THE WEEK IN LAW: WEEKLY GOOD NEWS ROUNDUP FROM THE FRONT – 5/30/26 Here’s a rec…

THE WEEK IN LAW: WEEKLY GOOD NEWS ROUNDUP FROM THE FRONT – 5/30/26

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 were sent to you with the individual articles earlier this week (you can also find them in the archives). *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!

FEDERAL COURT BLOCKS ALABAMA REDISTRICTING MAP AS RACIALLY MOTIVATED!

This past week the Federal District Court issued a preliminary injunction *blocking* Alabama from using it’s planned redistricting map because the Court found that it was *racially motivated*. This is *following* the Supreme Court decision of Callais, and the District Court took great pains to analyze the issue *including*, and *citing* to Callais.

Now, there are a few things you need to know about this:

1. This is a case that has been going on since 2021, so since *before* Callais.

2. In 2023 the Court found that a newly-drawn Alabama redistricting map violated the Voting Rights Act as it intentionally discriminated against the Black population in Alabama, and struck it down, and imposed a Court-ordered map.

3. Earlier this year the Callais v. Louisiana decision was handed down by the Supreme Court. Alabama argued to the Supreme Court that its situation was nearly identical to Louisiana’s and so the lower court’s order striking down Alabama’s 2023 map (item #2 above) should be vacated, and the Supreme Court agreed, vacating the lower court’s order *and remanding it to the lower court*. <-- this last bit is important, it sent the whole mess back to the lower court for the lower court to review it *in light of the Callais decision*. 4. Alabama reintroduced the 2023 map, and advocates immediately challenged it in court, and the Court, just now, issued a preliminary injunction barring Alabama from using the 2023 map. Ok, you are caught up to today now. In today’s 102-page decision (included for Notes from the Front members), and relying on a 104-page exhibit package (also included for Notes from the Front members), the Court first, of course, pointed out that in *this* particular case, there had already been a finding of - and ample evidence of - the fact that the 2023 map *had been intentionally drawn to disadvantage Black voters*. BUT, and this is really important: remember when Callais was handed down, and I told you that yes, it was a horrible, awful decision, that absolutely changed the landscape of what §2 Voting Rights Act cases would look like, *but* that also I had faith in lawyers to recalculate their angle of attack to still get a §2 case before the judges (the example I used was that they would argue “pretext”)? Well, this Milligan decision *provides the blueprint*! This is *the Court* carefully analyzing what is essentially a §2 claim, *in light of Callais*, and coming down on the side of justice. Yes, there had already been a finding by the Court that the 2023 map was racially motivated. But in that 102-page order, and the 104 pages of evidence, there is a roadmap. Now, of course, this will be (likely is being as you read this) immediately appealed. So, we need to watch this very closely. But the blueprint is there, and even if it gets overturned on appeal, *that* will tell us how we need to refine the blueprint. The lesson here is: it’s definitely not over. JUDGE PUTS THE BRAKES ON ICE GUIDELINES SAYING TO DEPORT PEOPLE *ALREADY* IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS - CERTIFIES CLASSES! This is fantastic news: Judge Andre Birotte Jr. just took ICE to task over their revised “who can we deport next” guidelines (the “2025 Guidance”) that had them deporting people who, previous to the issuance of the 2025 Guidance, were *not* supposed to be deported because they had already applied to stay in the U.S.. To make matters worse, this was specifically affecting people who were and are victims of domestic violence, survivors of trafficking, and survivors of certain other crimes; these people were and are applying for immigration-related victim benefits. These are the “VAWA self-petition”, and the U and T visas. As the Court explains in its 97-page opinion (included for Notes from the Front members), “To avoid potential immigration consequences for noncitizens pursuing these benefits, to encourage victims to come forward, and to fulfill the purposes of the victim-based benefits programs, Congress provided interim benefits including deferred action, work authorization, and other benefits during the often-lengthy pendency of these petitions.” Put in plain English, this was a way for victims to escape their abusers and come to the U.S. and stay in the U.S. while they were completing the immigration process. Prior to 2025, the prevailing policy with respect to ICE and those who had an active application for a VAWA self-petition, U visa, or T visa was, and I quote from the opinion, “to “refrain from taking civil enforcement action against” individuals “known to have a pending application” for “victim-based