New Haven Joins 28 U.S. Cities, Counties In Brief In Support Of CA In Suit On Anonymous Policing

NEW HAVEN, CT — Mayor Justin Elicker announced Tuesday that New Haven has joined a coalition of 28 local governments and leaders across 10 states in filing an amicus brief in support of a California law that requires local, state and federal law enforcement officers—including ICE agents—to display visible identification while on duty.

Filed by the Public Rights Project supports California in the case the United States of America v. State of California. It asks the appeals court to uphold a district court’s decision rejecting the federal government’s request to overturn a law requiring federal officers to clearly identify their agency and name or badge number, a news release from Elicker reads.

"It’s policing 101: unless a law enforcement officer is engaged in an undercover operation, their name, badge number and face should all be clearly on display and visibly identifiable to the public. That’s how the New Haven Police Department operates, as does every other respected police department in the country. Unfortunately, ICE has rejected these longstanding law enforcement practices, and often engaged in cruel, thuggish and lawless operations that have resulted in needless harm and panic in communities across the country," Elicker said. "We stand with California and other local governments across the nation in support this common-sense law."

Elicker spoke on this matter with Patch in 2025 when a New Haven mother was "disappeared" by ICE agents sans ID.

From the Mayor's Office:

The challenged law—the No Vigilantes Act—was enacted in direct response to the Trump administration’s violent immigration enforcement surges, which triggered mass protests, civil unrest and widespread community panic in Los Angeles last June. As has been widely reported, these immigration enforcement practices have occurred in other cities across the nation as well.

The Connecticut General Assembly is currently considering similar legislation, S.B. 397, which would require law enforcement officers to have clearly visible identification by name tag and badge and also prohibit face masks, except in specifically outlined circumstances, among other provisions. Mayor Elicker testified in support of S.B. 397 earlier this year.

CT lawmakers currently considering similar legislation, S.B. 397, which would require law enforcement officers to have clearly visible identification by name tag and badge and also prohibit face masks, except in specifically outlined circumstances, among other provisions. Mayor Elicker testified in support of S.B. 397 earlier this year.

The amicus brief argues that when law enforcement conceals their identities, it creates widespread confusion and fear, undermining public safety and enabling criminal impersonation. A recent opinion from the Ninth Circuit barred California from enforcing the law pending completion of the appeal. The brief also notes that prohibiting states and local governments from requiring visible identification violates the exercise of their independent police powers.

The brief outlines several impacts of allowing officers to shield their identities:

• Strain on local resources: Police departments field increased calls from concerned residents and must respond to incidents involving unidentified federal officers.

• Erosion of trust: Residents are less likely to report crimes or cooperate with investigations when they can’t identify officers.

• Breakdown of accountability: Without visible identification, it becomes harder for individuals to seek recourse when their rights are violated.

• Departure from longstanding practice: Law enforcement agencies have historically required visible identification to ensure transparency and oversight.

"When law enforcement officers can hide who they are, it erodes both public trust and public safety," said CEO and founder of the Public Rights Project Jill Habig. "California’s law is a model for states and cities across the country. We’re proud to stand alongside local leaders who are defending common-sense standards that promote transparency and accountability."

In New Haven, it is the longstanding practice of the New Haven Police Department for uniform officers to have their name, rank and badge number on display on their outermost garment.

Read that story from a Patch interview with the then-police chief here.

Earlier this year, Acting Police Chief Zannelli issued a Special Order 26-01, clarifying the New Haven Police Department’s policy on face coverings. The Special Order states that New Haven police officers are prohibited from wearing face coverings except when conducting tactical operations where protective gear is required for physical safety, when conducting operations or investigative activities with the permission from the Chief of Police or designee, or when conducting extra duty outdoors duty during extremely cold weather with approval from an on-duty supervisor.

The full list of cities, counties and local leaders that joined this most recent amicus brief is included in the filing.

To date, the City of New Haven has joined five lawsuits against the Trump Administration, along with joining 25 other amicus briefs.