The Trump administration on Thursday was dealt its first legal setback in its unprecedented effort to consolidate voter data traditionally held by states.

Federal district Judge David O. Carter dismissed a lawsuit in California that sought to give the Justice Department access to that state’s unredacted voter file, which includes sensitive data like Social Security numbers and driver’s license data. A district judge in Oregon also said in court Wednesday that he was tentatively planning to do the same there.

California and Oregon are two of 23 states, along with Washington, D.C., that have been sued by the Department of Justice for rebuffing requests for voter data. All states are led by Democrats, or were lost by President Trump in the 2020 election.

The DOJ has argued that it needs unfettered access to the state voter lists to determine whether states are maintaining their voter lists in accordance with federal law. State officials from both major political parties, however, have noted that the federal government has never had access to this data before, and expressed worries about what else the federal government could use the data for.

“The government’s request is unprecedented and illegal,” Judge Carter wrote. “The DOJ’s request for the sensitive information of Californians stands to have a chilling effect on American citizens like political minority groups and working-class immigrants who may consider not registering to vote or skip casting a ballot because they are worried about how their information will be used.”

Carter, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, also wrote that the Justice Department’s suit appeared to be a “telltale ‘fishing expedition.’”

“Even the federal government is not permitted to sue first, obtain discovery, and finalize its allegations later,” Carter wrote.

The Department of Justice did not immediately reply to a request for comment on Carter’s dismissal.

The U.S. Constitution is clear that states run their own elections, with almost no input from the executive branch. And when the Trump administration made similar requests for this sort of election data in Trump’s first term, it was universally rejected. In 2017, one Republican secretary of state famously said the Trump administration could “go jump in the Gulf of Mexico.”

But things have changed.

At least eight Republican states have either voluntarily provided or said they will provide their full statewide registration list to the administration during his second term, according to tracking by the Brennan Center for Justice.

In many cases, the data has been run through a revamped system at the Department of Homeland Security meant to search for noncitizens. NPR was the first news outlet to report on the details of the system, known as SAVE, but after tens of millions of records were run through it, no evidence of the sort of widespread voter fraud Trump has long talked about has come to light.

Carter’s ruling is the first to come out of the numerous voter data lawsuits across the country, and during a hearing, he noted that he expected his ruling to be appealed regardless of the outcome, potentially all the way to the Supreme Court.

It looked like the silvery blade of a knife.

Peering through his goggles, diver Ted Judah had laid eyes on a deep-sea creature rarely encountered by humans. He and wife Linda were diving off McAbee Beach in Monterey County in late December when, near the surface, he spotted the “undulating thing.”

“It was some kind of ribbon fish,” he wrote in a post on the Facebook group Monterey County Dive Reports.

Kevin Lewand solved the mystery. The Monterey Bay Aquarium marine biologist was among those chiming in with their assessments on the group, which is popular among local divers. He said he’d shared the image with an ichthyologist who had identified it as a juvenile king-of-the-salmon, scientifically known as Trachipterus altivelis, which is part of the ribbonfish family.

“I wanted to stay with it, but I felt like I was harassing it,” Judah wrote of his encounter. He posted snapshots of the tiny creature. “It had this keen ability to orient itself so that its narrowest profile was always facing me.”

The king-of-the-salmon got its name from the Makah, Indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest coast who believed the species led salmon back to their spawning grounds, according to the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute.

Bruce Robison, a senior scientist at MBARI, said this was a rare occurrence as this type of fish is typically found at depths that are hundreds of feet lower.

“They live in a place that, for the most part, is inaccessible, except for people who have submersibles or remotely operated vehicles,” Robison said in a phone call.

In nearly four decades of ocean exploration, MBARI has logged 16 sightings of king-of-the-salmon, and six sightings of closely related ribbonfish. The most recent was in 2021, according to the institute.

In terms of beauty, “ it’s hard to beat the king-of-the-salmon,” said Robison, adding that part of its allure comes from its enormous lacy red fins and silver sides.

One reason for the rare sighting could be the fish’s feeding time. At nighttime, various ocean animals migrate to the surface to avoid predators. Robison suspects that this majestic creature might have stayed there after feeding on small crustaceans and larval fish.

