THE WEEK IN LAW: WEEKLY GOOD NEWS ROUNDUP FROM THE FRONT – 7/31/26
by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. – attorney, law professor emeritus, and author of Federal law
Here’s the 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!
NOTE: Several people have asked me whether I have staff or other people helping me with Notes from the Front. Nope. It’s all just me. The buck truly does stop here. :~) So when you support my work you are absolutely supporting *my* work. :~)
If you’re not a full Notes from the Front member please don’t forget that for just $5 a month you are directly supporting the investigating, fact-gathering, and reporting that I do here (and keeping me in coffee!). You can subscribe here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com
NEW! In addition to sending out the weekly recap of good news below I will be hosting a livestream broadcast recapping the good news for the week! Be sure to watch your email/notifications for when it starts!
Ok, on to this week’s good news!
COURT ORDERS TRUMP TO COUGH UP HIS FINANCIALS TO THE BBC, AND IT’S A DELIGHT!
A fantastic, upon-own-petard-hoisting order just dropped in the Trump v. BBC case! To refresh your memory, Trump sued the BBC for $5*Billion*, with a B, claiming that the BBC had defamed him in its coverage of Jan6, and that as a result he had suffered great financial harm.
Remember, the BBC is *not* in the U.S. and so *not* subject to Trump’s FCC and Carr’s strong-arm tactics, such as threatening to pull their broadcast license. So instead of capitulating like so many U.S.-based media outlets, the BBC served discovery on Trump, demanding his financial documents, to which they are entitled because Trump is claiming financial damages. Generally speaking you can’t just *claim* financial damages, you have to *prove* your financial damages. It’s the legal equivalent of “put up or shut up”.
Of course Trump refused, so the BBC filed a motion to compel discovery, and a hearing on that motion happened last week.
Notes from the Front members will recall that over the weekend I purchased the transcript of that hearing and sent it to them (and will also likely recall my mini-rant about how I paid a total of $237.83 for the transcript, including posting the receipt, but some people still complain about the $5 a month membership for Notes from the Front because, they ignorantly claim, “those are free documents”. No, they are not free. You have to pay for them, by the page, and I gladly do it to make them available to Notes from the Front members).
Anyways, I digress, my point is that Notes from the Front members have the transcript of the hearing, and now here is the order that resulted from that hearing.
And it’s a beaut!!
It’s only nine pages long, but it is jam-packed with so much delightful gooey goodness. And interestingly, a lot of that deliciousness is in the footnotes!
Like footnote #3, where we learn that even though the BBC and Trump had agreed that certain ancillary parties would be dropped from the suit, the judge still considers the subpoena *by those dismissed parties* to be at issue! This is the second time in a month that I have seen a judge either *re-animate* or *keep alive* a case or issue after Trump had either dismissed the case (the IRS debacle) or had attempted to end-run a subpoena (this case). These judges are on to him.
Then there is footnote #1, which tells us that Trump has now changed his demand for damages from $5Billion to *$10Billion*! Personally I believe this is an effort to force the BBC to settle, because Trump is getting desperate to get out from under this case, because…
Footnote #6: In which we learn that the Trump team has once again shot themselves in the foot, hoisted on their own petard:
“The Court notes that the Complaint alleges defamation per se which normally does not require an allegation of damages… However, the averments in the Complaint establish a claim of defamation generally; a cause of action that requires proof of actual damages.”
I repeat, “*requires* *proof* of actual damages.”
Let me ‘splain this for you:
When he filed the lawsuit, Trump alleged defamation per se. That means that the alleged defamation was so obvious, so obviously untrue and damaging on its face, that damages are *presumed*.
On the other hand, general defamation (not per se) *requires proof of damages*.
So, while Trump alleged defamation per se in the “here’s what law the BBC violated” section of his complaint, the actual narrative of his complaint establishes that he is *really* accusing the BBC of general defamation, so he has to *prove* his damages.
Of course, as I said, when the BBC served him with discovery (actually served his foundation, which encompasses more than 400 entities), he refused to produce the financial documents demanded in the discovery.
So the BBC filed that motion to compel the discovery.
