THE WEEK IN LAW: WEEKLY GOOD NEWS ROUNDUP FROM THE FRONT LINE OF THE LEGAL BATTLE TO SAVE THE SOUL OF OUR DEMOCRACY – 8/28/26
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 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-recording-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!
COURT OF APPEALS DENIES TRUMP’S REQUEST TO STAY ORDER REQUIRING GEO GROUP TO LET MONITORS INTO FACILITY!
What a way to start the week! Over the weekend (yes! On a Saturday!) the Court of Appeals slammed the Trump administration for trying to get out from under an order of the lower court *requiring* that court-appointed medical and conditions monitors be allowed access to inmates and the facility at a GEO Group detention center in Adelanto, California! (Full decision and the underlying order included for Notes from the Front members.)
The case was filed early this year alleging, and I quote, “At the Adelanto ICE Processing Center detained individuals face dangerous conditions and pervasive abuses – disease and illness are rampant, mold grows on the walls, and detained individuals are denied sufficient food, clean drinking water, proper medical care, and disability accommodations. This lawsuit seeks to end the inhumane and illegal conditions faced by immigrants detained at Adelanto – one of the largest immigration detention centers in the United States.”
To be very clear, again, Adelanto is a GEO Group facility.
At the end of last month (July 26 to be exact) Judge Sunshine Sykes of the District Court for the Central District of California issued an order and injunction, *requiring* that two independent medical and conditions monitors BE GRANTED ACCESS to the facility!
This is, of course, what states around the country have been running up against – that GEO Group thu..er.. employees are not allowing *anyone* in to see, let alone monitor, the conditions.
Of course Trump’s administration appealed it; the appeal was filed just a bit over *3* weeks ago, and the Court of Appeals has *already* issued their decision – and on a Saturday to boot! They are *clearly* not impressed with any of what the government is putting out.
The administration basically tried to say “Hey, we’re not GEO Group, we can’t be held responsible for what they do, they’re a private organization.”
And the Court of Appeals shot right back saying and, again, I quote, “The district court found that Plaintiffs are subject to punitive conditions, including a lack of consistent access to potable water and adequate medical care. Although the Government asserts that any harm from such conditions was caused by GEO Group, the private company the Government contracts with to operate Adelanto, the Government is directly responsible for placing and keeping Plaintiffs in Adelanto. Even if the Government does not run the facility day-to- day, it is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the conditions of confinement are constitutionally acceptable.”
BOOM!!
But wait! There’s more!! Because the district court *also* certified a class of all people who are or *will* be detained at Adelanto, and the Court of Appeals said *that* was also just fine and dandy because “The class-wide relief the district court ordered does not run afoul of the jurisdictional bar … (because) the injunction does not restrict the Government’s authority to “choose the place of detention for deportable aliens” under 8 U.S.C. §1231…. Rather, the injunction requires the Government to stop imposing punitive conditions of confinement under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, an obligation that extends to all places where the Government may choose to detain people.” ”
How do you like it now??
JUDGE HANDS MAXWELL HER HEAD ON A JAILHOUSE PLATTER
As I told you last week, Ghislaine Maxwell was trying her darndest to get her trial reopened, her case overturned, the seas to part, whatever she could do to get a toehold to try to get herself out of prison. As I also told you, this included the filing of a massive memorandum last week in which she claimed that a) the DOJ drop of some Epstein files revealed new evidence that warranted her having a new trial, and b) that Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement should cover her.
I also told you that the judge was *ticked*, because she filed the memorandum well past the deadline, but he let it in anyways. (I also included that entire memorandum, with her exhibits, for Notes from the Front members. Anyone, member or not, can read that post here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/wow-i-have-the-memorandum-just-filed?utm_source=publication-search )
Well, faster than you can say “snowball’s chance in hell” (which was, in fact, what I said in that previous post with the memorandum, and the magic word was even “snowball”) Judge Englemayer just today came out with a *67* page opinion (included for Notes from the Front members, and you are going to L-O-V-E it!!!) *slamming* Maxwell and making *so* clear “not gonna happen” that…wait for it..oh gosh I’m giddy with glee… he *ends* the opinion and decision with… ohmygosh…this is so amazing:
“The Court certifies that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith…”
[Note: Some social media accounts are claiming that this decision has to do with Maxwell seeking a pardon – *it does not* – it has to do with her seeking to get a new trial or otherwise reopen the case.]
Now, the context for that closing statement is that he is saying that Maxwell is likely to appeal and to try to claim “in forma pauperis” status, which is Latin for “I’m just a poor little thing with no money so will the court please waive the fees for filing an appeal”. It’s not necessarily uncommon for a court to include that “The Court certifies that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith…” language – however when it *is* common it often means “what we have here is a vexatious litigant who is using up the Court’s time with specious motions because it costs them almost nothing to file pro se, and they will do the same thing to the Court of Appeals if they are allowed to file in forma pauperis.” So he’s putting the Court of Appeals on notice; In fact Judge Englemayer’s full sentence there is “The Court certifies that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith; in forma pauperis status is thus denied for purposes of an appeal.”
Of course, that’s at the very end of the decision, here’s how it starts (you’re going to love this too!) – the very first words of this glorious smackdown are:
“This decision resolves a post-conviction challenge by defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to her five felony convictions, all arising from her participation, with the notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, in the sexual abuse of young girls over the course of a decade. On December 29, 2021, the jury convicted Maxwell of those offenses, based on trial evidence of her guilt that was overwhelming. It included the testimony of multiple victims recounting abuse by Epstein and Maxwell, plus extensive corroborative evidence, documentary and testimonial. On June 28, 2022, the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, who presided over trial, sentenced Maxwell principally to a term of 20 years’ imprisonment. The Second Circuit then affirmed Maxwell’s conviction and sentence, and the Supreme Court later denied her petition for certiorari.”
