THE WEEK IN LAW: WEEKLY GOOD NEWS ROUNDUP FROM THE FRONT – 5/16/26
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!
COURT *SPANKS* NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES AND DOGE OVER GRANT TERMINATIONS, VOIDS THE TERMINATIONS, AND CERTIFIES CLASS!
At the end of last week the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York (abbreviated to SDNY) absolutely spanked, in so many ways, the Trump administration’s National Endowment for the Humanities, *and* DOGE.
How may they spank thee? Let me count the ways:
Spank 1: *Voiding* the terminations of grants
Spank 2: Declaring DOGE’s/NEH’s actions *unconstitutional*!
Spank 3: *Permanent* injunction!
Spank 4: Class certification!
Spank 5: SUMMARY JUDGEMENT!!!
In an absolutely glorious and thorough (and very readable, plain English!) 143-page opinion and order that you are going to *love* (included for Notes from the Front members), Judge Colleen McMahon utterly eviscerates the actions of the NEH and DOGE, pointing out that “DOGE blatantly used protected characteristics as criteria for grant termination” *and* that “Until now, it had not been the Court’s experience that the United States Attorney’s Office in this district would advance an argument that was so blatantly contradicted by the evidence – but it certainly has done so here.”
(Told you that you were going to love it!)
Judge McMahon goes on to say that “The record establishes, beyond any dispute, that the Government used protected characteristics as criteria for identifying grants for termination. DOGE swept in race and ethnicity – including grants concerning Black, Asian, Latino, and Indigenous communities – as well as national origin and immigration status; religion and religious identity (including Jewish, Christian, and Muslim subjects); sex; and sexual orientation, as criteria for grant termination. Rational basis review does not apply to the racial, ethnic, national-origin, or religious classifications; strict scrutiny does. Nor does rational basis review apply to sex-based classifications”.
Or, put in proper legalese, “This administration and its DOGE lackeys are a bunch of racist, sexist mofos, and the Constitution won’t stand for it.”
BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE! (Oh, so much more!)
“DOGE’s use of race was certainly not remedial. It was punitive. DOGE, relying on ChatGPT and on Fox’s and Cavanaugh’s understanding of the Administration’s hostility to “DEI,” treated race as a criterion for disqualification. The Government’s asserted interests for terminating grants – administrative convenience, merit, and waste reduction – do not justify making race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, or sexual orientation the determinative grounds for terminating previously awarded grants.”
CHAT-effin-GPT!!!
And we’re not done yet!
“The Government does not come close to satisfying strict scrutiny or heightened scrutiny, and it makes no serious attempt to do so. Unable to explain away its crude “Detection Codes,” including “Tribal,” “Black,” and “Gay,” the Government still maintains that its classifications should nevertheless be upheld as rationally related to a clearly legitimate governmental interest. But DOGE’s actions fail even under rational basis review.”
Understand, DOGE and the Endowment for the Humanities (anyone else instantly hear the Veggie Tales “Barbara Manatee” song every time you read “humanities”?) *were using these classifications as the *basis for terminating grants*!! Not even just not awarding them; *terminating* them!
Effin’ A!
You can *feel* Judge McMahon’s outrage, and understandably!
There is more, oh so much more to this beautiful opinion, which culminates in:
“The Authors Guild Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is GRANTED”; and
“The Mass Termination is DECLARED unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and without legal effect. The termination of National Endowment for the Humanities grants challenged in this action was unlawful because it was undertaken in violation of the First Amendment, in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and without statutory authority. The Court further DECLARES that DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select, or direct the termination of NEH grants, and that the resulting terminations were ultra vires”; (*Note: the reversing of the terminations of the grants does not in and of itself reinstate the grants; for that the Plaintiffs have to file with the Federal Court of Claims.) and
“The Government, along with its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing, implementing, or giving any effect to the Mass Termination”.
Booyah!
COURT OF APPEALS UPHOLDS SANCTIONS AGAINST TRUMP AND ALINA HABBA FOR BRINGING FRIVOLOUS BAD FAITH LAWSUIT AGAINST HILLARY AND OTHERS
Oh my darlings, you are going to so love this!