First, during the hearing, Court was not amused and made clear that it was granting the motion to compel. (Transcript included for Notes from the Front members.)
And then the Court, in this lovely, lovely order, *ordered* Trump to cough it up, and gave him 10 days to start doing so. (Order also included for Notes from the Front members.)
In the order you will see that the Court says that the BBC’s motion is “granted in part”; that is only because the Court limited how far back the BBC’s request would apply – the Court says Trump has to produce financials from 1/1/23 forward (the BBC had originally asked for documents going further back).
My best guess is that Trump will now do one of two things, or both things: He will try to dismiss the case, or he will appeal the order, or both.
I say “try” to dismiss the case because a plaintiff has to *ask* to have their case dismissed and where, such as here, the case has already progressed to a certain point such that the *defendant* would be prejudiced if the case were dismissed (let’s face it, at this point Trump has basically defamed the BBC), the Court may *deny* a plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. And this is the legal equivalent of “you made your bed, now lie in it”.
HOOBOY, THE COURT IS *TICKED* AT GHISLAINE MAXWELL!
Hooboy is Judge Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) ever ticked off at Ghislaine Maxwell. He makes as much *very clear* in an order he issued yesterday afternoon in her pro se habeas case (his order is of course included for Notes from the Front members). “Pro se” means she’s not a lawyer, and she doesn’t play one on tv, but despite that complete lack of experience and qualification she is representing herself. Her habeas corpus petition means “bring me before the Court because someone done did me wrong here.”
(Fun fact: Not only am I a lawyer, but I *did* play one on tv – you can find that tv show on YouTube by searching “fathers are parents too Anne P. Mitchell”)
Now, it has to be said that a dirty little secret of the Court system is that, generally speaking, judges *hate* dealing with pro se litigants. So do the lawyers on the other side of the case from them. It’s not that they are snobs. It’s not that they look down on them. It’s that *they don’t know what the fnck they are doing*! And the judge isn’t allowed to help them, not even to point them in the right direction. And neither is the lawyer on the other side (can you spell “malpractice”? I knew you could). But they all still have to slog through all of the voluminous, and usually wrong, paperwork that pro se litigants tend to file. So it’s very frustrating for all concerned.
THIS is why if you truly can’t afford an attorney you should connect with one of the myriad of organizations set up to help people who can’t afford an attorney for whatever – and if it’s a criminal case you should avail yourself of a public defender.
But nooooo, Maxwell has decided she’s smarter than all that, and is representing herself.
And now she’s ticked off the judge.
So, what did she do to arouse the good judge’s ire?
First, she filed her habeas petition *publicly* (instead of under seal as instructed) with the victims’ names therein *unredacted*.
Then, she not only blew a court deadline, she blew right past it by *7 weeks*, filing a supplemental memorandum nearly two months past the June 9th deadline.
As the Court explains, “This filing was unauthorized and violated the Court’s April 22 Order.”
And yet, the Court is still going to accept that filing so that Maxwell can’t argue that the Court’s failure to consider some pivotal point that she raised in that supplemental memorandum is the reason her petition for habeas is denied, when it’s denied.
BUT, says the Court, and again I quote, “Maxwell, however, is not to submit any further filings. Any such filings will not be considered.”
OUCH! I hope that prison infirmary has some Bactine on hand, because Maxwell just got *burned*!
COURT OF APPEALS TELEGRAPHS THE SPANKING THAT IT WILL GIVE TO TRUMP OVER MAIL-IN BALLOTING EXECUTIVE ORDER
This week the Court of Appeals issued a decision – a *procedural* decision – in the case against Trump’s executive order “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections”, otherwise known as the “Trump hates mail-in balloting” order.
And social media and news outlets are once again misrepresenting it, spreading misinformation and disinformation, whether from a place of not knowing what the hell they are talking about, or from a place of “actually we know what it said but we care more about ‘shares’ and clicks than the actual truth”.
So here’s the actual truth and the facts:
The plaintiffs (the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and several individuals), filed this lawsuit asking the Court to issue an injunction to stop the executive order from taking effect.
