Public health officials say they’ve identified a total of eight measles cases in Shasta County as contact tracing continues.

The cases are linked to one first identified Jan. 30, with Shasta County Health and Human Services officials saying all seven new cases involve close contacts of that person.

Officials noted that the new patients all isolated before they became possibly contagious.

“Our public health teams want to thank the individuals affected, those who were exposed, and our community as a whole for working closely with our staff and following public health guidance. Your quick action and support have helped us manage this outbreak and continue protecting our community,” said Shasta County Public Health Director Katie Cassidy in a statement.

California has seen a total of 17 confirmed measles cases in 2026, with Napa County recently seeing its first case in nearly 15 years.

Across the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control reports a total of 733 confirmed measles cases in 20 states so far in 2026. Along with the more than 2,400 measles cases in 2025, the U.S. is reportedly poised to lose its “measles-free” classification from the Pan American Health Organization.

Contact tracing is still underway in Shasta County for people who may have been in the following areas and times:

-Ninja Coalition, 900 Dana Drive on January 23 from 2:30 to 5:20 p.m.

-An informal, outdoor capture the flag sport event at Highland Neighborhood Park, 555 Mill Valley Parkway, Redding, on January 23 from noon to 4 p.m.

-Osaka Sushi, 1340 Churn Creek Rd., on January 23 from 6:30 to 10 p.m.

-A gym basketball game at the former CrossPointe Community Church, 2960 Hartnell Ave., Redding on January 24 from 1:45 to 5 p.m.

-Costco, 4805 Bechelli Lane, Redding, on January 24 from 6:30 to 9 p.m.

-Churn Creek HealthCare clinic, 3184 Churn Creek Road, Redding, on January 28 from 1:45 to 5 p.m.

A federal judge has blocked California from enforcing a new law that would ban federal immigration agents and other law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings.

The Department of Justice sued to strike down the ban in November after it was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September. In a ruling on Feb. 9, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder preliminarily struck down the law and upheld another California law that requires federal officers to display their identification while performing their official duties.

The Trump administration hailed the ruling as a win, with Attorney General Pam Bondi calling it a “key court victory.” The DOJ argued in the lawsuit that immigration agents “face a real threat of criminal liability from state officials who have made clear their intent to target federal officers and disrupt federal law enforcement activities, including federal immigration enforcement.”

“These federal agents are harassed, doxxed, obstructed, and attacked on a regular basis just for doing their jobs. We have no tolerance for it,” Bondi said in her statement on Feb. 9.

Newsom also counted the ruling to uphold the identification law as “a clear win for the rule of law,” and said “no badge and no name mean no accountability.”

More: Safety measure? Or intimidation tactic? Masked ICE agents spark the debate

He continued: “People do not want masked law enforcement in their communities, people want to be able to see who is patrolling their communities, people understand that if ICE and any other law enforcement wear ski masks, that creates an atmosphere of impunity and terror, and prevents accountability.”

But it’s not clear if Newsom would sign such a bill. In response to the ruling, his press office wrote on social media, “Mr. Wiener rejected our proposed fixes to his bill — language that was later included in the identification bill the court upheld today. He chose a different approach, and today the court found his approach unlawful.”

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the ruling on X, calling it “ANOTHER key court victory.”

“Following our arguments, a district court in California BLOCKED the enforcement of a law that would have banned federal agents from wearing masks to protect their identities,” Bondi wrote. “We will continue fighting and winning in court for President Trump’s law-and-order agenda.”

In court on Monday, Snyder dismissed several arguments the Trump administration has made to justify why agents should be allowed to mask.

She noted that there are no federal laws or regulations that require federal law enforcement officers to wear facial coverings or conceal their identity, and “in fact, some federal laws and regulations require visible identification in certain circumstances.”

Historically, she noted, federal officers have not been masked.

Snyder also found that the federal government “has not met its burden to show that enforcement of the challenged provisions … would interfere with or take control of federal law enforcement operations,” — comparing them to traffic laws that dictate how a federal officer may drive on state roads.

And she rejected the argument that bills will put officers at risk of attacks and physical harm, noting that the potential harms cited in court — including doxing, threats and assault — are all crimes themselves.

“A rule that prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing masks or requires them to have visible identification does not facilitate or enable criminals to harm law enforcement officers,” she wrote. To the contrary, she added later, the “presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”

And in a clear rebuke to statements made by Vice President JD Vance and others after the Minneapolis shootings, Snyder noted that, “The law is clear that federal officers do not have absolute immunity from state prosecution.”