THE WEEK IN LAW: WEEKLY GOOD NEWS ROUNDUP FROM THE FRONT LINE OF THE LEGAL BATTLE TO SAVE THE SOUL OF OUR DEMOCRACY – 8/21/26
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!
NEW: Thank you everyone who tuned in today to the live Week in Law broadcast! Notes from the Front members, the instant replay video will be in your inbox shortly!
NOTE: Several people have asked me whether I have staff or other people or AI 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. :~)
NEW! In addition to sending out the weekly recap of good news below we now have a The Week in Law livestream broadcast recapping the good news for the week! Notes from the Front members can watch the full instant replay video of the show here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/instant-replay-video-of-the-week
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, document purchasing, fact gathering, and reporting that I do for you (and keeping me in coffee!). You can subscribe here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com
Ok, on to this week’s good news!
SUPREME COURT DENIES CERT IN E. JEAN CARROLL CASE
Remember, this isn’t a decision, other than a decision to not weigh in on the case. But it means that Trump has exhausted all of his direct appeals, and the verdict and award in the case stand! NOTE: Trump has already paid her.
COURT SLAMS MIS-APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY – AGAIN
Remember waaaaay back when, on December 1st (seems *so* long ago, doesn’t it?) when the Court of Appeals in New Jersey issued a unanimous decision after Trump appealed the District Court ruling which ruled that the appointment of acting Assistant Alina Habba as an Assistant U.S. Attorney was *illegal*?
Well, this time a *different* district court and Court of Appeals in a *different* state (this time Nevada), with a *different* attempted appointment of a *different* attorney was just as equally *smacked down*.
In essentially identical fact patterns!
In Habba’s case several different criminal defendants challenged Habba’s being on the case. The administration lost, and the Court ruled that Habba was *not* actually qualified to be acting as an attorney on the case. In that case they had first withdrawn Habba’s nomination and then appointed her as “special counsel”. The Court said “no dice.”
And now, in the case of wannabe assistant U.S. attorney Sigal Chattah, several other criminal defendants challenged Chattah being on the case. The administration lost, and the Court ruled that Chattah… wait for it… was *not* actually qualified to be acting as an assistant U.S. attorney on the case.
In this case the facts were *slightly* different – in fact it seems pretty clear that the DOJ was trying to pull a different but equally underhanded sleight of hand (so doubly duplicitous).
First, the setup: an Acting U.S. Attorney is assisted by a “first assistant”. If the Acting U.S. Attorney leaves, leaving an opening, the first assistant fills the opening until a new Acting U.S. Attorney is appointed.
So, there was an Assistant U.S. Attorney spot that was vacant. As in *already* vacant. The DOJ attempted to appoint Chattah as the first assistant to the *already* vacant spot, and then bump him up to fill it.
That’s right. THE ADMINISTRATION MADE HIM THE FIRST ASSISTANT TO “NOBODY”.
The Court is having none of it.
This administration *never* learns.
APPEALS COURT TELLS TRUMP TO TAKE A BIRTHRIGHT TOURISM HIKE AS IT SLAMS NEW EO – “WHAT PART OF THE SCOTUS ORDER DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?”
Y’all remember the Barbara (first names only please!) versus Trump birthright citizenship case, right? The one for which we all held our collective breaths as the Supreme Court determined whether the Constitution had any wiggle room for Trump to monkey with birthright citizenship, right? And how we all let out a collective sigh of relief when “his own” Supreme Court spanked him over that (just as I’d said they would – nyah, told ya so).
You remember that. And then Trump immediately tried a *new* executive order, aimed at the very narrow issue of “birthright tourism”, remember that? Sure you do, it was just a few weeks ago.
And so the original plaintiffs in the case filed a motion to either clarify or modify the original injunction in the case so as to make clear that the new birthright tourism executive order violates the birthright injunction (that injunction stopping the original EO about birthright citizenship). In other words, “Would the Court please make clear to Trump that this new EO violates the injunction too?”.
By the way, the full list of plaintiffs on the case (remember, first names only) is:
Barbara, Sarah, Susan, Mathew, Mark
I know it’s nearly blasphemy-adjacent, but does anyone else’s brain auto-complete that with “, Luke and John”?
Anyways, the order from the Court of Appeals is short and sweet, and essentially remands it back to the district court “for further proceedings consistent with (the Supreme Court’s decision in) Barbara.”
But I know that you Notes from the Front members love the court docs, so in addition to the order from the Court of Appeals I’m including the Plaintiffs’ motion to clarify, which includes such nifty languages as:
“Despite the Supreme Court’s clear direction, the President continues to claim for himself the power to ‘identify categories of children’ whose citizenship he intends to deny.”