Waaaaay back in March of 2022, Trump filed a lawsuit, using Alina Habba’s law firm, against Hillary Clinton, and a whole lot of other people including Marc Elias and my friend Rodney Joffe, and besmirching Perkins Coie for good measure, claiming a whole lot of things that amounted to “they swayed public sentiment and helped steal the election with dastardly deeds.”
In near record time, in September of 2022, the judge, Judge Donald Middlebrooks, *dismissed* the case!
First he notes that the plaintiffs (Trump) completely ignored the rule that a complaint filed in Federal court *must* contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and that “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” He then observes that Trump’s complaint was 193 pages long! But he’s just getting started.
Judge Middlebrooks goes on to say that “More troubling, the claims presented in the Amended Complaint are not warranted under existing law. In fact, they are foreclosed by existing precedent, including decisions of the Supreme Court. To illustrate, I highlight here just two glaring problems with the Amended Complaint. There are many others. But these are emblematic of the audacity of Plaintiff’s legal theories and the manner in which they clearly contravene binding case law.”
He then goes into just some of the deficiencies in the Complaint, and then dismisses the entire case!
And *that’s* when some of the defendants filed motions for monetary *sanctions* against Trump and Habba.
And Judge Middlebrooks *granted* some of those sanctions, to the tune of nearly $1million, all told.
And of course that’s when Trump filed a motion to disqualify Judge Middlebrooks (he lost that motion too).
In a beautiful, beautiful, BEAUTIFUL order on one of the motions for sanctions, issued in January of 2023 (and included for Notes from the Front members), Judge Middelbrooks *opens* with:
“This case should never have been brought. Its inadequacy as a legal claim was evident from the start. No reasonable lawyer would have filed it. Intended for a political purpose, none of the counts of the amended complaint stated a cognizable legal claim.”
(snort)
He then goes on to say that “Thirty-one individuals and entities were needlessly harmed in order to dishonestly advance a political narrative. A continuing pattern of misuse of the courts by Mr. Trump and his lawyers undermines the rule of law, portrays judges as partisans, and diverts resources from those who have suffered actual legal harm.”
In this 46-page opinion and order for sanctions he also quotes Alina Habba (yes, *that* Alina Habba) from an interview on Fox where she says “You can’t make this up. You literally cannot make a story like this up . . . and President Trump is just not going to take it anymore. If you are going to make up lies, if you are going to try to take him down, he is going to fight you back. And that is what this is, this is the beginning of all that.”
…making clear that this lawsuit is *politically* motivated, and having no basis in.. you know… law.
Of course Trump appealed those sanctions orders.
At the end of this past November (so about six months ago) the Court of Appeals handed down its decision on Trump’s appeal, *upholding* the sanctions (that 36-page opinion also included for Notes from the Front members).
Now, do you remember what we’ve learned about Courts of Appeal? Usually a subset of their judges (for example a panel of three judges) decide an appeal. And, as you will recall, the loser (and I mean that in all ways here) can apply to have the *full* panel of *all* of the Circuit Court judges (or at least more of the judges, in some circuits) re-consider the case, and that is called an “en banc” hearing. You will also remember that in order to trigger an en banc hearing one of the Court of Appeals judges has to request it on behalf of the loser, so to sort of sponsor or champion it.
So, the loser here applied to have his appeal reheard en banc. And this was the order in response, just yesterday:
“The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED, no judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc.”
In other words:
The Sanctions Stand!
SUPREME COURT CONTINUES MAIL-ORDER ACCESS TO MIFEPRISTONE IN A DECISION WITH ONLY TWO DISSENTS
The Supreme Court this week extended mail-order access to mifepristone.
To be clear, this means that it will still be available while the actual case is going on in the lower court. The Supreme Court decision lifted an injunction that had been put in place by the lower court, pending the outcome of the decision on the merits of the case by the lower court.
In the 8-page decision just released by the Supreme Court, to which Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, the other justices, who did not sign their names to the decision said in a terse single paragraph that the stay was granted. The rest of the opinion is the two dissents, and is included for Notes from the Front members.
TRUMP TRIES TO WEASEL OUT OF NAACP LAWSUIT – COURT SAYS “NO DICE! ANSWER THEM!”
Back a bit over a year ago, in March 2025, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a lawsuit against the U.S., and the U.S. Department of Education, and Linda McMahon, over the Dept. of Ed.’s (”DoE”) cancellation of grants, and RIF (reduction in force, i.e. layoffs and/or firings) of hundreds of DoE workers.
