A new memo from the Alaska Legislature’s legal services division raises serious constitutional issues with a bill aimed at imposing criminal penalties on law enforcement officers who wear face masks while performing their duties.
Sponsored by Juneau Democrat Rep. Sara Hannan, House Bill 250 has already sparked heated debate, including adamant opposition by Anchorage Police Chief Sean Case, who testified against the measure.
HB 250 would make it a Class B misdemeanor for officers to conceal their faces in public while on duty, with narrow exceptions for undercover work, transparent shields, limited medical masks or smoke protection.
The bill is part of a larger push in some Democratic-led states, where left-leaning lawmakers have sponsored similar bills. Those who oppose federal immigration enforcement tactics are largely behind the mask-banning efforts.
“In addition to raising potential supremacy clause issues with application to federal officers, this offense may also violate the separation of powers doctrine,” the memo notes.
Late last week, however, a legal analysis of the Alaska bill focused on its use of the term “peace officer.” Under state law, this would refer to “a public servant vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests,” the legislative legal memo explains.
Since this definition would apply to local, state, and federal officers, the proposed law “may therefore raise supremacy clause and separation of powers issues,” the memo notes.
“The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits a state legislature from enacting legislation that preempts federal law,” the memo adds. “Federal law preempts state law where the two conflict.”
It goes on to note that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously held that under the Supremacy Clause, state laws that conflict with federal law are “without effect.”
“If challenged and a court found that HB 250 conflicted with executive or administrative orders, or directly regulated the conduct of federal officials, it would violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,” the memo explains.
A footnote highlights that a similar California state law sought to ban masking of local and federal officials. It was set to take effect on January 1, 2026, but the U.S. Department of Justice brought suit for injunctive relief, arguing the law violated the Supremacy Clause. A California U.S. District Court imposed a preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of the mask ban against federal law enforcement officers.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
“In addition to raising potential supremacy clause issues with application to federal officers, this offense may also violate the separation of powers doctrine,” the memo adds. “Although the legislature has the ability to create offenses, it is generally limited by the separation of powers doctrine in its ability to direct the executive branch to require specific police officer action, create law enforcement policy, or how to exercise prosecutorial discretion with respect to that law.”
The memo concludes by noting that while the Alaska Legislature has set policy relating to peace officer training requirements, and has enacted other criminal provisions relating to peace officers under the general principles of justification, lawmakers have never “specifically enacted a criminal offense relating to the conduct of peace officers alone.”
“If this offense were challenged as a separation of powers violation, with the executive branch arguing this offense was enacted as a method by which the legislature is attempting to control peace officer policy and require specific peace officer action, a court may find this violates separation of powers provision under the Alaska Constitution,” the memo cautions.
15 Comments
Sorry, this sorry society tried to force me to wear a mask just to walk around in public. If authorized by their departments, police have a legitimate reason to wear them if they so choose, especially since criminals are free to do so and openly threaten police, so no foul.
So you hated being told to wear a mask during the pandemic, therefore we should put up with ANYONE who shows up in tactical gear and a masked identity? BRILLIANT logic.
It doesn’t matter if the terrorist arrives in drag, tactical gear, yuppie loafers, or “peaceful protest” sandwich signs. If I have to put up with somebody else’s terrorist, who enforces stupidity, they have to put up with mine, who enforces longstanding law. That isn’t brilliance. It’s the logical journey of a dying civilization. Welcome to The Machine, Paul.
Paul, I think you know exactly why these law enforcement personnel want/need to protect their identity. If these paid peaceful protesters would protest peacefully we would never have arrived at the point where law enforcement need to protect their identity, in order to protect their families.
There is a big difference in being “told- forced” to wear a mask in public, and “choosing” to wear a mask.
This woman, Democrat Rep. Sara Hannan needs to either move to a solid Blue state, or be run out of office!
This is the sorriest bill put to the legislature yet. Too bad she didn’t think of that when Covid was a problem. It was just the opposite. Sorry bill for a pathetic person!
When will maccabe consult AI and copy and paste the results on this subject?
McCabe didn’t write this article, so what are you blathering about?
This is typical of a Person that has not the first clue what people sacrifice to protect the likes of of these Leftist that do not live in the real world. She is not educated in Law enforcement and the operations that take place. She should resign a disgrace.
Dunleavy, Crum, and zinc should be cornered on this for comments! Instead our pathetic incompetent journalist/ media will look for another shiny object (maccabe are you listening) to blather on about!!!
How about a law that says protesters can’t be masked? The vast majority of leftist protesters who engage in violence are masked. Maybe we need to unmask THOSE people and make THEIR identities known to the public!
Oh BS M. Grab a Coors Lite and review footage. Count the masks of citizens v government thugs.
Here! Here! (said while pounding on table as our Founding Fathers often did)
I don’t like the fact that anybody is wearing a mask. Transparency needs to be important especially with government. If someone harms an Ice agent or family then the full extent of the law needs to be dealt. We keep limiting the freedoms of citizens by making things safe when instead we need to bring justice to the criminals.