THE WEEK IN LAW: WEEKLY GOOD NEWS ROUNDUP FROM THE FRONT – 5/24/26
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’ button at the bottom of each email (don’t you just hate subscriptions that hide that ball?)
https://notesfromthefront.fyi
Ok, on to this week’s good news!
SUPREME COURT DENIES DRUG MAKERS’ (”BIG PHARMA”) ATTEMPT TO OVERTURN MEDICARE DRUG PRICE CAPS!
As anyone who has struggled with signing up for Medicare knows, Medicare Part D (”D is for Drugs”) covers the cost of prescription drugs.
[NOTE: For my plain English explanation of all things Medicare, including how to sign up and figure out all the options, and whether to choose (dis)Advantage (hint: don’t) see here: https://www.mangemerde.com/how-where-sign-up-medicare-link/ ]
Now, before we go any further, I want to point out that this is a case where *this administration* did the right thing. (“What Anne, how can that be??”) Yes, its true.
You see, back in the 2022, through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Congress gave the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) authority to set price caps on what Medicare would pay on certain prescription drugs.
The big pharma drug manufacturers didn’t like that.
So they sued.
In fact, they sued in many districts, lost in those many districts, appealed to the Courts of Appeal in those districts, and lost bigly there as well. (A sample order, from the District Court of Delaware, and then from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (also Delaware) is included for Notes from the Front members, as is Astrazeneca’s Complaint.)
Who were they suing? The Secretary of HHS. In other words, they were suing the government. Now, in the beginning they were suing the Biden administration. So the Trump administration inherited these lawsuits.
Guess what? The current administration defended these lawsuits vigorously.
Of course, it’s not all that surprising when you realize that they were protecting *their* financial interests (trying to lower the cost of the reimbursement that Medicare has to pay the drug manufacturers), but of course those costs are passed on to us (for those who haven’t crossed that particular Rubicon yet, Medicare Part D – the prescription part, is not free).
Anyways, as I said, the drug manufacturers lost at every turn because while they whined “The big bad government is huffing and puffing and blowing our massive profits down”, each court pointed out that big pharma’s participation in being a Medicare providers is *voluntary*.
So, they appealed to the Supreme Court.
As those of you who have been following me for a while will remember learning, to get the Supreme Court to hear your appeal you file an application with the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari, and when you hear that “cert is denied” it means the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. When cert is denied it doesn’t mean ANYTHING about the merits of the case, it only means that the Supreme Court chose not to hear it.
And that is what happened here. Cert was denied, meaning that all of the decisions of all of the lower courts are *upheld*. And those decisions said, basically, “Suck it up, big pharma, you can either choose to stop ripping off the portion of the American public that is on Medicare, or you can just not access this massive market at all. The choice is yours, and that’s the point – you have a choice.”
Now, the Trump administration submitted a brief to the Supreme Court (as did the many little drugmaker pigs, living in their house built of bricks of cash), and I’m including the government’s brief for Notes from the Front members along with the other documents, so you can put it in your scrapbook as one of the times that this government did the right thing by the American people, even if it was out of their own self-interest.
Notes from the Front members: The documents that go with this post are in your inbox now! If you’re not a Notes from the Front member and want to see these documents you can join here and get instant access to these and all of the other documents:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/woot-supreme-court-denies-drug-makers
GOOD NEWS OF A DIFFERENT SORT: HERE’S WHY I BELIEVE THAT SQUIRRELY DOCUMENT THAT CLAIMS TO PREVENT THE IRS FROM PROSECUTING ANYONE NAMED TRUMP IS VULNERABLE
Stay with me here because I’m going to take you on a procedural ride which will explain why I, and other attorneys, believe that this massive grift by Trump and Blanche – that some are calling the biggest, most blatant corruption in the history of our country – is legally vulnerable.
Like I said, stay with me because it’s all lawyerly technicalities – those things that people complain about, until they need them to save our country.
