THE WEEK IN LAW: WEEKLY GOOD NEWS ROUNDUP FROM THE FRONT – 6/7/26
by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. – zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what’s going on with this administration and the law
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!
DOJ’S EFFORTS TO DISMISS JAN6 CHARGES C*CK-BLOCKED BY JUDGE!!
Remember how last week we talked in one of our live shows about how the DOJ had just filed a motion to *dismiss* *with prejudice* the charges against several of the Jan6 rioters, saying that it had decided in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of the charges were “in the interest of justice”?
And we talked about how the motion was unopposed by the defendants because, of course, why *would* the Jan6 defendants oppose the DOJ letting them off scot-free?
And how we talked about how whacked it was that the DOJ could just do that?
Well guess what. Apparently Judge Amit Mehta, who has those Jan6 cases, thinks so too, because late yesterday Judge Amit Mehta BLOCKED the DOJ’s efforts, saying that he needed to fully examine the situation, to make sure that it really *was* in the interest – the *public’s* interest – of justice.
Being that it was late Friday, and today is Saturday, the order isn’t even on the public dockets yet (at least it wasn’t last I checked) so I *purchased* the order for you. (Notes from the Front members it’s in your inbox now.)
Citing to controlling case law, Judge Mehta says in the two-page order (but wow what he packs into those two pages!), “[T]he court lacks the information necessary both to determine whether “the reasons advanced for the proposed dismissal are substantial” and to guard against “abuse of prosecutorial discretion.”
THEN he orders the government to cough up more information by next Friday (June 5th)!
So what’s going to happen? It’s anybody’s guess, but in theory he could order that the charges *not* be dismissed, and that the trials move forward, and appoint special prosecutors (because obviously this DOJ has no intention of prosecuting these defendants).
First the Court in the IRS settlement grift *reopens* a closed case to examine what Trump and his DOJ are doing, and now another Court says “not so fast” to the DOJ’s motion to dismiss Jan6 charges!
We are truly through the looking-glass now, and I couldn’t be more delighted.
JUDGE *EXTENDS* INJUNCTION REQUIRING FEDERAL PRISONS TO PROVIDE GENDER AFFIRMING CARE AND I *LOVE* THE NAME OF THIS CASE!
Before I get to the actual legal stuff, I just have to gush over the name of this case, are you ready?
Kingdom versus Trump
What a *great* name!
It’s like the *entire kingdom* of..whatever… is against Trump.
Now, of course, it actually takes its name from the last name of one of the plaintiffs, Alishea Kingdom, but still, Kingdom v. Trump has a really nice ring to it, dontcha think?
Anyways, last year Ms. Kingdom along with other inmates of the Federal Bureau of Prisons filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for denying them the gender-affirming care – both pharmaceutical and social – that they had been receiving up until the time that Trump issued the executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (included for Notes from the Front members). Following the issuing of that executive order, the Assistant Director of the Health Services Division of the Bureau of Prisons issued a directive directing all Federal prisons to immediately cease spending any Federal funds on “any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.” (Also included for Notes from the Front members.)
The plaintiffs had all been diagnosed by *Bureau of Prison* medical staff with gender dysphoria, and prescribed gender affirming meds and care *by the Bureau of Prison* medical staff. But that didn’t matter following the issuing of the executive order and BOP directive.
So they sued. And, in the 32-page Complaint (included for Notes from the Front members) they also asked to have a class certified for a class action.
Last June Judge Royce Lamberth issued an opinion certifying the class and granting a preliminary injunction (included for Notes members) and entered an order (also included) *staying* *both* the executive order and the BOP directive, effectively allowing the prisons to continue providing the gender-affirming care that *their own medical staff* had prescribed.
Once the injunction was in place the Court extended it every 90 days (because it was preliminary, not permanent; preliminary injunctions have an expiration date of, generally, no more than 90 days).
Earlier this year the administration moved to dissolve the injunction, and the Plaintiffs responded with a supplemental complaint (for you attorneys out there it’s actually a Ps & As but in the Order the Court calls it a complaint), and last week the Court re-renewed the preliminary injunction (all of these documents are included for Notes from the Front members).
So, for now, people within the Federal prison system will continue to get their gender-affirming care, including both medication and social support.
This is a great example of how executive orders are *not* law. They are basically directives from the CEO to his staff, telling them what actions to take.
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS INJUNCTION BARRING HEGSETH & TRUMP FROM DISCHARGING PEOPLE FROM THE MILITARY FOR BEING TRANS!
On June 1st the Court of Appeals handed down its 107-page decision in Talbott v. United States (included for Notes from the Front members). This is the case that is challenging the Trump administration’s policy of not allowing trans people in the military, as memorialized in the executive order “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness”. (As if he would know excellence if it smacked him across the face and called him Maria.)
