzal Guru and Mohammad Maqbool Bhat from Tihar Jail. The petitioners contended that maintaining the graves of these terrorists within a state-run prison was illegal and unconstitutional, urging judicial intervention to relocate the remains. They argued that such graves could encourage glorification of terrorism and lead to misuse of prison premises.

**Judicial Stance: Decision Reserved for Competent Authorities**

The Delhi High Court observed that the matter involves sensitive decisions which were taken by the government at the time of execution. The court emphasized that reopening such issues after more than a decade is unwarranted.

It was noted that only competent authorities have the jurisdiction to decide on such matters. The court further highlighted that without specific legislation banning burials or cremations inside prison premises, judicial intervention is not justified.

**Concerns Raised by Petitioners**

The petitioners, Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh and Jitendra Singh, argued that the presence of the graves has transformed Tihar Jail into a “radical pilgrimage” site. According to them, extremist elements visit the prison to venerate these convicted terrorists, which in turn undermines national security and public order.

They asserted that this scenario sanctifies terrorism and violates the principles of secularism and the rule of law enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Additionally, they cited violations of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018.

**Health and Security Arguments**

The plea also claimed that the burial of the bodies within prison grounds poses risks of infectious and hazardous diseases to inmates and staff.

For context, Mohammad Maqbool Bhat was hanged at Tihar Jail on February 11, 1984, for the murder of a policeman, and his body was buried on the prison premises. Mohammad Afzal Guru, a key conspirator in the 2001 Indian Parliament attack that resulted in nine deaths, was executed in February 2013 at Tihar Jail, with his body similarly buried on site.

**Conclusion**

The Delhi High Court’s refusal to interfere leaves the graves of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhat at Tihar Jail intact, affirming that decisions regarding their location rest with appropriate governmental authorities and legislative frameworks.
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/india/hc-dismisses-plea-to-remove-afzal-guru-s-grave-from-tihar/story

Plea to remove Afzal Guru’s grave from Tihar Jail rejected

**Plea to Remove Afzal Guru’s Grave from Tihar Jail Rejected by Delhi High Court**

*By Snehil Singh | September 24, 2025 | 02:12 PM*

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the removal of the graves of convicted terrorists Mohammad Afzal Guru and Mohammad Maqbool Bhat from Tihar Jail. The petitioners contended that maintaining the graves of terrorists within a state-run facility was illegal and unconstitutional. They urged judicial intervention to relocate the remains, arguing that doing so would prevent the glorification of terrorism and curb the misuse of prison premises.

### Judicial Stance: Authorities to Decide on Sensitive Issues

The Delhi High Court observed that such matters are sensitive and were decided by the government at the time of the executions. The court emphasized that after more than a decade, these issues cannot be reopened. It noted that only competent authorities are empowered to make decisions regarding burials or cremations within prison premises. The court further stated that judicial intervention is unwarranted in the absence of specific legislation prohibiting such practices inside prisons.

### Petitioners’ Concerns: Graves as ‘Radical Pilgrimage’ Sites

The petitioners, Vishwa Vedic Sanatan Sangh and Jitendra Singh, argued that the presence of these graves has transformed Tihar Jail into a “radical pilgrimage” site. According to them, extremist elements visit the graves to venerate the convicted terrorists, which undermines national security and public order.

They claimed this situation sanctifies terrorism and violates the principles of secularism and the rule of law enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Additionally, they cited violations of the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018, which govern prison premises.

### Health and Security Concerns Raised

The plea also highlighted potential health risks, asserting that burials within the prison compound pose a threat of infectious and hazardous diseases to inmates and staff.

### Background

Mohammad Maqbool Bhat was hanged at Tihar Jail on February 11, 1984, after being convicted for the murder of a policeman. His body was buried on the prison grounds.

Mohammad Afzal Guru, a key conspirator in the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament that resulted in nine deaths, was executed in February 2013 at Tihar Jail. His remains were also interred within the prison premises.

The Delhi High Court’s decision maintains the status quo, leaving the sensitive issue of terrorist graves within Tihar Jail in the hands of the authorities.
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/india/hc-dismisses-plea-to-remove-afzal-guru-s-grave-from-tihar/story

Challans there but no public toilets? Court pulls up NHAI

**Challans There but No Public Toilets? Court Pulls Up NHAI**

*By Chanshimla Varah | Sep 18, 2025, 06:11 PM*

The Kerala High Court has expressed strong criticism of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for failing to provide and maintain public toilet facilities along national highways.

### Public Inconvenience Highlighted

The remarks came during a hearing of an appeal from Kerala’s petroleum dealers association. The appeal challenged a single judge’s earlier order mandating petrol pumps on national highways to keep their washrooms open to the public at all times.

Justice Amit Rawal, one of the judges on the Division Bench, recounted his recent journey from Jodhpur to Ranthambore. He highlighted the absence of public toilets on that long highway stretch. “Recently, when I was traveling from Jodhpur to Ranthambore, we could not find a single public toilet on the NH. It is such a long stretch. We oversped and got four challans. So challans are there but no public toilet,” he remarked, emphasizing the inconvenience faced by travelers.

### International Comparison

Justice Rawal also compared the situation in India with that in other countries. He noted, “Basically, this is the duty of the NHAI. Frankly speaking, if you go any foreign country, after you cover a certain distance you will always find a convenience stop. [In India] Whatever National Highways toilets are there, they are not working. Nobody is there. Ultimately the entire brunt has fallen on them (petrol pump owners). This is very, very bad.”

### Modification of the Earlier Order

The Division Bench, comprising Justices Amit Rawal and PV Balakrishnan, modified the earlier directive. The revised order states that petrol pumps not located directly on national highways may decide at their discretion whether to allow public use of their toilet facilities. However, these toilets must remain accessible to customers and transit travelers.

For petrol pumps situated along national highways, the court stipulated that washrooms should be available to customers, transit travelers, and staff only during working hours.

The order underscores the pressing need for improved sanitation amenities on national highways, placing greater responsibility on the NHAI to ensure public convenience alongside law enforcement.
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/india/we-get-challans-but-no-public-toilets-court-to-nhai/story