The lower court (the district court) *correctly* declined to issue the injunction *because of a procedural restriction on the Court*: the case was not yet ripe.
So what does that mean? Ripeness is a legal doctrine that says, among other things, that a court *cannot* rule on something that *might* happen in the future, *if* certain things occur.
Basically, in this case, the doctrine of ripeness says that allegations upon which a request for an injunction is predicated *can’t be speculative*.
Put another way, the rule about ripeness is the legal equivalent of “no future-tripping”.
So the lower court *correctly* declined to grant an injunction against the executive order because the issue wasn’t ripe yet.
So, why did the plaintiffs appeal then? Because that’s what you do. Appealing a trial-level court ruling is routine. In fact it could be seen as malpractice to *not* appeal a trial court ruling. And besides, there is always that off chance that the appeals court will see it differently.
That brings us to the decision issued by the Court of Appeals yesterday, in which they affirmed the District Court’s decision to *not* issue an injunction because, indeed, the issue is not yet ripe.
But the Court of Appeals said *so much more*, if you actually read the opinion (of course included for Notes from the Front members), and if you know how to interpret legal decisions.
Basically, the Court of Appeals points *several* times to the language of the executive order, highlighting that it says that the executive order is to be effectuated *where feasible* and, and this is important, where it *complies with existing law*. As you will read, given how often and in how many ways they say it, the Court of Appeals is hinting that they see that this executive order does *not* comply with existing law, but it *has to be ripe* for them to rule on that.
In other words, once the case is ripe, they are telegraphing *how they will treat it*. And they are also telegraphing that to the lower court, and to the parties.
But wait, there’s more. Because *then* they go from hinting to saying the quiet part out loud, and here I quote directly from the decision:
“The action the [Executive] Order contemplates would involve the President, whom the Constitution vests with no express authority over the conduct of elections, undertaking a substantial and unfunded overhaul of election procedures – including the implementation of a nationwide reform to Postal Service mail-handling processes – on the threshold of the November election. Put differently, the Order “may not prove feasible to implement in any manner whatsoever,” at least before the 2026 election”
Let me translate that for you:
Once this sucker is ripe we’re going to smack it, hard.
And there’s still more! They *end* with: “Given the Executive Order’s repeated commands for agency action to conform to the law, this court cannot assume that the agencies will impose such late-breaking disruption on the States’ conduct of the 2026 elections.”
They honestly could not be clearer about how they view the actual issues. Nor about how they will treat this executive order once the issue is ripe. (As public comments for the proposed USPS rule pursuant to this executive order close this week, I expect to see renewed ripeness arguments soon.)
COURT SPANKS MARKWAYNE AND HIS PREDECESSOR KRISTI FOR TRYING TO PULL A FAST ONE ON THE COURT
Back in February of last year Noem summarily *cancelled* the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). These federal employees include the transportation officers (TSOs) at TSA.
You see, Noem had signed an unpublicized memorandum specifically naming and targeting the AFGE union, claiming that AFGE was “harming” the TSOs (the very people for whom the AFGE advocates), and “rescinding” the contract (the collective bargaining agreement).
Now, the administration can call it “rescinding” or “withdrawing” or “Yankee doodling” or whatever it wants, but in the legal biz we call that *breaking* a contract, and that puts them in what we in the legal biz call *breach* of contract.
What’s more, the memorandum instructed TSA officials “to propose a plan to ensure that no future Administration may permit TSOs to elect an exclusive representative or engage in collective bargaining absent an intervening statutory change.”
Let me break that down for you – the memo directed TSA to come up with a way so that no *future* administration would be able to *allow* TSA officers to elect representation or take part in collective bargaining unless, in essence, Congress intervenes.
So in March of last year the AFGE sued Noem.
In June of last year the Court issued an injunction prohibiting that memo from taking effect.
So what did Noem do? She issued a *second* memorandum, in September.
This, she maintained (and Markwayne, as her successor, maintains) supersedes the first memo (yes), and *moots* the AFGE’s lawsuit (uh… no).
Then in December she filed a motion to dismiss the AFGE’s lawsuit, claiming mootness.