And:
“Faced with the Supreme Court’s rejection of his effort to rewrite the Citizenship Clause, the President has apparently decided to keep trying. But ‘an injunction is not a game of whack-a- mole where the Court must repeatedly issue new injunctions to address the Defendants’ post-injunction craftiness.’ “
Bahahahaha…. “post-injunction craftiness”… bahahahaha!
23 CASES BROUGHT AGAINST 23 STATES TO GET THEM TO TURN OVER THEIR VOTER ROLLS – 23 CASES LOST!
This week also saw Judge Katherine Menendez of the District Court of Minnesota put the finishing touches on her dismissal of Trump’s effort to get at Minnesota’s voter rolls. By “finishing touches” I mean the final judgement, which is the last nail in the coffin of a dismissal – that was just issued today; the underlying order was issued yesterday.
You guys, this was the *23rd* state that the administration has tried this with *and LOST*. 23 losses – ZERO wins.
Those 23 states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin (ok, so it’s 22 states and one district, so sue me).
In that 27-page order (included for Notes from the Front members) Judge Menendez lists *every* *single* *one* of those losses just to make sure that the record is clear, and I couldn’t love that more for the DOJ!
Judge Menendez then picks apart the administration’s flimsy arguments, all of which amount to “because I’m the DOJ and I said so even though the law itself may not seem to say so”. And then this lovely line:
“… the government suggests it is permitted to use a civil action as a “fishing expedition.” But an ordinary litigant isn’t allowed to seek discovery first and allege a claim later, and the federal government has no special privilege to do so either.”
Hrrmmm…. where else have we seen this DOJ putting the cart of inquisition before the horse of proper procedure? Ah yes… indicting reporters before proper due diligence and investigation.
Where have all the good lawyers gone?
Long time passing. Where have all the good lawyers gone? Long time ago. Where have all the good lawyers gone – the DOJ fired them every one. When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
QUAKERS VERSUS DHS!! QUAKERS 2 – DHS 0
Score a big one for the Quakers who, along with the Sikhs and the Baptists *sued the Department of Homeland Security* *and* Markwayne Mullin (I love that for him – oh the embarrassment of fighting *Quakers*… and LOSING!!)
Ok, in reality when the Quakers, Sikhs, and Baptists (ohmy!) first got together and filed this lawsuit Markwayne wasn’t named, because he wasn’t there yet – this lawsuit was first filed early last year. But by the time that the loser DOJ filed their appeal, Markwayne had been added both to DHS, and as a named defendant in the lawsuit.
It all started when the Quakers, et al, filed their complaint on January 27th of last year.
Yes, that’s right, a mere *7 days* after Trump took the oath of office with his fingers crossed behind his back.
You see, while for decades it had been the written policy of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE to *not* carry out immigration enforcement in designated “protected areas”, which included outside of churches and other houses of worship (as well as schools and medical facilities), well, there was a new ‘king’ in town, and he decreed a free-for-all for immigration agents.
So the new king issued a proclamation *rescinding* the decades-old policy, the most recent of which had been issued in 2021, and replacing it with the new 2025 policy, which was essentially “Protected area? We don’t need no stinkin’ protected areas.”
Except… he’s not a king.
So the Quakers, Sikhs, and Baptists immediately sued over that new 2025 policy, and got an injunction (included for Notes from the Front members). In fact, that injunction, which *vacated* the 2025 policy and put the 2021 policy back in place, was issued waaaaay back on February 24th, 2025.
That’s right, the case went from initial filing to preliminary injunction in just *4* weeks. That’s how important District Judge Chuang believed it to be.
On May 6, 2025 (not a typo) DHS and Noem appealed the injunction to the Fourth Circuit, and *just this week* the Fourth Circuit issued its *unanimous* opinion *upholding* the injunction!
While I completely agree with the Court of Appeals’ opinion in this case (also included for Notes from the Front members), I do have one tiny nit to pick with the Court of Appeals. In their opinion they say:
“The government is correct that rescinding the 2025 Policy would not completely prevent immigration enforcement actions at or near the plaintiffs’ houses of worship. But, as set forth in the district court’s order, such action would restore the guidelines that previously limited the circumstances under which enforcement activities at sensitive locations could occur. As a matter of logic, at least some of the immigrants, who report that they will not visit houses of worship because of the new directive articulated in the 2025 Policy, will return to the plaintiffs’ houses of worship if DHS reinstates its old policy limiting enforcement actions at those locations.”
“As a matter of logic”?? C’mon, the administration threw logic out the window on exactly January 20, 2025, at 12:01.
—
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, document purchasing, fact gathering, and reporting (and my coffee habit). You can join us here: 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/
P.S. If you all the way to the end here, please leave a comment saying “I did it!” and tell us something fun you are doing this weekend!
P.P.S. Don’t forget can watch our live “The Week in Law” show here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/instant-replay-video-of-the-week
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