This is EO 14183. (Also included for Notes from the Front members, just be sure not to read it on a full stomach) that says, among other things, that “the Armed Forces have been afflicted with radical gender ideology” and that “It is the policy of the United States Government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity. This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria. This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.”
Based on EO 14183, Hegseth promulgated a policy which boiled down to “no trans people allowed in the military”. We’ll call that “the Hegseth Policy”.
Now keep in mind that appeals and appellate decisions are always based on the application of law – *not* on the actual merits of the underlying case itself.
There has been a lot of litigation in this case, which was initially filed on January 28th of last year, just *one* day after EO 14183 came out.
In March of last year the judge in the District Court (the initial court), Judge Ana Reyes, issued a preliminary injunction barring the administration from implementing the Hegseth Policy.
At the time that Judge Reyes’ injunction was issued there were 14 plaintiffs who were on active duty, one plaintiff who was in basic training, and five plaintiffs who were in the process of enlisting.
It is that injunction that the administration appealed to the Court of Appeals.
It’s important to understand that one of the primary purposes of an injunction is to *preserve the status quo*.
So, in this case the status quo was that trans people were and are in the military.
You need to understand this to understand what the Court of Appeals did. (As an aside, the Court of Appeals narrowed the injunction from a broad “universal” injunction to only applying to the Plaintiffs – so watch for a request to certify a class in this one.)
The Court of Appeals, also known as a Circuit Court (in this case for the D.C. Circuit) heard the case with a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Rogers, Wilkins, and Walker.
Basically the Court of Appeals distinguished between service members who were *already* serving in the military, and people who wanted to join the military. Because of this you see this in the 107-page Court of Appeals opinion:
“Opinion announcing the judgment of the Court filed by
Circuit Judge WILKINS.
Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by
Senior Circuit Judge ROGERS.
Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge WALKER”
Keep in mind that the administration are the “appellants” and the Plaintiffs in the underlying case are the “appellees”. That is because the *administration* *appealed* the lower court’s injunction, so they are the appellants.
Judge Wilkins explains in the main opinion that it is very clear that Trump’s executive order, and Hegseth’s policy which is based on that order, are based in animus (in other words based on hostility towards trans people), and not for any legitimate readiness reason. Says the Court:
“Specifically, Appellants have not shown how a preliminary injunction preventing them from removing current servicemembers will harm national security. As shown above, Appellants have not contested that all of the currently serving Plaintiff-Appellees, who dedicated a combined 130 years to military service and collectively earned more than 80 commendations, have served honorably and met all military standards during their service. Appellants have thus forfeited any argument that, for purposes of the balance of equities analysis, retaining these servicemembers will harm national security. In sum, the balance of equities, as well as the public interest, tips in favor of the Plaintiff-Appellees who are currently serving.”
*However*, the Court goes on to say:
“However, the calculus is different for those Plaintiff-Appellees who seek to join the military. While Plaintiff-Appellees who seek admission to the military have been deprived of constitutional freedoms, the harms and equities of their situations are not identical to those of persons already serving. Plaintiff-Appellees seeking admission to the military can still obtain full relief later, following a final adjudication on the merits. For those servicemembers facing expulsion, it is not clear how easily they can be reinstated and made whole. But even if they can be reinstated after being separated, it appears to us to be a much greater hardship to end a military career than to delay the start of one.”
Now remember, this *entire thing* is *only* about the injunction, and protecting the status quo while the litigation ensues. The status quo for active service members is that they are, well, active service members. That isn’t the case for people applying to join the military. So the Court of Appeals opinion, authored by Judge Wilkins, says that the lower court abused its judicial discretion by including those who weren’t yet in the military in the injunction.
BUT, note how even while foreshadowing that they are about to say that the injunction doesn’t apply to people wanting to join the military, the Court says “While Plaintiff-Appellees who seek admission to the military have been deprived of constitutional freedoms”! It’s very clear how the Court sees the actual merits issues!
On the other hand, Judge Rogers thinks that the injunction should also apply to those wanting to join the service. This is why he concurs in part and dissents in part.
Judge Walker, on the other other hand, dissents entirely.
This means, of the 3-judge panel:
2 votes for yes for active duty (Judge Wilkins and Judge Rogers)
2 votes for no for applicants (Judge Wilkins and Judge Walker)
1 vote for yes for applicants (Judge Rogers, who votes yes for everything)
1 vote no for active duty (Judge Walker, who votes no for everything)
And that is how you arrive at the Court’s opinion and order affirming the injunction for active duty, and vacating (voiding) it for applicants.
This does *not* mean that the Court thinks that it’s ok to discriminate against and reject trans applicants, in fact clearly it doesn’t where it says they have been deprived of constitutional freedoms. It means that until the case is decided they may be SOL (that’s a real legal term).
But personally I believe that the handwriting is on the wall. Which will be followed by ketchup on the wall.
