DOJ Sues St. Paul, Portland: Federal Officer Ordinances Challenged

• The Justice Department has filed lawsuits against St. Paul, Minnesota, and Portland, Oregon, to block local ordinances regulating federal law enforcement.
• The ordinances prohibit federal officers from wearing masks and require visible identification while on duty.
• The federal government argues these local laws violate the Supremacy Clause and principles of intergovernmental immunity.
• A recent Ninth Circuit ruling struck down a similar California law requiring federal officers to wear visible identification.
• The DOJ asserts that the federal government, not local authorities, determines the equipment federal officers use, citing officer safety concerns from doxxing and threats.

The federal government's legal challenge is rooted in the argument that these local ordinances violate the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause and established principles of intergovernmental immunity.

The U.S. Department of Justice initiated legal action on Thursday against the cities of St. Paul, Minnesota, and Portland, Oregon, seeking to invalidate local ordinances that aim to regulate federal law enforcement officers. These lawsuits contend that the city-level regulations represent unconstitutional attempts to control federal operations.

Specifically, the ordinances in question prohibit federal officers from wearing masks while on duty and mandate that they visibly display identification. While both cities enacted similar measures, St. Paul's officials actively encouraged their council members to pass these restrictions. In contrast, Portland's city attorney and mayor had previously cautioned the city council that their proposed ordinance was likely unconstitutional, citing existing Ninth Circuit precedent. Despite these warnings, Portland's council members proceeded with the ordinance, with Councilmember Angelita Morillo stating in a May meeting that "People must push the limits" to achieve progress.

The federal government's legal challenge is rooted in the argument that these local ordinances violate the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause and established principles of intergovernmental immunity. Intergovernmental immunity serves to prevent state and local governments from regulating or imposing penalties on the federal government and its personnel. Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate emphasized that these local laws directly regulate federal law enforcement operations, posing significant threats to both officers and public safety. Shumate further clarified that the authority to determine what equipment federal officers use during their official duties rests with the federal government, not with state or local entities.

This legal action follows a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which on Wednesday struck down California's "No Vigilantes Act" as unconstitutional. That act had similarly sought to compel federal law enforcement officers to wear visible identification while performing their duties. The Justice Department's complaints in both the St. Paul and Portland cases urge the courts to join the increasing number of judicial bodies that have invalidated and enjoined comparable state and local laws attempting to regulate federal law enforcement.

The two cities have adopted different approaches to enforcing their respective ordinances. St. Paul's regulations classify noncompliance as a criminal misdemeanor, carrying potential penalties of fines, imprisonment, or both. Portland, however, relies on civil processes, authorizing the city to pursue civil lawsuits to obtain injunctions that would compel adherence to its rules.

Officials in Minnesota, particularly in the aftermath of Operation Metro Surge, have consistently voiced concerns that masked, unidentified federal agents operating in public spaces pose a danger to citizens, who may struggle to distinguish between legitimate federal officers and potential criminals. Other Democrat-led jurisdictions have echoed these arguments against allowing masked federal agents to conduct operations. Conversely, the federal government asserts that its agencies require operational flexibility to safeguard agents and their families from doxxing, harassment, and threats, noting a substantial rise in threats against federal agents in Minnesota this year. The government's complaint in Minnesota highlights that law enforcement, already a dangerous profession, has become even more so, underscoring the importance of protecting the personal identities of federal officers for their safety and that of their families.

Lawyers advising municipalities must be aware of the strong federal precedent, reinforced by this DOJ action and recent Ninth Circuit ruling, against local ordinances attempting to regulate federal law enforcement operations, particularly regarding officer identification and equipment. Cities considering similar regulations should anticipate legal challenges based on the Supremacy Clause and intergovernmental immunity.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service