BOOM!
On page 2:
“Maxwell’s claims are all meritless and all or almost all are frivolous. The vast majority are procedurally barred – either because Maxwell made and lost the same arguments on direct appeal, or because she could have made such arguments on appeal but elected not to do so. And the purported “new” evidence to which Maxwell points, principally materials released under the EFTA, is largely irrelevant to the charges against Maxwell and does not support her claims of error. On the contrary, to the extent it is relevant, far from exculpating her, it incriminates her or reinforces the correctness of the legal rulings Maxwell challenges.”
(gleeful chortle)
And in this footnote near the end we learn that “Maxwell argues that, but for the admission of the massage table, she would not have been convicted.” As if that was the only compelling evidence (it was, by far, not).
I keep hearing “No new trial for you!” in the voice of that guy in the Seinfeld episode who says “No soup for you!”
HUGE META SETTLEMENT
This week Meta entered into a settlement agreement in the big “Many states against Meta” lawsuit in which Meta was being accused of intentionally (or at least knowingly) making Facebook and Instagram *addicting* to minors, along with misleading the public about it, and also collecting the private data of children. In part the legal theories of the lawsuit were based on consumer protection laws, COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act), and products liability theory, not unlike how states went after vape juice companies who were aiming their products at kids, and the tobacco lawsuits before that.
The basics of the settlement are that Meta will:
– restrict teens to 2 hours a day across platforms by default
– bar teen accounts from accessing the platforms between the hours of midnight and 6am by default
– turn off notifications overnight and during school hours
– strengthen their age verifications
– hide or restrict the number of “likes” a teen receives
– bar access to cosmetic filters
– give the option for a feed that is not personalized by Meta’s algorithms
In addition there will be an auditor auditing all this to make sure it happens. Also, Meta is paying billions out to the states for various programs.
The defaults can be overridden by a parent.
I’m pretty proud of the fact that I found the actual settlement document for you – it’s 130 pages long.
REMEMBER THOSE FIRED STARS AND STRIPES PERSONNEL? YEAH, THEY HAVE *ALREADY* FILED A LAWSUIT!
Remember how just 6 days ago we heard that Hegseth had fired Stars and Stripes Editor-in-Chief Eric Slavan, and pushed out Publisher Max Lederer? Well they have *just now* filed a lawsuit against Hegseth, Parnell, and others, including the DOD itself.
The primary basis for the lawsuit is that the actions taken against them violate their 1st Amendment rights because they are over things they said *outside* of work, on their personal time. In addition they allege that it was also because of their reporting about the situation with the U.S.S. Lincoln; and to that extent the firings or attempted firings were retaliatory.
Following that reporting the publisher, Max Lederer, was ordered to fire Slavin and a journalist, Lara Korte. Unwilling to fire them, he retired.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the 1st Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
They are represented by lawyers from the Government Accountability Project, Lawyers for Good Government, the Democracy Defenders Fund, and a legal clinic at Yale Law School. It’s good to see these organizations banding together against this administration! And got the lawsuit filed in *just 6 days*, which *included* a weekend!
LATEST ON USPS MAIL-IN-BALLOT CLUSTER FLOCK: JUDGE BLOCKS AGAIN – THIS TIME IT’S RIPE!
Last night Judge Talwani blocked – again – the USPS from moving forward with their rules regarding mail-in balloting, those being the rules about the form of the envelopes and, most importantly, that the states would have to upload their mail-in voter rolls through a portal or the post office wouldn’t handle and deliver their mail-in ballots!
You will recall that the Supreme Court issued a decision saying (and *only* saying) that with the first injunctions the courts did not have jurisdiction *yet*, because the issues were not “ripe”, meaning nothing potentially injurious had happened *yet*. Courts are not allowed to issue speculative orders – in other words they aren’t allowed to issue orders addressing something that *might*, *possibly*, *maybe*, kinda sorta potentially happen at some future point in time. There needs to be a *concrete* injury or at least a concrete and *clearly imminent* injury.
Because at the time of the first injunctions the USPS had not even finalized the rule, the issues were not ripe. And so the Supreme Court sent it back saying as much but *also* saying, as I’ve pointed out several times now, that a) “This doesn’t mean that the President’s Executive Order is lawful”, and b) that they anticipated the issue coming back up *when it was ripe*.
Well, this time it’s ripe.
Because while that was all going on the USPS *finalized* that rule.
THEN Judge Talwani rescinded her initial injunction and *in* that order rescinding the injunction she telegraphed to the plaintiffs that they needed to file an *amended* complaint, taking into account that *now* the rule has been finalized. (Because, you see, then the complaint would include a *ripe* issue.)
It was clear to me (and anyone who attended the live broadcast on this) that the moment the plaintiffs filed that amended complaint Judge Talwani was going to slap another injunction on the USPS.
And that’s exactly what she did last night.
She issued a two-week emergency injunction (also known as a temporary restraining order or TRO) while she takes the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction “under advisement”. This is because in the amended complaint the plaintiffs *asked* for a TRO *and* for a preliminary injunction. And *that* is because a TRO can be issued more immediately and with less deliberation over the entirety of the case – which is why they have to be very short in duration. TROs are meant to stop immediate harm while the Court takes up the issues. So basically they bought themselves two weeks to craft a killer injunction while still stopping the USPS from moving forward with implementing the rule in the meantime.
—
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