During immigration enforcement surge, St. Paul Council introduces ordinance barring officer face coverings

Mara H. Gottfried, Pioneer Press on Feb 4, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

With many federal officers wearing face coverings during an immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota, the St. Paul City Council on Wednesday introduced an ordinance requiring law enforcement to be unmasked.

The city council has said they’re taking a phased approached to introducing a series of ordinances in response to the enforcement, and Wednesday’s was the third brought forward in as many weeks.

The city council discussion began after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation on Nov. 25 on Rose Avenue near Payne Avenue. St. Paul police said they were called to assist as protesters gathered. They used chemical irritants and less-lethal munitions, which drew criticism from all city council members and community members.

Since then, “federal immigration enforcement tactics have changed rapidly,” the city council said in a statement on Jan. 21. “As a result, residents and the City cannot wait for a single comprehensive update to the City’s existing separation ordinance. … The Council’s phased approach allows swifter action while providing stronger legal protection for ordinance changes.”

The city council unanimously approved on Wednesday an ordinance introduced on Jan. 21 to prohibit law enforcement from staging on city-owned property for federal immigration enforcement and to limit access to non-public spaces. It will take effect 30 days after publication.

Face masking, identification

An ordinance introduced by the council last week would require law enforcement officers to have the name of their law enforcement agency on the outermost layer of their uniform. It would also require either a name or badge number, or both, on the uniform.

Another ordinance brought forward Wednesday by the city council says a law enforcement officer “shall not wear a face covering … that conceals or obscures their facial identity in the performance of law enforcement duties.” There will be a public hearing on the matter during the city council’s meeting next Wednesday and the council will likely vote on it Feb. 18.

The city council says in the proposed ordinance that “the routine and ubiquitous use of facial coverings by law enforcement officers has a significant and unquestioned impact on public safety, including: implications for public perception, officer-community interactions, and accountability, and increases the risk of impersonation by unauthorized individuals.”

There are exemptions in the masking and identification requirements for undercover operations and, in the face-covering ordinance, when “protective gear is required for physical safety.”

California passed laws last year that ban federal law enforcement from wearing masks and require visible identification, which led to the U.S. Justice Department to file a federal lawsuit.

“Law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to keep Americans safe, and they do not deserve to be doxed or harassed simply for carrying out their duties,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement in November.

St. Paul City Council Member Anika Bowie said Wednesday she’s aware of legal challenges that masking bans have faced.

“But I think the biggest risk right now is making sure that our neighbors feel safe,” she said, adding they’re not tolerating “anyone to come into our neighborhoods and not show their face.”

Separation ordinance not yet taken up

The new ordinances introduced in St. Paul have not been part of the city’s separation ordinance, which was enacted in 2004 and “establishes a clear line of separation between the actions of local law enforcement and those of federal immigration authorities.”

The city council said in its statement last month that it would consider “key updates” to the city’s separation ordinance at the Feb. 4 meeting, but they did not come up Wednesday.

City Council President Rebecca Noecker said the issue has been that the U.S. Department of Justice in September filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Minnesota, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Hennepin County and the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office over so-called “sanctuary city” policies that it alleges interfere with federal immigration enforcement. The lawsuit is ongoing.

“What we are trying to do is find a way to strengthen it without endangering it wholesale,” Noecker said. “The concern from our attorneys is that any changes open us up to legal risk in that lawsuit.”

The council said in its statement last month that it would consider updates to its separation ordinance, including strengthening training and reporting requirements related to the ordinance; clarifying that the city’s policy is to not assist ICE or employ crowd control tactics during ICE operations; and clarifying that nothing in the ordinance prevents public safety officials from responding to calls for aid from St. Paul residents in the presence of ICE.

_____