Denver mask ban drew a federal suit after courts blocked 4 similar laws

By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Denver on Thursday over the ordinance barring law enforcement officers from wearing masks and requiring them to display identification, saying the city has no authority to tell federal agents how to do their jobs.

The suit names the city, Mayor Mike Johnston, City Attorney Miko Brown and Police Chief Ron Thomas, the three officials in their official capacities.

Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said the federal government “gets to decide which equipment federal officers may or may not wear.” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said states and localities do not have the authority to regulate the federal government.

Both counts in the 20-page complaint are pleaded as unlawful regulation of the federal government, not discrimination against it. Under that theory, drawn from the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in United States v. Washington, a local government cannot, absent congressional authorization, regulate the United States directly, whether or not it also regulates itself.

Denver can police Denver police. The Supremacy Clause is what stops the rest.

The city’s answer to that came in March. Johnston’s office told The Center Square the ordinance applies to local, state and federal officers rather than being tailored toward the federal government. The ordinance does say that.

Its operative section reaches “law enforcement personnel,” a defined term covering city police, sheriffs, State Patrol troopers, Colorado Bureau of Investigation agents and federal officers alike.

That is not an answer to the claim the government brought. Neutral or not, a city cannot attach criminal penalties to the way a federal officer carries out a federal duty.

What the ordinance says

Council Bill 26-0125 passed 12-0 on March 2, with Councilwoman Sarah Parady absent.

Councilwomen Flor Alvidrez and Shontel Lewis sponsored it. Johnston signed it the next day. It filled a reserved article in the city’s human rights chapter, sections 28-300 through 28-303.

Officers may not wear a facial covering while interrogating, detaining or arresting someone. Inside a city facility, they may not wear one to conceal their identity. Six situations are exempted, among them undercover work, tactical operations, SWAT and the Emergency Response Unit.

Uniformed officers must display a name, badge or identification number, legible in daylight and low light, on the outermost garment and not blocked by body armor or gear.

Officers who are not uniformed must, on request while performing enforcement duties, provide their agency and either a name or badge number. The ordinance puts no limit on who can ask.

The article sets no penalty of its own. Because it declares conduct unlawful without setting a punishment, a violation falls to Denver’s general penalty provision, which allows a fine of up to $999, up to 300 days in jail, or both. Continuing violations can be charged one per day.

The courts moved first

Every one of the four measures named in the complaint has been blocked.

Denver voted March 2. Eleven days earlier, the Ninth Circuit had temporarily barred California from enforcing its identification law against federal officers, and the day after the Denver vote that court heard argument on whether to extend the order. The court extended it April 22, holding the government likely to succeed on its claim that the provision directly regulates the United States in performing governmental functions.

Philadelphia’s ordinance was blocked July 2, New York’s Aug. 3 and Virginia’s Aug. 18, according to the complaint. Milwaukee was sued July 23 over its own mask and identification ordinance.

The Department of Homeland Security said the day after Denver’s vote that it would not comply. Justice calls the Denver suit the latest in a series against state and local policies it says obstruct federal law enforcement, naming eight other jurisdictions.

The record the government is using

The complaint recounts what Denver officials said while the ordinance moved.

At a Jan. 12 presentation to the council’s Budget and Policy Committee, Alvidrez and Lewis put up a slide headed “The Problem.” Its first line said federal agents operating in Denver had increasingly worn opaque face coverings that obscure identity during arrests and detentions. The next slide said lack of identification makes it difficult for residents to verify authority and allows “imposters” to pretend to be enforcement.

The photograph the sponsors used shows an officer in a plate carrier marked POLICE, with a badge reading ICE OFFICER and a Department of Homeland Security seal on his jacket. A flag-patterned gaiter covers his mouth and nose. His eyes and the upper half of his face are visible.

Slide 3 of the “Federal Law Enforcement Masking Policy” presentation Councilwomen Flor Alvidrez and Shontel Lewis gave to Denver City Council’s Budget and Policy Committee on Jan. 12, 2026. The slide credits the photograph to Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer.
(Screenshot, Denver Legistar File 26-0012)

The slide credits the image to the Minnesota Reformer, not to anything photographed in Denver.

The complaint says that on the floor March 2, Lewis described the ordinance as preparation for when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrive, and that Alvidrez framed it as helping people tell masked federal agents from other masked individuals. It says Councilwoman Jamie Torres voted for it while acknowledging immigration is a federal issue, and quotes Councilman Paul Kashmann, who also voted yes, saying he would not open his door to a masked person whatever the clothing said.

The government reaches back further, to a November 2024 interview in which Johnston said resistance to federal immigration operations would look like a Tiananmen Square moment. That remark came 15 months before the vote.

The safety argument

Much of the filing argues that compliance would expose officers to doxxing and harassment, and that masking defeats facial-recognition searches run by people trying to identify them.

The complaint says an ICE deportation officer and his wife were doxxed in the Denver area on Jan. 14, with a photograph of the family’s home posted online, and that officers from ICE’s Durango sub-office had their images posted to Instagram on Sept. 22. Both accounts are allegations by the United States.

The sponsors took the opposite position in January. Their presentation called masking an intimidation tactic rather than a safety measure, and displayed a line from a federal judge’s September 2025 ruling in an unrelated case that read, “ICE goes masked for a single reason – to terrorize Americans into quiescence.”

Alvidrez responds

Alvidrez, one of the ordinance’s two sponsors, said in a statement to RMV that she stands behind the public safety concerns that led to the measure.

“In Denver, we believe one standard for every badge is best practice,” she said. “The rules should apply equally to Denver police officers, sheriff’s deputies, state troopers, and federal agents. Our ask is simple: during an arrest or detention, show your face and identify yourself by name or badge number.”

She said residents should not have to wonder whether someone concealing their face is a legitimate federal officer or an individual impersonating law enforcement.

On the lawsuit itself, Alvidrez did not argue the ordinance is constitutional.

“I respect the role of the courts in resolving constitutional questions, but I also believe local elected officials have a responsibility to respond when residents raise concerns about their safety,” she said. “That is the responsibility I was carrying out when I helped introduce this legislation.”

She rejected the framing that the ordinance trades officer safety for public safety. “Protecting the public and protecting the safety of law enforcement officers are both important,” she said. “They should not be treated as mutually exclusive.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado declined to comment. The city attorney’s office, the mayor’s office, the Denver Police Department and Councilwoman Shontel Lewis did not respond to requests for comment.

Updated Oct. 9 with a statement from Councilwoman Flor Alvidrez.