This squirrely document (yes, that’s a legal term, just like ‘weasely’) is included for Notes from the Front members along with the following documents from Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS: The Complaint, Trump’s notice of voluntary dismissal, the court order closing the case, and not one, not two, but *three* amicus briefs including one by a *court-appointed* Amicus! Also the document creating anti-weaponization fund, the document purporting to prohibit the IRS from investigating any Trump AND – and I *just* this moment found this, the settlement agreement.
I’m including the Amicus briefs because they are interesting, and it’s an educational view into this historic, if brief, lawsuit. They are from a) former government officials, b) 93 members of Congress, and c) that court-appointed Amicus.
But our trip begins at the end of the lawsuit. With the handwriting on the wall – that handwriting saying that there was NFW (No F’ Way – another legal term) that this lawsuit was going to go forward, let alone that Trump was going to prevail, Trump filed a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit yesterday. When I saw it I immediately noticed that it was *with* prejudice. That means that the lawsuit can’t be refiled. Usually a *defendant* would want that, but *not* a plaintiff, and this was the plaintiff dismissing it with prejudice.
“Hrrrm..” I thought “why would a *plaintiff* not want to leave open the option to re-file their lawsuit?
The Court duly dismissed the lawsuit, in a 3-page order (included for Notes from the Front members). Now, that order is short, but it says volumes (we’ll get to that in a minute).
The next thing that happened, still yesterday, was Blanche announcing and posting the document creating the “anti-weaponization” fund (also included for Notes from the Front members).
And I immediately locked in on clause D of that document, which says, and I quote:
“D. Once the funds are deposited into the Designated Account, the United States has no liability whatsoever for the protection or safeguarding of those funds, regardless of bank failure, fraudulent transfers, or any other fraud or misuse of the funds.”
“Hrrm..” says I, again, “this document seems to *contemplate* fraud.”
Then *today* Blanche drops this bombshell – the document reading, and again I quote:
“C. The United States RELEASES, WAIVES, ACQUITS, and FOREVER DISCHARGES each of the Plaintiffs from, and is hereby FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, or requests for any relief, including injunctive relief, monetary relief, damages, examinations or similar or related reviews, appeals, debt relief, costs, attorney’s fees, expenses, and/or interest, whether presently known or unknown, that-as of the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement-have been or could have been asserted by Defendants against any of the Plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals (including, without limitation, family or others filing jointly), or parties including trusts, parent, sister, or related companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries, by reason of, with respect to, in connection with, or which arise out of (1) any matters that were raised or could have been raised in the Case or the Pending Agency Claims; (2) Lawfare and/or Weaponization; or (3) any matters currently pending or that could be pending (including tax returns filed before the Effective Date) before Defendants or other agencies or departments.”
This document was executed *today*.
Then just a short while ago, an actual settlement agreement, signed yesterday (included for Notes members) showed up on the DOJ site.
Ok, now you are caught up in terms of the timeline.
Judge Kathleen Williams, in her order dismissing the case based on Trump’s notice of voluntary dismissal, goes to *great lengths* to make *very clear* that there *is no settlement agreement in this case*. Among other things she says:
“Because the Notice does not reference any settlement or include a stipulation of settlement, there is no settlement of record. Additionally, Defendants – federal agencies represented by the Department of Justice, which has an independent obligation to uphold the “public’s strong interest in knowing about the conduct of its Government and expenditure of its resources” and the “fair administration of justice,” neither submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed.”
Got it? The Judge says NO SETTLEMENT EXISTS.
And then the case is closed.
Now, a *day* later, they come up with a signed settlement agreement, signed yesterday. AND captioned:
“UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. l:26-cv-20609-KMW”
Nope, nope. You can put that at the top of the document, but what the Judge says trumps your ink.
You know what I think? I think that Judge Williams knew that something squirrely was going on, and she was making damned sure that there was a record. I also suspect that she is feeling used.
