Authored by Chris Summers via The Epoch Times,
A judge ruled on Aug. 3 that New York cannot ban federal agents from wearing masks or balaclavas, or require them to wear visible identification.
Masked federal agents wait outside an immigration courtroom in New York on July 8, 2025. Olga Fedorova/APU.S. District Judge Mae D'Agostino, for the Northern District of New York, wrote that New York state's perspective "is grounded in unavoidable observations of recent troubling events which loom darkly over the public perception of the manner in which federal immigration law is enforced."
"New York appears to be well-intentioned in its pursuit of transparent policing," she said in her ruling.
"However, the issue now before the Court is about constitutionality - not transparency or preferable policy decisions. There is a constitutional proscription on direct state regulation of federal agency operations."
She said that whether federal law enforcement agencies have chosen to carry out their operations in a "sufficiently transparent manner" was an important question, but it was not for the court to decide at this time.
Federal Agents Fear DoxxingFederal agents have been wearing masks to protect their identities because they and their families fear being doxxed by activists.
The federal government argued that New York's law goes against the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars state governments from regulating federal law enforcement.
The Trump administration argued the New York state law violated "principles of intergovernmental immunity and are invalid under the Supremacy Clause because they unlawfully regulate or discriminate against the Federal Government ... or are preempted by federal law."
New York's law to ban face coverings and implement identification measures was included among several law enforcement policies in the state budget bill that was signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul, a D in May and came into effect in June, according to D'Agostino's ruling.
The definition of face coverings includes any "opaque mask, garment, helmet, headgear, balaclava, ski mask, neck gaiter, or tactical mask," but excludes transparent face shields, medical masks, or respirators.
On Feb. 9, 2026, a federal district court judge partially blocked a similar law in California, finding that it discriminated against federal officers.
Judge Christina Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled in favor of the Trump administration, prohibiting the state from enforcing its No Secret Police Act - which was scheduled to go into effect earlier this year - against federal law enforcement officers.
The federal government sued California, challenging both laws: the aforementioned law and the No Vigilantes Act, which requires federal officers to wear identification. Snyder ruled that the second law was not discriminatory.
Several other blue states had followed California and New York's example.
In May, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Connecticut in federal court over a new state law that prohibited federal agents from wearing masks and also established protected areas - including schools, hospitals, and houses of worship - where people cannot be detained for immigration violations.
New York Reviewing Legal OptionsHochul and New York Attorney General Letitia James issued a joint statement after D'Agostino's ruling.
"While the court enjoined enforcement of New York's mask ban, we stand firm in our belief that masked agents do not make New York safer, and our offices are reviewing all legal options at this time," Hochul and James said.
D'Agostino also denied the federal government's motion for a preliminary injunction blocking New York's ban on 287(g) agreements between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local law enforcement, which would have allowed ICE to delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to local officers.
Hochul and James welcomed that ruling.
"As we have said from the start, New York's ban on 287(g) agreements is legal and will keep our communities safe," they said in their joint statement.
"Local law enforcement should be focused on local matters, and New York taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for any collaboration with ICE."
Hochul's Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, which was proposed in January, prohibits federal agents from using local detention centers for civil immigration enforcement, including what the governor described as "mass raids" and detainee transport.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 19:15How much money does it take before earning more no longer makes people happier? Researchers call this threshold the satiation point, and it varies considerably across the United States.
This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, ranks 50 of the most populous U.S. cities by the annual income at which self-reported life evaluation stops improving, using data from Remitly.
Remitly adapted Purdue University‘s income satiation research by adjusting it for purchasing power and inflation, then scaling the U.S. figure to each metro using Numbeo’s cost-of-living index.
Coastal U.S. Cities Have the Highest Price of HappinessNationally, happiness levels off at an estimated annual income of $134,827. In New York City, the threshold rises to $195,969, or 45.3% above the national figure.
New York is followed by Honolulu ($192,441) and San Francisco ($191,266). In all three cities, the estimated income threshold exceeds $190,000 a year.
