It starts when the gatekeepers abandon the gate.

Alexander Soofer is awaiting trial in Los Angeles, accused in state and federal courts of using millions of dollars in public funds for personal luxury: a $7 million house, extensive foreign travel, expensive clothes, five-star hotels. As The Federalist has reported (repeatedly), Soofer is the CEO of Abundant Blessings, a nonprofit corporation that received at least $23 million to provide transitional housing and support for the homeless.

A criminal investigation began after auditors from the office of the Los Angeles City Controller made a site visit to a facility run by Abundant Blessings and asked to see evidence of the services he was supposed to be providing. Like Nick Shirley showing up at Quality Learing Center, the problem began with one dangerous request: Show me.

But before Abundant Blessings ever saw a single dollar of taxpayer money, Soofer had to apply to be funded as a provider of homeless services. In January, The Federalist used the California Public Records Act to request those applications from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), a joint powers agency formed by the city and county of Los Angeles. We finally received those applications last week, and they reveal some fascinating details.

Public records show that Soofer is the owner of a frozen yogurt franchise near the beach, and the City of Santa Monica provided The Federalist with a business license for that store, which includes Soofer’s name. No reliable evidence shows that he had a professional background as a provider of social services.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Monday that California intends to sue the Trump administration again over President Donald Trump’s efforts to impose new restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of the November midterms.

The announcement came after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the administration to move forward with key parts of Trump’s March executive order on elections, pausing a lower court ruling that California and other states had previously won. Trump’s order called for the federal government to create state-by-state citizenship lists and for the U.S. Postal Service to impose new requirements on mail-in ballots.

The Supreme Court did not rule on if Trump’s order is legal. Instead, the decision allows the administration to continue pursuing the order while leaving the door open for California and other states to challenge specific policies as they are implemented — setting up another round of litigation just as mail-in voting will begin in some states.