Modesto will temporarily stop enforcing mask-ban ordinance at protests, judge rules
.jpg "The Robert T. Matsui Federal Courthouse in Sacramento serves as the headquarters of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California.")
A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked Modesto from enforcing its ordinance that includes a ban on masks at protests.
U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez granted a preliminary injunction requested by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, freezing the ordinance until a final decision on the case is reached. He also denied the city’s request for a stay, which would have paused the court order pending an appeal.
Mendez found that the law isn’t “narrowly tailored” and that a blanket ban on masks isn’t a solution to public safety. He picked apart the ordinance’s exemptions to face-obscuring costumes, suggesting a violent agitator could bypass it entirely just by wearing a frog costume.
The city has an opportunity to appeal the order to the Ninth Circuit or continue litigating the case while the ordinance is enjoined.
In a statement, Modesto said it is disappointed by the ruling and will evaluate all options moving forward.
“The City Council enacted these regulations to keep protests peaceful and safe for everyone, including families, journalists, small businesses, all individuals wishing to exercise their First Amendment rights, and officers alike,” city spokesperson Sonya Severo said. “The ordinance has worked as demonstrated at the June 2026 No Kings protest where over 1,000 protesters safely exercised their First Amendment rights.”
The ACLU sued Modesto and Police Chief Brandon Gillespie in March after the city failed to repeal the ordinance. It requested a preliminary injunction in May as the case moved from Stanislaus County Superior Court to federal court.
“As good faith as an effort the city made to protect public safety in Modesto, the ordinance actually has real harms among people in Modesto,” said ACLU attorney Chessie Thacher outside the courthouse.
Thacher is the leading attorney representing the Pacific Media Workers Guild and three plaintiffs. She argued that the ordinance has a chilling effect on protesting and harms newsgathering through its ban, which also includes protective gear.
The Pacific Media Workers Guild represents more than 1,000 newspaper, language and communications workers across Northern California, the Central Valley and Hawaii, including reporters at The Modesto Bee. McClatchy Media, the parent company of The Bee, also signed onto an amicus brief for the case.
Attorney Deborah Fox of the law firm Meyers Nave is representing Modesto. Meyers Nave had drafted the public assembly ordinance over which the city is now being sued.
City Manager Joe Lopez, City Attorney Jose Sanchez and Gillespie were among those present in the courtroom Tuesday afternoon. Community members, including those from the Central Valley Black Indigenous People of Color Coalition, packed the other side of the aisle.
Learkana Chong, a member of CVBIPOCC, drove from Modesto to attend the hearing. Ever since five protesters were arrested for wearing masks last summer, she has felt hesitant to plan large-scale demonstrations.
“It is chilling my ability to really be out in the streets in the way that I used to be,” Chong said.
What does the ordinance say?
Besides wearing masks, bringing items such as a bike helmet or carrying protective gear like a padded vest or gas mask to a protest can be classified as a misdemeanor under the city ordinance.
The city passed the ordinance in 2019, but it was not enforced until June 2025 during an ICE Out rally organized by CVBIPOCC.
Charges were dropped, but community members continued to demand a repeal of the ban, citing concerns about mass surveillance, doxxing and retaliation. They also claimed officers enforced the ordinance selectively by targeting only those at the first demonstration, where there were more people of color than at the subsequent No Kings protest.
At the same time, the ACLU and First Amendment Coalition sent multiple letters to the city, calling the ordinance “unconstitutionally vague” and threatening legal action if it was not amended or repealed.
Eventually, the city’s Community Police Review Board formally recommended that the city manager repeal the ordinance.
In December, the City Council finally updated the ordinance with some slight revisions. The changes 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.
The ACLU said the changes made the ordinance worse and filed its lawsuit three months later.
Since last June, Modesto has continued to see protests, both big and small. No individuals have been arrested for wearing masks at a protest since June 14, 2025.
Judge scrutinizes ordinance
During the hearing, Judge Mendez questioned whether a preliminary injunction is necessary at this point, asking if there are any planned protests coming up in Modesto.
Thacher said it’s a chicken-or-egg scenario because the plaintiffs claim the ordinance is chilling their ability to organize or participate in protests.
“Enforcement is much more than just an arrest under the ordinance,” Thacher said. “Enforcement is the promise of arrest if you do ‘x.’”
Mendez was less convinced by the ACLU’s argument that journalists are entitled to protective gear under a state statute regarding media access during protests. He said the ACLU was overreaching there.
Turning to the city, the judge asked how the ordinance supports public safety and why no one was arrested at the No Kings protest that followed the ICE Out rally last June.
Fox explained that the ordinance stems from the city’s lived experience of violence from groups such as Antifa and the Proud Boys, who often sport facial coverings. The ordinance was created after a local Proud Boys member applied for a permit to host a straight pride event in Modesto in 2019.
“The ordinance not only is trying to prevent violence, but it’s also trying to make sure that people can feel free to come to protest and know that they are not going to be in harm’s way,” Fox said. She denied that officers acted discriminatory in their enforcement of the two protests — though the judge seemed less convinced.
“I would think the evidence suggests otherwise,” Mendez said.
Mendez appeared most perplexed by the ordinance’s religious and medical exemptions. According to the updated rule, exemptions apply to “any individual wearing a religious garment that covers their face including, but not limited to hijabs, niqabs, burkas and the functional equivalent” or “medical grade masks.”
Mendez asked if a priest wearing a mask that says “Catholics against ICE” would be arrested. After some back and forth, Fox said it would be a violation because it’s not a religious covering.
“You’re having trouble trying to explain it to me. Imagine a police officer out trying to enforce this ordinance,” Mendez said. “You don’t see any problem with that at all?”
The ordinance also does not apply to costumes that obscure the face as “part of the expressive function of the costume” such as Mardi Gras masks or an inflatable unicorn outfit. Mendez said it makes no sense to ban masks at protests but allows costumes that obscure the face.
“If I really am a violent protester … intent on creating chaos and harm, all I have to do is wear a frog costume,” Mendez said.
Throughout the hearing, the court case Ghafari vs Municipal Court was cited. In the 1978 case, the California Court of Appeal struck down a state law banning masks after student activists in San Francisco, fearing retaliation, were arrested for wearing them while protesting the Iranian government.
“Of course, we don’t have anything along those issues here,” Fox said, referring to the concerns of the Iranian students.
Mendez was quick to disagree, saying that there are many protestors fearful of ICE and who rely on anonymity to exercise their freedom of speech. “I don’t know how you can make that argument that there’s no evidence of that here,” he said.
This story was originally published July 1, 2026 at 8:30 AM.