Trump may be used to backdating checks, or even documents, but backdating your settlement agreement – and putting the number of a case on it that *no longer exists* – well, you can butter me and call me a biscuit, but that doesn’t make me a biscuit.
But wait, there’s more:
That document saying that the IRS can’t prosecute any Trump…guess what. It doesn’t *really* say that the IRS can’t prosecute any Trump. Read it again. It says that the IRS can’t prosecute any *”plaintiff”*. Now look at when it’s dated. Yep, today. As of yesterday *there was no lawsuit*. So there *are no plaintiffs* today.
That document actually says that the IRS can’t prosecute a non-existent person.
And this is why I say that I believe these documents are vulnerable to legal challenge. And I’m not the only lawyer who thinks so, as I’ve been talking with colleagues who also see what I see.
Now, *none* of this as ever been tested before. Other lawyers may think differently (I’m sure Blanche thinks … *hopes*… that this all can withstand legal challenge).
And these are just a few of the squirrely things over which legal action may be brought with respect to this entire grift. And I happen to know that many people and agencies are frantically figuring out the best angle of attack, who can bring the lawsuits, etc..
Fear not, people are working on it.
Notes from the Front members: *ALL* of the documents – the Complaint, Trump’s notice of voluntary dismissal, the court order closing the case, the three amicus briefs, the document creating anti-weaponization fund, the document purporting to prohibit the IRS from investigating any Trump AND the settlement agreement are in your inbox now!
If you’re not a Notes from the Front member and want to see these documents you can join here and get instant access to these and all of the other documents:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/heres-why-i-believe-that-squirrely
COURT ENJOINS TRUMP ADMIN: YOU MUST COMPLY WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT
Here’s the background: The Trump administration has asserted that it doesn’t have to comply with the Presidential Records Act (PRA) because, it claims, the PRA is unconstitutional.
Now we in the legal biz have a term for such claims: bullpucky.
This all stems from a communique put out by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, which I imagine might have been in response to Trump asking something like “How can I get around the Presidential Records Act and not have to produce all of my presidential documents this term, as that whole “taking them with me and squirreling them away at Mar-a-Lago in my first term turned out to be such a hassle.”
The Office of Legal Counsel came out with a *52*-page document (included for Notes from the Front members) that basically said “Here’s a way that you can argue that the PRA is unconstitutional.”
That was on April 1 (yep).
The *non-partisan* research branch of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, needed only 6 pages to refute that, which it did on May 15th (so a week ago). (Also included for Notes from the Front members.)
In the meantime, on April 24th, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the American Historical Association had filed a lawsuit to force Trump’s people to comply with the PRA.
This case went from filing to order with lightning speed. Filed April 24th, and yesterday, *not even a month later*, the Court issued an order and injunction.
Not to be outdone in terms of length and the OLC’s 52-page document, in a 54-page opinion (included for Notes from the Front members) John John Bates basically says “How do I smack thee? Let me count the ways.”
Ok, here’s a bit of what he really says:
“The government asserts that the 2026 Records Guidance and its actions pursuant to that guidance are lawful because the President has inherent authority to manage Executive Branch records. But this is not a case where the President exercises executive power upon a blank slate – Congress has already legislated on the matter by enacting the Presidential Records Act. As analyzed above in the discussion of standing, the 2026 Records Guidance likely does not comply with the Presidential Records Act. And the Act does not provide a basis for the President to disregard its statutory requirements. The Constitution obligates the President to “Take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. Hence, the President’s inherent authority to manage records is only sufficient to justify the 2026 Records Guidance if Congress lacked the power to pass the Act or the President nevertheless has a constitutional basis to disregard it. Neither is likely true.”
And:
“The Records Act is carefully crafted to minimize the likelihood of a present imposition on candor. Records are sequestered for five years after the President leaves office, and the President may extend that period to 12 years in certain circumstances. The sequestration provision ensures that any records of an advisor giving the President unpopular advice will not become public until long after the salience of the issue has faded.”
