Six of the top-polling candidates in California’s race for governor faced off at a debate in San Francisco Wednesday night.

This marked the first debate since former East Bay Congressman Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race for governor and resigned from his seat. Despite Swalwell’s exit as well as the departure of Betty Yee from the race, no clear Democratic frontrunner has emerged.

The debate was hosted by Nexstar/KRON in San Francisco.

The candidates at this debate included four Democrats: former Congresswoman Katie Porter, former California State Attorney General Xavier Beccera, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, and billionaire philanthropist Tom Steyer. The two Republicans at this debate included former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

All candidates are trying to make an impression ahead of the June 2 primary. Ballots will be mailed out to California voters in early May.

Political analyst Larry Gerston examines the first California governor’s race debate since Eric Swalwell dropped out, hosted by Nexstar/KRON in San Francisco.

LOS ANGELES — An appeals court has blocked a California law passed in 2025 requiring federal immigration agents to wear a badge or some form of identification.

Subscribe to read this story ad-free

Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.

Advertisement

The Trump administration filed a lawsuit in November challenging the law, arguing that it would threaten the safety of officers who are facing harassment, doxing, and violence and that it violated the constitution because the state is directly regulating the federal government.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction pending appeal Wednesday. It had already granted a temporary administrative injunction to block the implementation of the law.

At a hearing March 3, Justice Department lawyers argued that the California law sought to regulate the federal government, violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The appeals court agreed unanimously, saying the law “attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” in an opinion written by Judge Mark J. Bennett. The panel was composed of two Trump appointees, Bennett and Daniel P. Collins, and Obama appointee Jacqueline H. Nguyen.

California lawyers argued that the law applied equally to all law enforcement officers without discriminating against the U.S. government, and that states could apply “generally applicable” laws federal agents. They also argued that the law was important to address public safety concerns.

People are more likely to attack officers in self-defense if there’s no visible identification letting the public know they are law enforcement, California lawyers said in a brief opposing the injunction.

“This confusion has resulted in federal law enforcement officials being mistaken for criminals and vice versa, creating serious risk of harm to peace officers and members of the public,” they wrote.

The appeals court judges said they did not consider the public safety factors because the federal government has demonstrate its constitutional rights would be violated by the legislation, and “all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution,” it ruled, quoting previous case law.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli called it a “huge legal victory” in a post on X.

The California Attorney General’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The initial lawsuit also addressed another California measure signed into law last year that would have banned most law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings. It was blocked by a federal judge in February.

The legislation did not apply to state law enforcement and made exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a mask would jeopardize the operation.