JUDGE SMACKS ADMINISTRATION FOR VIOLATING PROTESTER’S 1A RIGHTS OVER ‘8647’ FLAG!!
I love the smell of Court-smacking in the morning, don’t you?
Plaintiff Accountability Now USA was issued a permit to protest on National Park Service (NPS) land on April 13, 2026, and the permit is valid through August 12, 2026.
Now the background to this is that in February (prior to the current permit) Accountability’s members started displaying signs during their protest on NPS land that talked about Trump doing bad things to little girls. (I’m not going to quote them here but they are spelled out in the Court’s opinion, which is included for Notes from the Front members). They also started displaying an ‘8647’ flag.
On April 14th, so a day after the current permit was issued, the contact at Accountability Now USA received an email from NPS saying that NPS had reviewed images from Accountability’s protest, and that “Based on the photographic evidence from earlier today, the organization’s first amendment permit is displaying unprotected obscenity in signs or media. This is not protected by the first amendment and is therefore prohibited and a violation of law.”
After a bit of back and forth Accountability retired the “obscene” signs and filed this lawsuit, on the grounds that their 1st Amendment rights were being violated.
And they continued displaying the ‘8647’ flags.
Last month Secret Service agents approached an Accountability volunteer who was displaying the 8647 flag. At first they were nice (that conversation is quoted in the Court’s opinion). But then other agents confronted her and were… less nice, also quoted in the Court’s opinion. In fact, the second set of agents *Mirandized* her (recited her Miranda rights), even though she was not even remotely under arrest! This, of course, scared her and led her to believe that she possibly *was* facing arrest!
THEN the Secret Service opened an investigation into the 8647 flag, and the volunteer holding it, as a threat.
Also on May 26th the Secret Service gave the information about their investigation into the 8647 flag to the Department of the Interior.
On May *27th* *4* U.S. Park Police cars, full of U.S. Park Police officers, pulled up to where the volunteer with the flag was located, and told her:
“18 U.S. Code §874.1 Threats against the President. Right now, we’re looking at the 8647 as a threat against the President. Can I ask you to take it down please?”
(Note that there *is* no §874, they probably meant §871.)
Accountability Now USA immediately amended their lawsuit to include the violation of and threats against their 1st Amendment rights over the 8647 flag.
Of course Judge Moss issued a restraining order, enjoining the NPS from “revoking Plaintiff’s demonstration permit as a result of Plaintiff’s display of its “8647” flag, or otherwise ordering the removal of or seizing Plaintiff’s “8647” flag.”
I’ll bet that Judge Randolph Moss never imagined, when he took his oath, that he would pen a 20-page opinion, and accompanying order (also included for Notes from the Front members) based almost entirely on the definition of and what it means to ‘86’ something.
It is both ridiculous and yet at the same time very serious. It is amazing how so often with this administration two seemingly opposite things can both be true.
(Seriously, you should definitely read this opinion, it’s amazing how seriously and masterfully Judge Moss treats the issue!)
And, oh yeah, he ended the order with our favourite small act of defiance: requiring a $1 bond from Accountability Now USA.
(I sure would love to be in a room with Judge Moss, Judge Boasberg, and a few other judges from this epoch. I can only imagine what that conversation would be like!)
KENNEDY CENTER ATTORNEYS DIRECT STAFF TO 86 TRUMP’S NAME – I HAVE THE *ACTUAL* DOCUMENT FOR YOU!
Last week I reported on the Court’s ordering the Kennedy Center to remove Trump’s name, and to not close the Kennedy Center during renovations based on the March vote.
Now the Kennedy Center General Counsel has issued a memo requiring Kennedy Center staff to make it so. And not just to make it so, but to make it so in short order, by Friday, June 12th.
This is of course the deadline that the Court gave them, but it is still significant that the Kennedy Center’s General Counsel has issued this memo making it so. (Yes, yes, I am a Trekkie, and yes, yes, even TNG although I’ll fight to the death defending TOS.)
The memo (full 3-page memo included for Notes from the Front members), instructs that “To comply with this order, you must immediately change email signatures, letterhead, and other documents to reflect the name as “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts,” or “Kennedy Center.” Other changes, such as to templates and forms, signage, brochures, and website pages, must be completed no later than Friday, June 12, 2026.”
Of course it says a lot more, including addressing the renovation, and what the Court did and did not say (nice weasel words in that section).
But what may be the coolest part of the memo, other than, you know, all of it, is the table of responsible parties, responsibilities, and time frame, which includes entries like this:
Marketing: website: immediately
and
National Symphony Orchestra: NSO templates, agreements, forms & policies: immediately
and
Safety & Security: Issue new ID cards: By 6-12-26
And on and on for *20* different responsible parts of the organization, for what they are responsible, and by when. (Ok, I at least think that’s really interesting, but I’m weird like that.)
—
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
New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my $5 Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here’s how: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/
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 CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Author: Notes from the Front (a Substack publication)
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Source