Another reason could be climate change.

“ These are regarded as warm-water fishes. The fact that the ocean, including Monterey Bay, is getting warmer may indicate that the geographical range of these animals is expanding,” Robison said.

 Warm water holds less oxygen than cold water does, and as the ocean gets warmer, it can drive animals toward another region. According to Robison, fish, crustaceans, squid and other warm-water species are moving into what used to be considered cooler waters.

“It could be” climate change, Robison said of this latest king-of-the-salmon sighting. “We haven’t nailed it down yet.”

A top Trump administration lawyer pressed a federal judge Wednesday to block a newly enacted California law that bans most law enforcement officers in the state from wearing masks, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

Tiberius Davis, representing the U.S. Department of Justice, argued at a hearing in Los Angeles that the first-of-its-kind ban on police face coverings could unleash chaos across the country, and potentially land many ICE agents on the wrong side of the law it were allowed to take effect.

“Why couldn’t California say every immigration officer needs to wear pink, so it’s super obvious who they are?” Davis told U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder. “The idea that all 50 states can regulate the conduct and uniforms of officers … flips the Constitution on its head.”

The judge appeared skeptical.

“Why can’t they perform their duties without a mask? They did that until 2025, did they not?” Snyder said. “How in the world do those who don’t mask manage to operate?”

The administration first sued to block the new rules in November, after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the No Secret Police Act and its companion provision, the No Vigilantes Act, into law. Together, The laws bar law enforcement officers from wearing masks and compel them to display identification “while conducting law enforcement operations in the Golden State.” Both offenses would be misdemeanors.

Federal officials have vowed to defy the new rules, saying they are unconstitutional and put agents in danger. They have also decried an exception in the law for California state peace officers, arguing the carve out is discriminatory. The California Highway Patrol is among those exempted, while city and county agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department, must comply.

“These were clearly and purposefully targeted at the federal government,” Davis told the court Wednesday. “Federal officers face prosecution if they do not comply with California law, but California officers do not.”

The hearing comes at a moment of acute public anger at the agency following the fatal shooting of American protester Renee Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis — rage that has latched on to masks as a symbol of perceived lawlessness and impunity.

“It’s obvious why these laws are in the public interest,” California Department of Justice lawyer Cameron Bell told the court Wednesday. “The state has had to bear the cost of the federal government’s actions. These are very real consequences.”

She pointed to declarations from U.S. citizens who believed they were being abducted by criminals when confronted by masked immigration agents, including incidents where local police were called to respond.

“I later learned that my mother and sister witnessed the incident and reported to the Los Angeles Police Department that I was kidnapped,” Angeleno Andrea Velez said in one such declaration. “Because of my mother’s call, LAPD showed up to the raid.”

The administration argues the anti-mask law would put ICE agents and other federal immigration enforcement officers at risk of doxing and chill the “zealous enforcement of the law.”

“The laws would recklessly endanger the lives of federal agents and their family members and compromise the operational effectiveness of federal law enforcement activities,” the government said in court filings.

Davis also told the court that ICE‘s current tactics were necessary in part because of laws across California and in much of the U.S. that limit police cooperation with ICE and bar immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, such as schools and courts.

California contends its provisions are “modest” and aligned with past practice, and that the government’s evidence showing immigration enforcement would be harmed is thin.

Bell challenged Department of Homeland Security statistics purporting to show an 8,000% increase in death threats against ICE agents and a 1,000% increase in assaults, saying the government has recently changed what qualifies as a “threat” and that agency claims have faced “significant credibility issues” in federal court.

“Blowing a whistle to alert the community, that’s hardly something that increases threats,” Bell said.

On the identification rule, Snyder appeared to agree.

“One might argue that there’s serious harm to the government if agents’ anonymity is preserved,” she said.

The fate of the mask law may hinge on the peace officer exemption.

“Would your discrimination argument go away if the state changed legislation to apply to all officers?” Snyder asked.

“I believe so,” Davis said.

The ban was slated to come into force on Jan. 1, but is on hold while the case makes its way through the courts. If allowed to take effect, California would become the first state in the nation to block ICE agents and other federal law enforcement officers from concealing their identities while on duty.

A ruling is expected as soon as this week.