Stockton Council Approves Mask Ban Amid Rights Concerns

The Stockton City Council debates a new face-covering ordinance, weighing public safety, constitutional rights, legal risks like Modesto’s ACLU lawsuit, enforcement capacity, and the potential for uneven policing in a majority-people-of-color city. The council ultimately passes the ordinance in a 6–1 vote, with the mayor dissenting. 7mins

Was this helpful?

Original Meeting

Wednesday, June 24th, 2026
25617.110998
City Council and Concurrent Authorities
avatar
Andrea Baltodano
Stockton, CA
Andrea Baltodano is a Nicaraguan journalist based in Stockton, a city she has called home for the past two years. A bilingual reporter with more than eight years of experience, she has covered local governance, sports, higher education and community issues, often focusing on the people and communities behind policy decisions. She earned associate degrees in journalism and political science from San Joaquin Delta College, where she led the student newspaper, The Collegian, and later reported on s
View full bio
In This Video
  • Mayor Christina Fugazi expressed concern that a proposed ordinance could infringe individual rights and cited an ongoing ACLU lawsuit against Modesto over a similar measure as a cautionary example.
  • Councilmember Michelle Padilla shared personal unease about people wearing masks in public, associating masks with hiding one’s identity or seeking shelter from something.
  • Vice Mayor Lee cited recent homicides and mask-related robberies in Stockton to argue that a proposed face-covering ban would support police discretion and public safety without violating constitutional rights.
  • After Modesto was sued over a similar face-covering rule, one council member pressed city staff on how Stockton’s proposal stacked up—and what kinds of exceptions and safeguards it really had.
  • Council Member Enríquez reflected on the development of a draft mask ordinance, highlighting reduced local crime, concerns about legal risks including the Modesto lawsuit, and the need for a thorough legal analysis focused on its application in private spaces such as schools and businesses.
  • Michelle Sherman Williams argued that Stockton’s public safety challenges stemmed from police understaffing rather than a lack of laws and urged the city to prioritize resources to enforce existing ordinances before creating new ones.
  • David Sengthay emphasized that Stockton is a majority people‑of‑color community and warned that a discretionary mask ordinance without clear standards could lead to uneven enforcement, even by well‑trained officers.
  • Vice Mayor Lee underscored the council’s focus on public safety, noting that community concerns were central to local campaigns and citing four homicides in the city over the previous week.
  • As questions about constitutional rights came to a head, Councilmember Mariela Ponce put the city attorney on the spot about the legality of the proposed ordinance.
  • Mayor Fugazi clarified that officers still needed a legal justification to stop someone because simply wearing a ski mask was not a crime.
  • Vice Mayor Lee reiterated that the city attorney would not bring forward an ordinance that violated constitutional rights and argued that a face-covering ban would be justified if it prevented even a single shooting, burglary, or act of vandalism.
  • Deputy Chief Morris explained that regardless of whether a mask was medical or religious, police would assess the situation and rely on people at the location to call if they believed the face covering was inappropriate or concerning.
  • The council approved the motion on the ordinance in a 6–1 vote, with Mayor Fugazi casting the sole dissenting vote.
Your Governments
Your governments list is empty.