immigration benefits,” *and* in fact it directed ICE to “seek expedited adjudication of victim-based immigration applications and petitions.” So, not get them out of here, quite the opposite, “do everything you can to get their applications finalized.” In addition, under the 2025 Guidance, ICE implemented two policies: the De Facto Revocation Policy (ICE ignores deferred action orders), and the Blind Removal Policy (where ICE “detains or removes petitioners who have requested a stay of removal without first conducting a statutorily-required inquiry into whether the petitions present a prima facie case for approval”; called ‘Blind’ “because ICE executes them in ignorance of the individual’s prima facie eligibility for approval of their pending petitions.” For those who don’t know, ‘prima facie’ means ‘at first sight’, or, basically, the thing is obvious on its face. As the Court points out, the actual text of the 2025 Guidance (also included for Notes from the Front members) says, among other things: “Citing President Trump’s January 20, 2025, Executive Order (EO) 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion,10 “which states it is the policy of the United States to achieve the ‘total and efficient enforcement of [immigration] laws’ against all inadmissible and removable aliens,” the 2025 Guidance establishes that the following policies govern ICE officers’ enforcement actions towards individuals with pending victim-based benefit petitions: officers should (1) “coordinate and deconflict internally” and with law enforcement agencies “to ensure criminal investigative and other enforcement actions will not be compromised”; (2) “consult with” local ICE attorneys only “to ensure any such [civil enforcement] action is consistent with applicable legal limitations”; (3) need not consider a noncitizen being “a victim of a crime” as “a positive discretionary factor”; and (4) will not “routinely request expedited adjudications from USCIS,” but may do so on a case-by-case basis when “it is in ICE’s best interests.” “ This is a perfect example of the interplay between executive orders, executive agencies (in this case ICE), and the law. Presidents issue executive orders - they are *not* law. Then executive (Federal) agencies implement the policies of the EO. Again, the EO is *not* law. Then either the courts construe the EO and adjudge it legal or not, *or* Congress passes a law dealing with the subject matter of the EO, or both. So, the 2025 Guidance is *policy*, not law. Now, many of you have been with me long enough to guess what, among other things, the Court invokes. Say it with me: The APA (a/k/a the Administrative Procedure Act) This may be as clear an example of what the APA is as ever we’ve seen: It is a Federal law that dictates how government agencies (i.e. administrative agencies) implement policy. And who is empowered to enforce the APA? That’s right, the courts. This particular case has several plaintiffs, including individuals and advocacy organizations. And those individuals included *people who had been deported” under the 2025 Guidance, while waiting for their U or T visa or VAWA self-petition to be granted. So, here’s what the Court just did: First, it *certified 3 classes*: with respect to anyone who has a pending U or T visa or VAWA self-petition: 1. Anyone who has a pending U or T visa or VAWA self-petition “who ICE detains or seeks to detain for civil immigration enforcement”. These people are known as “The Pending Petition Class”. 2. Any of those individuals who has granted deferred action based on a pending U or T visa petition and who, during the authorized period of deferred action, ICE detains, seeks to detain, *or removed* (this is important) without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding potential revocation of their deferred action status. These people are known as “The Deferred Action Class”. 3. Any of those individuals who, since January 30, 2025, have been, are, or will be detained by ICE and who request or requested a stay of a final removal order prior to enforcement of that removal order. These people are known as “The Stay of Removal” class. THEN the Court went on to order that: The 2025 Guidance, and the De Facto Revocation and the Blind Removal Policy are all stayed. Period. Meaning that they are no longer in effect. Period. AND ICE is *enjoined* from preventing the individual plaintiffs whom they had wrongfully deported from re-entering the U.S. (at their same immigration status), and from deporting the individual plaintiffs who were still in the U.S. without first getting a determination of whether they are prima facie eligible for the visas for which they applied. FASTER THAN YOU CAN SAY "TRUMP'S SPECIAL GRIFT" A JUDGE BLOCKS THE "ANTI-WEAPONIZATION FUND" Not to say that I told you so...but... of *course* Trump's most bigly grift was immediately challenged in court, and of *course* the Court was going to block it. I did tell that this would be the case. And the reason I tell you these things is to *de-stress* you, because they *want* you to be stressed, they are counting on you not knowing what is the reality instead of their fantasy plays. They want to get in your head - I want to put *knowledge* in your head. :~) Now, it’s honestly anyone’s guess how this will ultimately pan out, because, to the best of my knowledge, there is *no precedent* for such a grift. But here’s what I can tell you: The lawsuit was filed exactly one week ago. The lawsuit was filed by individuals Andrew Floyd and Jonathan Caravello, by the City of New Haven, and by organizations National Abortion Federation, and Common Cause. Note that Andrew Floyd is a former United States Attorney who *led* a DOJ taskforce investigating the Jan6 insurrection. Caravello is a professor who was arrested during an ICE protest, and charged with assault with a ‘deadly or dangerous weapon’. You remember that because I reported on that; he’s the guy who grabbed the tear gas canister that ICE had thrown into a crowd of protestors, and hurled it away - as it happened, back in the direction of the ICE agents. Nobody was hurt. Yeah, that was the ‘deadly or dangerous weapon’ over which he was charged with assaulting the ICE agents - which leads one to observe that *their own court documents* classify a tear gas canister as “deadly or dangerous”... hrrrmmm. Anyways, Caravello was *acquitted* by a jury. Clearly he is one of the plaintiffs in part to demonstrate *this* administration’s weaponization of the DOJ. The Complaint (included for Notes from the Front members) asserts the following violations: - Violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition against viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional conditions - Violation of the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection - Violation of the separation of powers - Several violations of the Administrative Procedure Act - Ultra Vires action (i.e. outside of the legal bounds of the law) A mere week later, at the speed of “oh no you don’t!”, Judge Leonie Brinkema issued an order (included for Notes from the Front members) against the Trump administration enjoining them “from taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund.” Judge Brinkema explained in a footnote that “It is important that the status quo be maintained until plaintiffs’ pending Motion has been resolved, especially as plaintiffs allege in their Expedited Motion that defense counsel “was unable ... to provide assurances of how long [the] status quo would last” and declined plaintiffs’ “request that the government commit to not transferring money to the Fund or processing or paying claims until at least June 19 to allow for less compressed briefing in this case.” There is a hearing now set for Friday, June 5th (a week from today). As I was writing this up for you, a thought occurred to me. With all of these whackadoodle (yes, that’s a legal term) actions that Trump is taking, I’m confident that he has someone in his ear telling him “Try it, the worst that can happen is you are told you can’t do it and it doesn’t happen. But if you don’t try, it absolutely won’t happen,” and I was reminded of John Eastman. To refresh your memory, John Eastman was the law professor and lawyer who was one of Trump’s confidants and who told him to try a fake slate of electors. I’m almost certain that there is a “John Eastman” in the White House now who told him to try this. Could be Miller, could be someone else. (Interesting sidenote: On January 4th 2021, two days before the insurrection, Eastman actually told Trump that the fake elector plan *violated Federal law*. Which of course means that Trump pushed it *knowing* that it violated Federal law.) JUDGE BLOCKS CLOSING OF KENNEDY CENTER *AND* SAYS "YOU CAN'T ADD TRUMP'S NAME"! This week a Federal court *blocked* Trump’s effort to close the Kennedy Center *and* basically said “You want to add WHOSE name next to President Kennedy’s? Talk to the hand, buddy!” In a 94-page opinion, as well as two separate short orders (all included for Notes from the Front members) Judge Christopher Cooper slams every bit of Trump’s tomfoolery (which shall hereinafter in this post be called “Trumpfoolery”), reminding him and the board of the Kennedy Center that what Congress hath wrought, only Congress can unwrought (er.. you know what I mean). The Opinion is a work of art - fitting for the subject - and starts by describing the history of the Kennedy Center: “In November 1962, President John F. Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy presided over “An American Pageant of the Arts,” a televised fundraiser for what was then known as the National Cultural Center. The event boasted an impressive slate of performers, including poet Robert Frost, singer Harry Belafonte, and a seven-year-old cellist by the name of Yo-Yo Ma, among other famed (or soon-to-be-famous) artists. Addressing the gathering, President Kennedy expounded: ‘[A]rt knows no national boundaries. Genius can speak in any tongue, and the entire world will hear it and listen. Behind the storm of daily conflict and crisis, the dramatic confrontations, the tumult of political struggle, the poet, the artist, the musician continues the quiet work of centuries, building bridges and experience between peoples, reminding man of the universality of his feelings and desires and despairs, and reminding him that the forces that unite are deeper than those that divide . . . I am certain that after the dust of centuries has passed over our cities, we, too, will be remembered, not for victories or defeats in battle or in politics but for our contribution to the human spirit.’ Congress chose to honor President Kennedy’s commitment to the arts - reflected in his lyrical remarks at the American Pageant - following his assassination a year later. It enacted legislation that formally designated the National Cultural Center as the “John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.” Congress made clear that the Kennedy Center would serve as both the nation’s premier performing arts center and a living memorial, the sole one dedicated to the late President in the Washington, D.C. area. The Center has played those roles for over five decades.” I hope that you read and heard that middle section, the quote from President Kennedy, in his unique, broad accent. I certainly did. You may remember I told you about the whole kerfuffle (yes, a legal term) over the board of the Kennedy Center muzzling the one board member who was all “The Emperor’s not wearing any clothes!”, while the others were all doing Trump’s bidding, and pushing for Trump’s closure. And I told you then that the Court ordered Trump to turn over whatever documents he and the board were relying on for that closure. This is the same case. There are three different issues in this case: the closure of the Kennedy Center for two years for “necessary renovation”, the renaming of the Kennedy Center to the “Trump Kennedy Center” (retch), and then the matter of the board muzzling Representative Beatty (D-Ohio) so she couldn’t vote, even though she was on the board. Of the renaming matter, the Court says “The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so. Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it.” I’m not going to go into the very in-depth analysis that Judge Cooper does for either the closure or the vote-muzzling issue (but of course you can read it for yourself as I’m including that 94-page opinion). But I will point out that Judge Cooper includes such delightful statements as: “As an important aside, the exercise of the Board’s statutory duties involves legal questions, complex ones at that. Which naturally raises the question: Where were the lawyers? The answer appears to be “nowhere.” “ (snort) And footnote 31 (!) of 35 (!!) footnotes starts out: “The Court does not pull this conclusion out of thin air.” Heh. I don’t usually quote from footnotes and now I’ve done it twice in one day - which means these are footnotes of..er.. note. Then the Court ordered that the Kennedy Center cannot be renamed, that any signage or printed material bearing Trump’s name along with Kennedy’s be removed and the website updated accordingly; that the board is preliminarily enjoined from closing the Center; and that the Kennedy Center board is *permanently* enjoined from enforcing the by-law they adopted that disallowed ex-officio board members such as Beatty from voting. JUDGE *REOPENS* TRUMP'S IRS LAWSUIT CITING "GRIEVOUS ALLEGATIONS" AND ASKS "WAS THE COURT A VICTIM OF FRAUD?" You heard it here first! (Unless you didn’t.) The judge in that bogus Trump v. IRS lawsuit has just *reopened* the case, after *35 former Federal judges* filed a motion (included for Notes from the Front members) to reopen the case, arguing that Trump perpetrated a fraud on the Court when he, among other things filed a “settlement” that *was never before the Court*! I need to crow a little bit here because you guys *did* hear *that* here first! I said back on May 19th, the day that the “settlement” (air quotes) was a released, that these were “squirrely documents”. You’ll remember my saying that the Judge made a *point* of saying, in the order closing the case, that: “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 said NO SETTLEMENT EXISTS. And then I added that “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.” (And then I made “squirrely” the magic word for that post. :~) ) Well guess what. That motion to reopen the case by the 35 former Federal judges gave Judge Williams the hook she needed to reopen the case! (Her order included for Notes from the Front members.) I should say “preopen” the case, because she reopened it just enough to order Trump to appear before the Court on June 12th to, among other things, answer the question of “whether the case should be reopened because the Court was the “victim of a fraud.”” Now, I say Trump, but it’s likely to be just his attorneys. But still... o/’o/’ There’s gonna be a spanking... o/’o/’ — 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