Update: ACLU, advocacy groups denounce Modesto’s mask rule. City responds
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Advocacy groups urge Modesto to repeal mask ban over civil rights concerns.
- Protesters arrested under ordinance allege selective enforcement and rights violations.
- City Council and review board plan to revisit ordinance amid growing public pressure.
Civil rights and free speech advocacy groups have called on the Modesto City Council to repeal or amend an ordinance that bans wearing face coverings at public demonstrations.
In a letter to the city, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California urged officials to drop the charges against those arrested in June under the ordinance. The ordinance was used to arrest five people during the “ICE Out of Modesto” rally June 14, organized by the Central Valley BIPOC Coalition and Valley Improvement Projects.
The ACLU threatened litigation if no action is taken.
“We organized a peaceful protest to call out ICE’s harm to immigrant communities, and instead of being heard, we were criminalized,” said Bianca Lopez of VIP in a statement. “This is targeted policing, plain and simple.”
In a letter sent Friday, the ACLU argues that Modesto’s mask ban is unconstitutionally “vague and overbroad,” violating state and federal protections for free speech, privacy, disability rights and religious freedom. The letter also claims that officers enforced the ban during the protest in a “disparate and viewpoint-discriminatory manner,” raising additional constitutional concerns.
In a statement to The Bee, Modesto City Councilmember Chris Ricci, who spoke at the No Kings protest the same day as the ICE Out one, said that while he appreciates the ACLU’s analysis, he disagrees with its demand to bypass the Community Police Review Board and its process, which “the city spent years putting into place.”
“I have faith in Modesto’s [Community Police Review Board] to provide guidance that addresses the safety concerns held by the city and the Modesto Police Department while balancing that with the civil liberty issues that were brought up by Modesto residents,” Ricci stated. “The board deserves the opportunity to analyze both sides of the issue.”
At last week’s CPRB meeting, a few members expressed interest in revisiting the ordinance. Board member Wendy Byrd said her subcommittee recommended that the board send a letter to the City Council urging an amendment to the mask ban. She also voiced support for dropping the charges against everyone who was arrested.
A statement from the city to the Bee said it’s reviewing the letters and appreciates CPRB’s thoughtful review on the matter.
“The City of Modesto firmly believes that peaceful demonstrations are part of a healthy community. The City is committed to ensuring the safe exercise of constitutionally protected rights. Through public safety measures, the City respects and helps facilitate lawful protests, while protecting the lives, property, and the well-being of the entire community,” reads the statement.
What does the ordinance prohibit?
The Modesto Municipal Code prohibits 19 items at “demonstrations, rallies, protests, counterprotests, picket lines, marches or public assemblies.” The list includes glass bottles, helmets, baseball bats and masks — “except for coverings worn due to religious beliefs, practices or observances, or due to medical necessity.”
The city adopted the ordinance in 2019 at the request of the Police Department ahead of a planned straight-pride rally. In 2021, the City Council expanded the list to include metal containers, gas masks and riot gear.
The ACLU criticized several of the banned items, arguing that many are “regular, everyday things commonly present at protests and assemblies throughout the nation and do not pose any particular or heightened risks.” These include metal water bottles and “umbrellas in the absence of rain.”
The letter also argues that forcing protesters to reveal their identities has a chilling effect on free expression. People who challenge policies that harm vulnerable communities or voice unpopular opinions often wear masks because they are especially vulnerable to retaliation, the ACLU wrote.
The letter further criticizes the ordinance’s vagueness, saying it grants “unbridled discretion” that can lead to discriminatory enforcement. At last week’s CPRB meeting, Police Chief Brandon Gillespie presented on how his department enforced the ordinance during the protest and acknowledged that officers had to exercise discretion in applying it.
“Anyone wearing a mask for any reason could be subject to Police Chief Brandon Gillespie’s proffered approach of arrest first, then let a judge or jury determine the sincerity of one’s religious beliefs or the necessity of one’s medical condition,” the letter reads.
Pursuing misdemeanor trials wastes time and taxpayer money while disrupting the lives of peaceful protesters exercising their right to free speech, the letter states.
The ACLU also notes that the ordinance was enforced inconsistently at the two June 14 protests — the ICE Out rally at Tenth Street Plaza and the No Kings protest at Graceada Park. Protesters at both events wore masks, yet law enforcement arrested only participants from the ICE Out rally, which was predominantly attended by people of color. The No Kings protest reportedly drew mostly white participants.
Gillespie, during his presentation, had pointed out the differing mindsets between the two protests, stating that the organizers of the ICE Out protest encouraged people to stay anonymous whereas the No Kings protest organizers did not.
“When a law lacks clear standards, it delegates unchecked discretion to law enforcement, increasing the likelihood that enforcement will reflect existing societal biases rather than neutral application,” reads the letter.
Although the ordinance permits masks for medical reasons, it still chills the free speech rights of immunocompromised individuals and people with disabilities, the letter argues. It also calls the exceptions for religious and medical reasons “vague and unworkable.”
According to those arrested, officers never asked whether their masks were worn for religious, medical or other protected reasons.
Concerns for the press
On Monday, a separate letter was sent to the City Council on behalf of the First Amendment Coalition, the Society of Professional Journalists Northern California chapter and the Pacific Media Workers Guild-CWA Local 39521, raising concerns about the ordinance’s impact on lawful newsgathering.
“The ordinance’s broad provisions prohibit anyone, including journalists, from possessing pieces of safety gear while covering public demonstrations. This puts journalists at risk while doing the job of keeping communities informed about important events in the city,” the letter states.
The letter urges the council to repeal or amend the ordinance as soon as possible and to “commit to not enforcing it against any journalist or other person engaged in lawful activity at any protest, march or public demonstration.”
Several of the prohibited items listed in the ordinance, like protective vests and helmets, are pieces of gear that journalists often rely on to reduce risk while covering protests, the letter argues.
These concerns were also echoed in the ACLU letter, which noted that members of the press often wear such protective gear to stay safe while covering protests, yet the ordinance “prohibits each and every one of these important pieces of safety gear.”
The ordinance has faced increased scrutiny since the June 14 protests, with discussions at the last two Community Police Review Board and City Council meetings. Organizers, community members, and legal advocates planned to attend the Modesto City Council meeting on Tuesday to demand the ordinance’s repeal and the dismissal of all charges against protesters.
This story was originally published July 21, 2025 at 4:00 PM.
