Gavin Newsom face covering ban, US Attorney Bill Essayli directive, ICE agents mask rule, federal law enforcement masks, Constitution face mask law

BREAKING: Gavin Newsom’s new draconian law banning face coverings for ICE agents and federal law enforcement has NO EFFECT on the feds, per a new directive from US Attorney Bill Essayli.

You ever read the Constitution, @GavinNewsom? The masks STAY ON.

• YOU MAY ALSO LIKE TO WATCH THIS TRENDING STORY ON YOUTUBE.  Waverly Hills Hospital's Horror Story: The Most Haunted Room 502

“I’ve directed our… pic.twitter.com/wWkM9So61T

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 20, 2025

In a recent controversial move, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a new law banning face coverings for ICE agents and federal law enforcement. However, this law may have little to no effect on federal agents, according to a new directive from US Attorney Bill Essayli.

The directive, which was issued in response to Newsom’s law, clarifies that federal agents are not bound by state regulations when it comes to wearing face coverings. This move has sparked a heated debate on social media, with many questioning the legality and constitutionality of Newsom’s decision.

Eric Daugherty, a vocal critic of Newsom, took to Twitter to express his disbelief at the governor’s actions. In his tweet, Daugherty sarcastically asks Newsom if he has ever read the Constitution, implying that the federal government has the authority to override state laws in this matter.

The tweet includes a screenshot of a news article discussing the new directive from US Attorney Bill Essayli, which reaffirms the right of federal agents to wear face coverings despite Newsom’s ban. The article also includes a quote from Essayli, stating that he has directed federal agents to continue wearing masks in accordance with federal guidelines.

This latest development has highlighted the ongoing tensions between the state of California and the federal government, particularly in the realm of immigration enforcement. Newsom’s decision to ban face coverings for federal agents may be seen as a direct challenge to the trump administration’s immigration policies, which have been a point of contention between the state and federal government for years.

It remains to be seen how this conflict will play out in the coming weeks and months, but for now, it seems that federal agents will continue to wear face coverings despite Newsom’s attempts to restrict their use. This is just the latest chapter in the ongoing saga of the state-federal relationship in California, and it is likely that more conflicts will arise in the future as both sides continue to assert their respective authorities.

In a recent development, Gavin Newsom’s new law banning face coverings for ICE agents and federal law enforcement has hit a roadblock. According to a new directive from US Attorney Bill Essayli, this draconian measure will have no effect on federal agents. The masks are here to stay, regardless of Newsom’s intentions.

It’s almost comical to see such a clash between state and federal authorities. Newsom may need to brush up on his knowledge of the Constitution before attempting to challenge the feds on such matters. The directive from Essayli clearly states that federal agents will not be bound by California’s laws regarding face coverings. This raises questions about the extent of state authority over federal agencies operating within its borders.

The issue at hand is not just about face coverings, but about the balance of power between state and federal governments. The directive from Essayli highlights the supremacy of federal law in certain matters, especially when it comes to the functioning of federal agencies like ICE. Newsom’s attempt to limit the actions of federal agents within California may have unintended consequences and spark further legal challenges in the future.

It’s important to remember that the Constitution serves as the supreme law of the land, guiding the actions of both state and federal authorities. While states have the right to enact their own laws, they must operate within the boundaries set by the Constitution and federal laws. In this case, Essayli’s directive makes it clear that federal agents will not be hindered by California’s attempts to restrict their actions.

This clash between Newsom’s law and Essayli’s directive raises questions about the limits of state authority and the role of federal agencies in enforcing federal laws. It also highlights the importance of understanding the principles of federalism and the division of powers between state and federal governments. As the legal battle unfolds, it will be interesting to see how this issue is resolved and what implications it may have for future interactions between state and federal authorities.

In conclusion, the masks will indeed stay on for federal agents in California, despite Newsom’s efforts to enforce his new law. The directive from Essayli serves as a reminder of the supremacy of federal law and the limits of state authority over federal agencies. This clash between state and federal powers underscores the complexities of our system of government and the need for a clear understanding of the Constitution’s role in guiding these interactions.

Gavin Newsom face mask ban, Federal law enforcement face coverings, US Attorney Bill Essayli directive, Constitution and face masks, ICE agents and masks, Federal law enforcement directive, Face coverings for federal agents, Gavin Newsom mask mandate, US Attorney Bill Essayli ruling, Constitutionality of face mask ban, ICE agents and face coverings, Federal law enforcement directive on masks, Gavin Newsom face covering ban, US Attorney directive on masks, Constitution and face coverings, ICE agents mask mandate, Federal law enforcement face mask ruling, Gavin Newsom’s face mask law, US Attorney Bill Essayli and face masks.