The table below shows the price of happiness in each of the 50 cities and how each compares with the $134,827 U.S. average:
Rank City State Price of Happiness vs. U.S. Average 1 New York NY $195,969 +45.3% 2 Honolulu HI $192,441 +42.7% 3 San Francisco CA $191,266 +41.9% 4 Seattle WA $176,960 +31.2% 5 Washington DC $171,081 +26.9% 6 San Jose CA $169,317 +25.6% 7 Boston MA $168,925 +25.3% 8 Oakland CA $166,965 +23.8% 9 Berkeley CA $163,634 +21.4% 10 San Diego CA $160,694 +19.2% 11 Anchorage AK $159,715 +18.5% 11 Los Angeles CA $159,715 +18.5% 13 Miami FL $155,795 +15.6% 14 Sacramento CA $155,207 +15.1% 15 Philadelphia PA $154,423 +14.5% 16 New Orleans LA $150,092 +11.3% 17 Jersey City NJ $149,328 +10.8% 18 Chicago IL $148,936 +10.5% 19 Atlanta GA $147,565 +9.4% 20 Portland OR $147,369 +9.3% 21 Denver CO $147,173 +9.2% 22 Dallas TX $142,861 +6.0% 23 Baltimore MD $140,706 +4.4% 24 Phoenix AZ $140,314 +4.1% 25 Buffalo NY $140,118 +3.9% 25 Minneapolis MN $140,118 +3.9% 27 Nashville TN $137,766 +2.2% 28 Pittsburgh PA $137,570 +2.0% 29 Tampa FL $137,178 +1.7% 30 Charlotte NC $136,786 +1.5% 31 Columbus OH $136,002 +0.9% 32 Richmond VA $135,218 +0.3% 32 Orlando FL $135,218 +0.3% 32 Indianapolis IN $135,218 +0.3% 32 Madison WI $135,218 +0.3% 36 Raleigh NC $132,867 -1.5% 37 Oklahoma City OK $132,279 -1.9% 38 Fort Worth TX $131,103 -2.8% 39 Salt Lake City UT $130,711 -3.1% 39 Boise ID $130,711 -3.1% 41 Austin TX $130,123 -3.5% 42 Milwaukee WI $128,751 -4.5% 43 Cleveland OH $127,772 -5.2% 44 Knoxville TN $127,184 -5.7% 45 Jacksonville FL $126,400 -6.3% 46 Tucson AZ $125,420 -7.0% 47 Houston TX $125,224 -7.1% 48 Albuquerque NM $123,852 -8.1% 49 San Antonio TX $123,656 -8.3% 50 Cincinnati OH $122,480 -9.2%The upper end of the ranking is dominated by coastal cities. California alone claims five of the top 10 spots: San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley, and San Diego. Seattle ($176,960), Washington, D.C. ($171,081), and Boston ($168,925) also rank among the most expensive cities.
Overall, 35 of the 50 cities have income thresholds above the national figure, partly reflecting the higher living costs found in many of America’s largest metropolitan areas.
Where Happiness Costs the Least in AmericaCincinnati has the lowest estimated price of happiness in the ranking at $122,480, or 37.5% less than New York. Put another way, reaching income satiation in New York requires about 1.6 times as much income as it does in Cincinnati.
Texas is the most heavily represented state near the affordable end of the ranking. Austin ($130,123), Houston ($125,224), and San Antonio ($123,656) all place in the bottom 10, alongside Albuquerque, Tucson, and Jacksonville. Dallas is the only Texas city in the upper half, ranking 22nd.
The pattern closely tracks broader cost-of-living differences between U.S. metros, which also shape the income needed to live comfortably in U.S. cities. Where housing and everyday expenses are lower, the estimated income required to reach the plateau falls as well.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Money Can Buy Happiness After All on Voronoi.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 18:50Authored by Nohshad Shah, Citadel Securities EMEA Head of Fixed Income,
The Fed sounds hawkish... but markets are testing the reaction functionChair Warsh was unequivocal that there is “no soft inflation target”, that five-plus years of above-target inflation cannot be cured by nine weeks of better data, and that this Fed “will not waver”. Yet despite that language…and three members preferring an immediate hike…the FOMC again declined to move.
Warsh instead repeatedly highlighted the large rise in nominal and real Treasury yields since June, arguing that reduced forward guidance had allowed markets to respond more directly to the data and, in effect, deliver some tightening on the Fed’s behalf.
But all forms of FCI tightening are not equal…higher front-end yields because the Fed has acted to restrain demand are different from a higher long-end driven by investors demanding greater compensation for inflation, term risk, and uncertainty over the reaction function.
Warsh also left markets with some uncertainty over how inflation will ultimately be judged. He confirmed that PCE remains the measure attached to the 2% target under the current framework, but left open whether that will remain the case after the strategy review concludes in January, while invoking Goodhart’s Law, the Lucas critique, and a broader (but unspecified) set of inflation measures. Those are legitimate cautions against relying mechanically on a single statistic.
But investors will still want greater clarity over what the Fed will regard as evidence that inflation has returned to 2%. A fixed numerical target attached to a potentially changing measure risks making the reaction function harder to interpret, particularly while inflation remains materially above target. There may be a strong case for improving the framework, but markets will want reassurance that reform does not amount to changing the measuring stick before success has been achieved.
The initial market response suggests that reassurance has not yet been secured: 30y Treasuries have sold off, breakevens have widened, while equities and the dollar have weakened. Investors may interpret that combination less as a clean tightening in response to stronger growth and more as a challenge to the credibility or clarity of the policy framework.
It is also an uncomfortable outcome in a market already unsettled by rising oil prices amidst the conflict with Iran and the accelerating unwind in AI momentum. The risk from here is a negative feedback loop: higher long-end yields pressure duration equities; equities fall while bonds fail to hedge; correlated losses force further deleveraging and the resulting tightening in financial conditions gives the Fed another reason to wait…which, in turn, encourages investors to demand still more inflation and term premium.
This is the reflexivity at the heart of “market guidance”…the Fed holds because markets have tightened, while markets tighten because the Fed has held.
Markets may be able to deliver part of the required tightening, but they will still look to the Fed to anchor the inflation outlook.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 18:30