McMaster is not Condon.
Referencing other jurisdictions' case law, that is likely different from SC's, is about like our SCOTUS allowing foreign stare decisis to have effect.
McMaster is expressing his privileged opinion that non-discretionary ID stops are legal. Surprise, surprise, that's what he's paid to do. Until such a case survives the appeal process, to become SC case law, we'll never know but his opinion.