Now, the Complaint (included for Notes from the Front members) talks about a lot of different actions and grants which the DoE has terminated or otherwise impeded, and of course our old friend the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); by now you are well acquainted with these issues, and you can read about those individually, if you like, in the Complaint.
What’s more, *180* members of Congress signed on to an Amici Curiae brief (amici is the plural of amicus, remember that’s ‘friends of the Court’) supporting the NAACP!
What is relevant to *this* article is that on July 1, 2025, the NAACP filed this Complaint (actually an amended complaint, the first complaint was the one filed in March of last year), and on July 25th the Defendants (U.S., U.S. DoE, and McMahon), *instead of responding to the Complaint*, filed a Motion to Dismiss. (For fellow attorneys, it was of course a good old 12(b)(6) motion – which, for non-lawyers, means they are asserting that the Complaint fails to put forth a claim that can be addressed by the Court; the actual language is “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”).
The Plaintiffs responded to that Motion to Dismiss, and on September 18th the Defendants filed a *second* Motion to Dismiss. (Also a 12(b)(6) motion.)
Well, this past week the Court handed down its ruling on the administration’s efforts to get the case dismissed. It was 67 pages so you know it’s got to be good!
In her opinion, Judge Julie Rubin explains that while the Defendants assert that the NAACP’s lawsuit is really over the closure of the DoE (which is a different matter altogether), rather than specific actions such as termination of specific grants, in fact the NAACP actually did properly cite specific grant terminations, and file the Complaint fully complying with the requirements for such a lawsuit. (She also says, and I quote, “The court has reviewed all papers; no hearing is necessary.” (snort))
Silly administration, did you *really* think that the NAACP didn’t know what they were doing? Have you *looked* in a mirror lately?
In the separate 1-page order, Judge Rubin then *denies* the Motion to Dismiss *and* *orders* the administration to actually, you know, *respond* to the Complaint. And no, “I know you are but what am I” is not a sufficient response.
HOLY COW! YOU ARE GOING TO LOVE THIS JUDGE’S ALMOST VICIOUS TAKEDOWN OF THE DOJ OVER THEIR SUBPOENA REGARDING PUBERTY BLOCKERS!
The setup: The DOJ served a supoena on a Rhode Island hospital, demanding records related to puberty blockers.
Ok, so the DOJ serves this subpoena, a very lengthy “give us everything *including* the kitchen sink” subpoena. And the petitioner in this court action, an advocate for children who is working with the hospital, is moving to quash it. To quash something in the legal context means to 86 it. (Sorry, no seashells.)
I would like to bring to your attention that the Motion to Quash was filed on May 4th, and Judge McElroy’s Order was issued *on the 13th*!! That is *lightening speed*! And boy is she pissed; she rips the DOJ a new one!
(Notes from the Front members, the 24 glorious pages of Judge McElroy’s basshole-ripping order are included for you.)
Right on the first page Judge McElroy says that we put immense trust in the DOJ and that, and I quote:
“DOJ has proven unworthy of this trust at every point in this case.”
OUCH!
She then points out all of the ways that the DOJ has lied, obstructed, and generally been basshats, and then observes:
“And when its attorneys came to this Court to explain their conduct, the senior attorney – who was present at many of the events that took place in this case – sat silently by as his counterpart, a junior attorney who has been practicing law for approximately six months and had no relevant information, was forced to answer questions about DOJ’s blatant disregard for the proper course of negotiations.”
Of course the senior attorney probably had no relevant information either. In fact, the senior attorney probably was thinking “There is no way I’m going to risk my reputation trying to defend these basshole actions, let’s send in the new guy, who can be excused for not knowing anything on account of being.. you know… new.”
Ok, one more and then I’ll let you guys who want to get to the full thing, while I start on the dark stuff:
“…the discrepancy between the honorable conduct expected of federal prosecutors and DOJ’s tactics in this case is unsettling. The Court cannot help but share the sentiment that “[t]he presumption of regularity that has previously been extended to [DOJ] that it could be taken at its word – with little doubt about its intentions and stated purposes—no longer holds.”
YOW! Judge McElroy saying the quiet judicial part out loud!
—
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.
Source