Oregon Bill Would Bar Masked Officers and Require Identification Amid Concerns Over Federal Arrest Tactics

Oregon lawmakers are considering a bill that will criminalize state and federal law enforcement officers who wear face masks and fail to carry identification.

House Bill 4138 will criminalize any officer who refuses to identify the agency he/she works for and calls on them to stop wearing face coverings.

 

Lawmakers Hope That New Legislation Will End the Upheaval Caused to Immigrant Communities

Lawmakers are hopeful that this strategy will put an end to the upheaval caused to immigrant communities whose family members have been arrested by masked and unidentifiable men on allegations that they are living in the United States illegally.

There are two proposals under consideration during the current short legislative session.

House Bill 4138, and Senate Joint Resolution 203, that calls for Oregonians to vote to approve a change to the state constitution, enforcing the stipulations carried in HB 4138.


Topic

HB 4138

SJR 203
What it isStatutory rules for visible ID, face coverings, and related enforcementConstitutional amendment referral to voters at the next regular general election
Visible IDRequires agencies to post a public policy and requires officers to visibly display agency plus name and or badge numberWould require official uniform that conspicuously displays agency name and badge number
Face coveringsProhibits facial coverings that conceal facial identity while performing official duties, with listed exceptionsWould prohibit masking while performing official duties, with exceptions
ExceptionsUndercover work, SWAT duties, and safety gear like medical masks, respirators, helmets, fire helmets in arson investigations, and protective eyewearUndercover operations or responding as part of a SWAT team
Penalty hookCreates a Class A violation for misrepresenting or refusing to identify the agency (max fine listed as 2,000 dollars)Resolution text sets the constitutional rule but does not create a new statutory offense
TimingDeclares an emergency and phases in key operative dates at 120 days after the effective dateGoes to voters at the next regular general election if it passes the Legislature

 

It is Not Clear if U.S. State Laws Can Supersede Federal Laws

If passed, both pieces of legislation will apply to local, state, and federal officers. However, it is unclear if Oregon can enforce a state law on federal law enforcement officers.

The gray area is already being tested in California, where earlier this week a federal judge struck down a state law prohibiting federal agents from wearing masks.

Tidings Data Snapshot
California ruling on masks and visible ID
2
Key provisions at issue: mask restriction and visible ID requirement
1
Mask restriction blocked for federal officers under Supremacy Clause reasoning
Feb 19, 2026
Visible ID rule upheld and set to take effect
Sep 2025
California law signed, then challenged by the U.S. Justice Department

Source: Associated Press and Reuters coverage of the California federal court ruling on mask restrictions and visible ID requirements
Dailytidings.com

However, the same judge upheld another state law that requires agents to display identification.

The issue of ICE agents arresting immigrants while masked and without identification has been referred to as “terrorizing communities rather than protecting them” by the Attorneys General from Michigan and New York in a letter to Congress last July.

The issue integral to state versus federal constitutions is the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which states that federal laws take precedence over state laws when in conflict.

The Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee took testimony on Wednesday, with the majority supporting the proposed legislation. Voting on Senate Joint Resolution 203 is scheduled for next week, while voting on HB 4138 will take place on February 16.

Oregon lawmakers cite ICE agents who arrest people without obtaining a warrant. They believe the state needs stricter transparency and accountability rules for federal enforcement operations.

Their concerns were upheld when U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhal issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit challenging an “arrest first, justify later” approach to law enforcement.

Morning Brief Newsletter
Sign up today for our daily newsletter, a quick overview of top local stories and Oregon breaking news delivered straight to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe at any time. We do not share your information with third parties, and we will only send our daily newsletter.
Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.