Here’s a recap of all of the good things that have happened over the past week or so in our battle to defend our country from the ravages of the current administration, and to turn this ship around!
Notes from the Front members: don’t forget that all of the related court orders and other documents are in your inbox! *And* that you can *listen* to all of the articles, just like a podcast, by hitting the play arrow in the upper right-hand corner of the Substack app!
If you’re not a Notes from the Front member, and you would like to be able to listen to the posts, to see all of the documents, or even just want to support my coffee habit while I’m reporting for you from the front lines of the legal battle to save the soul of our democracy, you can join us now – its just $5 a month and I make it very easy to cancel with a ‘cancel now’ link at the bottom of each legal update (don’t you just hate subscriptions that hide that ball?)
https://notesfromthefront.fyi
Ok, on to this week’s good news!
BLANCHE SUED OVER FAILURE TO RELEASE ALL EPSTEIN FILES! I HAVE THE FULL COMPLAINT FOR YOU!
Journalist and lawyer has just sued, ahem, *acting* Attorney General Todd Blanche for his, and I quote, “brazen, shocking, and ongoing violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.”
Hooboyhowdy, talk about coming out swinging!!
She then goes into a litany (and I use the term affectionately) of all the ways that Blanche, and Bondi before him, has failed in his duties. (Don’t worry, Notes from the Front members, you’re going to get to read the whole thing!)
Is there anything more of a double threat in the legal arena than a journalist who is also a lawyer – or a lawyer who is also a journalist? With those combined skillsets you just *know* the Complaint is… 👩🏻🍳💋 <--in case that doesn’t come through on your screen, that’s a chef kiss.
Now, in the pre-counts narrative, Phang explains that “Defendant’s failure to follow the law has harmed Plaintiff, Katie Phang (“Phang”), a journalist, lawyer, and legal analyst who has extensively reported on Jeffrey Epstein and his network. Phang’s inability to report with substance on all of the documents she should be able to access has hurt her ability to do her job, and made it harder to fulfill her mission as a journalist and legal analyst.”
She then goes on to explain that “The Department of Justice failed to comply with the law. It did so by ignoring the Act’s deadlines, by failing to redact sensitive information, by redacting information it should have disclosed, by failing to explain its redactions, and by redacting, retracting, or withholding entirely materials about Donald Trump and others.”
And THEN she goes after Trump directly:
“The Department failed to produce documents relating to Trump that other sources confirm exist. For instance, in one document, a woman accused Trump of forcing her to perform oral sex when she was a minor. The FBI found this accusation sufficiently credible that it interviewed the alleged victim four times.
According to logs, the Department of Justice previously produced fifteen documents about this alleged victim to attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell in preparation for her own defense. But only seven such documents were produced under the Epstein Act. Contemporary reporting suggests that the withheld materials include 53 pages of interview documents and notes. These remain unproduced.”
The first 12 pages of the 15-page complaint (again, included for Notes from the Front members) continue with lots and lots of examples of where the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) was clearly violated.
You see, they didn’t count on things that they withheld being discovered in other ways, so that when people compared the records they could see that things were being withheld that shouldn’t be.
Then there are four counts (to be clear this is a civil lawsuit, not criminal), two based on violations of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), one alleging ‘ultra vires agency action’ (meaning the agency has acted outside the bounds of the agency’s legal authority), and one requesting that the Court enter a declaratory judgement under the Declaratory Judgment Act, declaring that Phang is entitled to “declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.”
She then asks the Court to order Blanche and the DOJ to:
a. Remove all unlawful redactions;
b. Explain the bases for any remaining lawful redactions;
c. Re-produce all materials that were produced but then unlawfully retracted;
d. Produce all materials that have not been produced that, by law, should be.
This is going to be such a fun one! I’m off to buy stock in Orville Redenbacher now!
APPEALS COURT REJECTS TRUMP’S EFFORT TO HAVE THE E. JEAN CAROLL CASES REHEARD!
This is going to be shortish, and the 91-page denial of an En Banc rehearing of the E. Jean Carroll appeal is included for Notes from the Front members if you want a deep dive, but basically Trump appealed the judgements from the two E. Jean Carroll cases (the first for raping her in a dressing room and then defaming her by claiming he'd never met her, let alone raped her, and the second also for defamation). In both cases the juries awarded E. Jean Carroll many millions of dollars.
Trump appealed those decisions. The arguments in Trump's appeal included presidential immunity, and that he had been blocked from substituting in 'the United States' as a defendant instead of himself personally.
A 3-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit affirmed the lower courts' decisions.
Then Trump filed a 95-page request (also included for Notes members) for an En Banc hearing, detailing all of those reasons he should have been allowed to say "presidential immunity" and "the U.S. should be the defendant". So, as protocol dictates, a judge on that Court of Appeals initiated a poll as to whether the appeal should be reheard En Banc, meaning that instead of letting the decision of the 3-judge panel stand, *all* the active Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit judges consider the appeal.
