ºÃÉ«tv

For the Northern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino wrote that while New York "appears to be well-intentioned in its pursuit of transparent policing," that's not what the court is deciding.

“The issue now before the Court is about constitutionality—not transparency or preferable policy decisions,� she wrote.

The federal government has shown a likelihood that the measures go against the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars state governments from regulating federal law enforcement, D’Agostino wrote.

The measures were included in a slate of law enforcement policies as part of the state budget bill that was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul in May.

Hochul and New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement following the judge's decision that they "stand firm in our belief that masked agents do not make New York safer and our offices are reviewing all legal options at this time.�

New York's face coverings and identification measures took effect in June, according to the ruling.

California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers from wearing facial coverings under a bill that was signed in September following a summer of high-profile raids by immigration officers in Los Angeles.

When the law was blocked, the decision was expected to have implications nationwide for other states that have to place restrictions on immigration agents.

In May, the U.S. Department of Justice against Connecticut over a new state law that prohibits federal agents from wearing masks.