It's not clear to me if he understands that the current court case is invoking federal supremacy of US treaties over California law/constitution, which seems to

It's not clear to me if he understands that the current court case is invoking federal supremacy of US treaties over California law/constitution, which seems to be a brand-new argument. He compares it to a private homeowners association barring access to waterfront, which to me seems completely irrelevant.