McDonnell's plain warning LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell told local reporters that his officers will not try to police federal agents' face coverings. He said the department's job at a scene is to calm things down, not make them worse. Sending local police to stop another armed agency over a misdemeanor could spark a dangerous confrontation. That, he said, is not worth the political point it might score. Why enforcement would be messy Think of two armed teams on a street, each with different rules. Now imagine one team tries to ticket the other for a minor violation. McDonnell argued that approach makes no tactical sense. It risks creating confusion, escalating crowds, and putting officers and the public in harm's way. Practical policing, he said, means avoiding actions that increase the chance of violence. What the new law says The state law signed last year makes it a misdemeanor for on-duty officers to wear masks or disguises, with narrow exceptions for undercover work or required protective gear. Governor Gavin Newsom framed the bill as a response to concerns about masked agents during immigration operations. The law is meant to force visibility, but visibility can come with trade offs when safety is…

What the order proposed Last year the White House issued an order that would have required people registering to vote in federal elections to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. The list included passports, REAL ID compliant IDs that list citizenship, military IDs that show citizenship, or other government photo IDs paired with proof of citizenship. The order also directed federal agencies to give states access to systems for checking citizenship or immigration status without charging fees. The idea was simple: tie registration to documentary verification. The execution was not. The court decision On Friday a federal judge issued a permanent injunction blocking major parts of the order. The opinion runs more than 100 pages and stops the administration from imposing the documentation requirements and certain data-access mandates named in the order. Plaintiffs included civil rights groups and state actors. The court found problems with the way the order tried to shift responsibilities to agencies and states. The administration says it will appeal. https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/2017346662381789275?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Why the court said no The heart of the court's reasoning was separation of powers and administrative limits. Judges found that an executive order can nudge agencies but cannot unilaterally reassign responsibilities or change how federal…