Then, in a short and concise order, he enjoins (in this case it means requires) the Executive Office of the President, the White House Office, the Office of the Vice President, and Chief of Staff to the President Susie Wiles to “Comply in full with the provisions of the Presidential Records Act” *and* to “Preserve and not destroy or delete presidential and vice presidential records as defined under the Presidential Records Act” (except insofar as records disposal is permitted in accordance with the procedures set out in the PRA).
It takes effect next Tuesday morning (to allow them time to appeal).
By the way, you would not *believe* how many times the name “Nixon” appears in these documents! 😂 😢
Notes from the Front members: The documents for this post are all in your inbox now! If you’re not a Notes from the Front member you can join now and get these documents here:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/woot-court-enjoins-trump-admin-you
JUDGE *DISMISSES* INDICTMENT AGAINST KILMAR ABREGO-GARCIA!!
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” said Dr. Martin Luther King, and that is exactly what happened *just now*, as Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. just *dismissed* the administration’s indictment and case against Kilmar Abrego-Garcia!!
Yes, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but they *do* turn – and while some of you have questioned my faith in our courts, this outcome absolutely supports and even renews my faith.
In a 32-page opinion and order (included for Notes from the Front members), Judge Crenshaw makes *crystal clear* that the government’s prosecution of Abergo-Garcia was retaliatory.
You see…well..gosh darn, let me just let Judge Crenshaw explain it:
“The objective evidence here shows that, absent Abrego’s successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the Government would not have brought this prosecution. The Executive Branch closed its investigation on the November 2022 traffic stop. Only after Abrego succeeded in vindicating his rights did the Executive Branch reopen that investigation. What the Government labels as “new evidence” was not new as a matter of law. The prosecutor’s subjective good faith does not cure the retaliatory taint. Absent Blanche’s tainted investigation, Agent Saoud would not have called McGuire, Singh would not have brought him into the fold, and McGuire would not have sought an indictment against Abrego. The indictment then provided the Executive Branch cover to comply with Judge Xinis’ order to facilitate Abrego’s return to the United States as soon as possible.”
I LOVE how he calls Blanche out!!
This is just one tiny bit of the opinion, I urge you to read all thirty-two pages, they are important, and inspiring.
And hey! With such an explicit finding of the administration’s “tainted” prosecution (Judge Crenshaw’s word, in fact he uses it *24* times in the opinion!), hrrmmm… I suggest that Kilmar Abrego-Garcia should be the first in line for those anti-weaponization funds (although I also firmly believe the fund will never really happen, for reasons I’ve explained elsewhere).
Notes from the Front members: This glorious opinion is in your inbox now! If you’re not a Notes from the Front member and want to see this document you can join here and get instant access to this and all of the other documents:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/yes-judge-dismisses-indictment-against
JUDGE SPANKS DOJ IN BROADVIEW 6 CASE AND I HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT AS WELL AS THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT FOR YOU!
By now you may have heard that the DOJ *dismissed* the charges against the so-called “Broadview 6” – charged with interfering with ICE operations in Chicago – after Judge April Perry (we *love* her) RIPPED the DOJ a new icehole! (See what I did there?)
To bring you up to speed, the original indictments (included for Notes from the Front members) charged five political folks and a musician: two former congressional candidates (Catherine Sharp and Kat Abughazaleh), an Abughazaleh staffer (Andre Martin), an Oak Park village trustee (Brian Straw), a person on the 45th Ward Democratic committee (Michael Rabbitt) and the musician (Joselyn Walsh). Then the DOJ dropped the charges against two of them (Catherine Sharp and Joselyn Walsh).
The Court (Judge Perry) asked to see the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings. And the DOJ produced – to the Court – *redacted* transcripts of the grand jury proceedings.
The Court asked to see unredacted transcripts.