THEN, in January of this year, while Noem’s motion to dismiss was pending, the Court explained that the existing injunction *also* prohibited Noem from putting the *second* memorandum into effect.
And of course in March of this year Noem was fired, and Markwayne was installed.
Now you’re caught up.
Two weeks ago the AFGE filed an amended complaint, which incorporated Noem’s (now Markwayne’s inherited) efforts with that second memorandum.
Which brings us to this week, when the Court made *very* clear that no, while the September memo, *which is enjoined*, does indeed supersede the earlier memo, chronologically speaking, it does *not* moot this lawsuit. (And also in any event, the AFGE’s amended complaint includes the September memo.)
And *then* the Court points out – and how many times has this happened now? – that the administration’s *own pleadings* (in this case the main case on which their case law relies, and which they had cited for the proposition that their second memorandum had mooted the case), stands for, and I quote, that a “challenge stays live when the relevant challenged condition had been reiterated in the agency’s replacement decision.”
In other words, if you replace a challenged and *enjoined* rule with another rule that contains the *same* objectionable language that got it enjoined in the first place, of *course* it doesn’t moot the case.
AND THE HITS JUST KEEP COMING IN TRUMP’S BOGUS IRS LAWSUIT!
“You can’t keep a good person down” or “Hitting someone when they are down”. Which cliche applies here? I’ll let you decide.
Let’s review: In Trump’s bogus case against the IRS, on which I’ve reported extensively, after the bogosity of it was nearing the surface Trump tried to dismiss it. I mean, he *did* dismiss it but then, you’ll recall, in a very unusual move, the Judge *reopened* the case. Due to, yes, its bogosity (ok, the Judge actually said it was due to “irregularities”, but we know what she meant), not to mention the whole attempt to give Trump and his family lifetime immunity from IRS audits and actions (hrrm.. why would they want that? Can you say “Capone”? I knew you could). And, of course, the slush fund.
So anyways, the whole thing was essentially the Keystone Cops of lawsuits.
You will also recall that the Judge reopened the case following the entreaties of 35 former federal judges, who filed briefs highlighting just how “irregular” the whole thing was.
Now the 35 former federal judges have filed a motion for *reimbursement* for the fees they incurred in the course of participating in the lawsuit.
BUT, get this, they *also* say that all they want is $1 (one dollar each for the law firms that represented them), even though they are entitled to more than $100,000.
Why would they do this?
Well, in part to demonstrate that they got into it because it was the right thing to do; they saw vast bogosity and needed to get involved so that Trump didn’t get away with it.
But also in part to make sure that Trump and the world saw that he was ordered to pay something, while making clear that it wasn’t greed that led to their filing the motion. It shows that Trump is the loser here, and the tiny amount is actually an insult; “We don’t need the money, we just need to show that you lost.”
They *do* agree to having the attorneys they used reimbursed for court filing and postage fees (a grand total of $4,606.83).
But *then*, they include this:
“However, this Court may also assess additional sanctions unrelated to these attorneys’ fees if it deems it appropriate.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
In support of this motion, former government officials and public interest groups filed an amici (friend of the court) memorandum, advocating for the Court to award the judges $39,000 to reimburse those who had worked on all of this on the judges’ behalf. *Their* filing *starts out* with:
“Two weeks ago, this Court issued an Order concluding that, in bringing and “settling” this lawsuit, Plaintiffs [Trump] manipulated the judicial process and Defendants [the DOJ] abdicated their responsibility to zealously defend the interests of the United States.”
Zing!
—
And that’s the good news from the past week! If you actually read all the way to the end give yourself a gold start and leave a comment saying “I did it!” and letting me know your favourite case in this week’s Good News Roundup!
Remember, if you are a Notes from the Front member *all* of the original court documents are in the archives for you. If you’re not a Notes from the Front member yet, please consider joining us! Your $5 a month really does support my investigating, fact-gathering, and reporting (and my coffee habit).
https://annepmitchell.substack.com
New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without becoming a full Notes from the Front member (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 democracy.
Anne
—
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
Internet Law & Policy Attorney, Federal law author, Legislative Advisor
CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Author & Host: 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