That poll *failed*. In other words, not enough judges voted to review the cases En Banc. There are a few dissents there, the vote split fell the way you would expect in terms of who appointed which judges.
So both judgements in favour of Carroll stand. Trump's only legal option now is to appeal to the Supreme Court, in which case he'd be appealing the legal question of not allowing him to raise the presidential immunity defense, and/or the letting the United States be the defendant instead of him.
Because, you know, somehow the United States and the tax payers should take the fall for, and foot the bill for, his misdeeds.
JUDGE BLOCKS ENDING OF TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS FOR REFUGEES FROM YEMEN JUST DAYS BEFORE THEY WERE TO LOSE THEIR STATUS
Yessss! Just days before refugees from Yemen were due to lose their temporary protected status, despite it being *very* clear that there is still a very dangerous situation going on in Yemen, a Federal judge has put on hold the action that Kristi Noem took to end their TPS status (yes, I realize that's redundant, much like "ATM machine", but it makes it more readable - fun fact: where I live there is a street called Table Mesa, also redundant.)
Judge Donald Ho observed that Noem had violated the... yep, some of you guessed it... Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which required her to "do a periodic review of a country'�s relevant conditions, and which includes consultation with appropriate agencies regarding those conditions," before making a decision to terminate TPS for people from a given country.
Said the Court that *had* Noem taken the time to conduct the required consultations “Perhaps, in considering information about whether the conditions that gave rise to Yemen’s TPS designation - namely, the presence of ongoing armed conflict prevents the safe return of Yemeni nationals - persist today, the interlocutors would have grappled with the fact that State has classified Yemen at the highest threat level in its travel advisory - that is, “Level 4 - Do Not Travel”, due to, among other things, “terrorism, unrest, . . . and landmines.”
Judge Ho's 36-page analysis and order (included for Notes from the Front members) concludes by once more showing us that the courts are paying attention to what these administration officials are saying in public, hoisting them on their own petards. In his conclusion Judge Ho quotes Noem from a public statement she made about refugees from Haiti, when she said - yes really - that they are all "killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies." They are not, says Judge Ho.
He then paused Noem's ending of TPS for people from Yemen while their lawsuit - *a class action lawsuit* - makes its way through the courts.
COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE TELLS TRUMP “TALK TO THE HAND - THE HAND THAT SAYS NO DICE TO 10% ALTERNATIVE TARIFFS”
On Thursday United States Court of International Trade (CIT) granted the State of Washington's and two other plaintiffs' motion for *summary judgement*, dashing to the ground, hard, Trump's attempt to get around the Supreme Court's rejection of his tariffs by using §122 of the Trade Act of 1974 as an alternative way to impose the tariffs that, again, the Supreme Court rejected. (I'm very grateful to friend and colleague Ty Cobb for getting the decision and order to me hot off the presses!)
There were actually many, many plaintiff states, but the Court found that only three plaintiffs had standing: the State of Washington and two businesses that joined the lawsuit, Basic Fun (a toy company) and Burlap and Barrel (what Trump will be wearing once a fair and proper administration takes power again, although plaintiff Burlap and Barrel is actually a spice importing company). So the order only applies to those three plaintiffs *but* you can bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow there'll be more lawsuits in other jurisdictions modeled on this lawsuit.
You see, §122 of the Trade Act of 1974 says that the president can impose temporary tariffs of up to 15%, for no more than 150 days, for, and I quote, "fundamental international payments problems." I would submit that any fundamental international payments problems happening right now are problems *created by Trump*.
What §122 says are fundamental international payments problems include such things as "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits, an imminent and significant depreciation of its currency in foreign exchange markets, or an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium." Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling holding Trump's tariffs illegal, Trump, citing §122, issued "Proclamation No. 11012, Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge to Address Fundamental International Payments Problems".
And just like with his bogus Executive Orders, naming something doesn't make it so. I could have named Lily "Kitty", but she still wouldn't be a cat.
Now, this is an 88-page decision, *full* of all sorts of world moneys language, balance of trade language, trade deficit language, etc.. To be honest this sort of stuff makes me go cross-eyed, so I am not going to get into the weeds with it (although you are welcome to, it is of course included for Notes from the Front members - my economist and import/export geeks will love it, I am sure!)
The bottom line, however, is that the Court held that, and again I quote, "Proclamation No. 11012 is invalid, and the tariffs imposed on Plaintiffs are unauthorized by law." —
And that’s the good news from the past week!
Remember, if you are a Notes from the Front member *all* of the original source documents (transcripts, orders, etc.) are in the archives for you. If you’re not a Notes from the Front member yet, please consider joining us! And yes, really, your $5 a month really does help support my coffee habit and helps me keep on with all of the research and writing I do for you. Sign up here!:
https://notesfromthefront.fyi
Until next time, this is me, reporting from the front line of the battle to save the soul of our country.
Anne
--
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
Internet Law & Policy Attorney, Legislative Advisor
Author: Section 6 of the Federal CAN-SPAM Act
CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Author: Notes from the Front
Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Source