So the DOJ *dropped* the felony charges down to misdemeanor charges. You see, and as you will read in the 60-page transcript of Thursday’s hearing (included for Notes from the Front members), by dropping the felony charges the DOJ no longer had to produce the transcripts because you don’t need a grand jury indictment to charge a misdemeanor; you only need to create a charging document known as the “information”. So by getting rid of the felony charges the DOJ was getting rid of the need to produce the unredacted transcripts to the Court.
Or so it thought.
Because next the *defendants* filed a motion to force the disclosure of the unredacted transcripts because they smelled something fishy, and that smell was emanating from the DOJ.
During the hearing regarding the defendants’ motion to get at the unredacted transcript of the grand jury proceedings, the Court asked the DOJ if they objected, and the DOJ said that it did not.
And so the unredacted transcripts of the grand jury proceedings were delivered to the Court.
And that, you see, is when the prosecutorial misconduct came to light, *including one of the prosecutors MEETING WITH A GRAND JUROR OUTSIDE OF THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS!*
(If you have never seen the movie “Suspect”, and I’m betting that few of you have because it seems that I’m the only one who has seen it other than the people I’ve made watch it, I *highly* recommend it! Don’t let the fact that Cher is in it put you off – if that would; it’s got a great cast and a great story line! And if you *have* seen it, well, then you know what a big deal jury tampering is!)
And that’s not all!
The prosecutors also *excused* grand jurors who did not agree with the government.
Additionally, it came to light that one of the prosecutors employed a tactic called “vouching” which means basically vouching *to the grand jurors* that the government’s case is legitimate and strong. You see, the grand jury is supposed to be impartial and to look at the evidence and arrive at a position *on its own*, with no kibitzing from the prosecutors. And remember that unlike a trial and trial jury, there is nobody there putting on a defense. So the prosecutors aren’t supposed to, you know, prosecute, they are only supposed to present the facts, without any attempt to sway the grand jury to indict.
And the evidence of this misconduct was all *redacted* in the redacted version.
Said Judge Perry during the hearing, “Although I am not going to prejudge the issue without a hearing, I will say that I was incredibly shocked by the redactions that were made. I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of grand jury transcripts involving prosecutors who are the most junior of prosecutors to several U.S. Attorneys who appeared before the grand jury. I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts.”
Then Judge Perry goes on to smack the bejesus (yes, that’s a legal term) out of the DOJ, it’s…it needs to be made into a movie, seriously.
At one point she admonishes the DOJ, and I quote (gosh I love this line):
“Your sole goal is to do justice. Your client is justice itself.”
OMG!! “Your client is justice itself.”
Man I hope this gets made into a movie!
A *very* chastened Andrew Boutros, the DOJ attorney in charge of the case, nearly tripped over himself trying to undo the damage during the hearing, saying, and I again quote, “It is my very sincere belief, Your Honor, that no prosecutor acted intentionally in misleading you, and that there was no desire to mislead the Court and no deliberate misconduct on the part of the prosecutor,” and “I was completely unaware of any vouching that took place in the grand jury, and only became aware of it on either April 27 or the 28th. And immediately when I learned about that vouching, the next day I moved to dismiss the indictment.”
Judge Perry had lots more words for Mr. Boutros.
And now all of the charges have been dropped, although the docket is still open as, for one thing, there may be a question of sanctions.
Oh, and, as a little lagniappe, yesterday Mr. Boutros filed a one-pager replacing himself with a new DOJ attorney (also included for Notes from the Front members). (It’s possible that he was just adding her, but my bet is that she’s taking the lead now.)
Notes from the Front members: The original indictment, the transcript of Thursday’s hearing (remember this is a recording of the *actual hearing*), and the notice of a new DOJ attorney, are in your inbox now!
If you’re not a Notes from the Front member you can join here now and get instant access to these and all of the other documents:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/yes-judge-spanks-doj-in-broadview
—
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.
Source