ACLU requests halt to Modesto’s mask ordinance as case moves to federal court
The legal battle over Modesto’s ban on masks at protests moved to the federal stage as the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California filed a 35-page motion for a preliminary injunction to freeze enforcement of the ordinance.
If the ACLU’s injunction is granted, Modesto police will not arrest masked protestors until a judge makes a decision on whether the law is a public safety tool or a constitutional violation.
The city requested in April that the case be moved from Stanislaus County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. It would not respond to The Bee’s request for comment due to the pending litigation.
According to the ACLU’s motion, the mask ordinance came together “hastily over a few weeks” after a local Proud Boys member applied for a permit to host a straight pride event in Modesto.
Under the ordinance, bringing items such as a bike helmet, wearing a bandana or carrying protective gear like a padded vest or gas mask to a protest can be classified as a misdemeanor.
Although protests with masked individuals followed, no one was arrested under the ordinance until June 2025 during an ICE Out rally, which the filing states included mostly people of color and led to selective enforcement.
Modesto police had prepared for the protest by installing a camera at the Tenth Street Plaza location and by 17 deploying aerial drones to watch the protesters.
In an email to the City Council and staff, Police Chief Brandon Gillespie stated the arrests were made “early and intentionally to remove agitators who showed clear intent to not follow the law and potentially disrupt an otherwise lawful and peaceful gathering.”
Although the charges later were dropped, community members continued to press the City Council to repeal the ban, citing the right to protest anonymously and raising concerns about mass surveillance, doxxing and retaliation.
The city’s Community Police Review Board formally recommended that the city manager repeal the ordinance. A community survey showed a majority of residents supported the ordinance, though more than half were unaware of it.
The ACLU and First Amendment Coalition also sent multiple letters to the city, calling the ordinance “unconstitutionally vague” and threatening legal action if it was not amended or repealed. In December, the City Council finally amended the ordinance with some slight revisions.
The updates clarified the exceptions to the face-covering ban, which include costumes with “an expressive message,” specified which types of helmets are barred and outlined when umbrellas are allowed at demonstrations. That means a person wearing a bandana at a protest would be violating the ordinance, but not someone wearing an inflatable frog suit concealing their full identity.
The ACLU said the changes made the ordinance worse and, as promised, it filed its lawsuit in March against the city and Gillespie.
“This case raises important issues about how people exercise their First Amendment freedoms and the ACLU will show up in whatever court needed to protect these rights,” stated Chessie Thacher, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California.
What does the filing argue?
Plaintiff Angel Flores was the person first to be arrested on June 14 for wearing a gaiter mask with a skeleton design. He was held in custody for almost 12 hours.
According to the filing, he regularly wears a gaiter mask to regulate his breathing and control his anxiety.
“It was traumatizing and still causes Flores anxiety and night terrors,” the filing reads. “He now fears protesting, especially because it is unclear if his gaiter — with a skeleton and worn to address anxiety — would be treated as a costume, a medical exemption, or cause for arrest.”
Plaintiffs Julissa Ruiz Ramirez and Alyssa Leiva, who are members of the Central Valley Black Indigenous People of Color Coalition, wear masks and keffiyehs to protests to show support for Palestine but also to protect their identities. Both have been subject to doxxing and harassment for their activism.
But now, the ordinance has caused them to draw back from their activities altogether.
“They are concerned about Modesto’s uneven enforcement, and though they wish to protest and organize, the Ordinance makes them reluctant to do so,” the filing states.
Another plaintiff, an immigrant from Saudi Arabia, chooses to protest anonymously out of fear that pro-Palestine speech will make them a target by their home country’s government.
Mask wearing in and of itself is a form of protest — such as wearing a keffiyeh or a bandana of cultural significance, the filing argues.
The motion also states that the ordinance is “content based” because it reflects a “profound animus towards individuals whom the City regards to be Proud Boys or Antifa.”
While balaclavas and ski masks are banned, full-body costumes and rainbow masks are permitted — suggesting Modesto is “motivated to pick speakers on the basis of ‘ideology’ and ‘opinion or perspective.’” This, the filing alleges, violates due-process equal protection by allowing coverings for entertainment purposes but not political speech.
The ban on industry-recommended protective gear like helmets and goggles also prevents journalists from safely covering protests where so-called less-lethal weapons are deployed, the motion argues. It has made journalists have to rethink the way they cover protests or if they cover them at all.
Independent photojournalist Jake Lee Green was injured while covering the straight pride protest in Modesto in 2022. “Although he identified himself as press, Green was not wearing safety gear at the time due to the Ordinance,” states the filing.
This story was originally published May 15, 2026 at 2:58 PM.
