Jackson County stuck on legal concerns around proposed mask ban for ICE officers
Jackson County is still trying to decide whether it has the authority to stop federal immigration agents from covering their faces in the county — but residents have adopted the conversation as a rallying point opposing Immigration and Customs Enforcement regardless.
The Jackson County legislature held a public hearing Monday on a proposed ban on face coverings for ICE and other law enforcement officers. Legislators opted to hold the ordinance for another week while county leaders seek a second legal opinion on whether it can be enforced.
The ordinance lays out potential penalties for noncompliant officers, including fines, as well as planned exemptions for tactical enforcement situations. It is sponsored by Legislative Chair Manny Abarca, who previously said it was written in direct response to ICE action in the metro over recent months.
Supporters have questioned the legal strength of the ordinance but have also described it as a crucial symbolic show of support for residents impacted by federal immigration policy. Abarca previously hosted a town hall meeting where about 100 residents raised concerns about their observations and fears regarding ICE arrests and deportations in and around Kansas City.
However, the county counselor’s office has repeatedly recommended that legislators vote down the ordinance, questioning the county’s authority to set policy regarding the activities of federal agents.
“The county does not have the authority to require or order federal law enforcement officers to abide by any local ordinances that are not also captured in federal law,” county counselor Bryan Covinsky said Monday. “...Attire is set by agency policy, not statute.”
Legal precedents
At Monday’s meeting, Abarca repeatedly compared the ordinance to the legislature’s 2020 actions regulating mask-wearing in public during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“This body has regulated masks, has faced challenges both federally and locally,” Abarca said.
Covinsky said that earlier public health-focused measures regarding masks were created in conversation with state and federal agencies, while the proposed mask ban for officers could be seen as an attempt to supersede these legal bodies.
“We can’t tell federal agents how to dress when they’re in the state of Missouri,” Covinsky said. “...You can say it’s not law, but if the agency has a policy on what their agents can wear, that’s what they will intend to enforce.”
The county’s lawyer worries, though, that passing the anti-mask legislation could be seen as “undue interference” in Department of Homeland Security policy, Covinsky said. It would likely lead to legal action, which has happened following similar conflicts of authority with county ordinances in the past, Covinsky said.
“As much as I understand the symbolism of passing a law like this,” Covinsky said, “with the supremacy clause that’s on the books… I would be concerned that we’d be facing litigation on this matter like we have in the past.”
Some legislators feel that the ordinance could damage the legislature’s credibility if it is pushed through without firm legal backing from the county. Legislator Sean Smith accused Abarca and other mask ban supporters of “placing the county at risk to make a philosophical statement that might be popular with the community.”
“It just smacks to me of irresponsible government if we choose to pass this,” Smith said.
“...We have distracted people, wasted their time, and brought them here to advocate for or against something that can simply have no legal impact.”
He recommended that the county re-approach the issue in the form of a resolution, which is symbolic, rather than an ordinance, which is intended to be enforceable as law.
“We have an option as a legislative body to make statements that we feel, as a body, we want to make,” Smith said.
Interim County Executive Phil LeVota declined to say whether he would veto the ordinance if it passed through the legislature in the future.
Safety and privacy
As in the past, Kansas City residents attending the hearing largely spoke in favor of the idea of banning face coverings for ICE and other law enforcement entities.
Indivisible Kansas City founder Beverly Harvey called for the ordinance to become a jumping-off point for the legislature to consider stronger local policies limiting ICE officers’ activity in the county.
ICE has maintained a presence in the Kansas City metro in recent months, arresting and detaining hundreds of people from Liberty to Lawrence. The Star previously reported that as of Sept. 15, an average of 211 people were in ICE custody in Missouri, and 148 in Kansas, with agents targeting local businesses and staking out hearings at Kansas City immigration courts.
“The only people who wear masks are people who are committing crimes who do not want to be identified,” Harvey said. “...We’ve all seen the horror of what ICE agents bring. They murder people, they beat people up, they maim them. They pepper-spray them. They tear-gas them. They harass American citizens.”
Kansas City resident Greg Ellermann said that wearing masks or other face coverings incentivizes ICE agents and other law enforcement officers to be aggressive on the job, since hiding their faces shields them from a certain level of public accountability.
“Masking of officers is likely related to greater chance of violence, whereas no masks is likely related to greater safety for officers and the people,” Ellermann said.
Those opposed to the ordinance, meanwhile, focused largely on privacy concerns for federal agents working in Kansas City, along with concerns about the legislation’s enforceability.
Kansas City resident Kenda Tomes McClain said that law enforcement officers should not be prevented from wearing masks on the job because they use them for safety reasons or to protect their identities from people who might try to broadcast their home addresses or otherwise invade their privacy.
“The ICE agents have a lawful reason to be in those communities, and they should not be fearing for their lives from all kinds of people that have nothing to do with the situation,” McClain said. “[The ordinance] is a very disruptive thing. We do not want our law enforcement to be under attack by everyday citizens.”
Abarca said that the ordinance will appear again on next week’s agenda as the legislature seeks a second opinion from outside legal counsel.
“We owe it to Jackson County residents to show up and do the work that is needed,” Abarca said. “Our goal with this ordinance is to hold the officers/agents accountable and to keep those in our community safe.
This story was originally published March 3, 2026 at 1:29 PM.
