WEEKLY GOOD NEWS ROUNDUP FROM THE FRONT – 3/28/26
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!
*Reminder: The full pdfs of all of the documents discussed below are permanently available to Notes from the Front members in the archives here:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/archive
Want the document but not a Notes from the Front member and/or want to support my efforts here? Join us now to access all of our documents. It’s just $5 a month (or $50 a year), and I do all the research so you don’t have to. Plus as a member you get access to our private members-only chat (so many great people in that chat!), the all-documents archive, the occasional podcast or live broadcast, and more. Or maybe you don’t care about any of that but just want to support my work finding the truth, shedding light on that truth, and speaking truth to powerful stupidity. Either way, you can do that here:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/subscribe
Ok, on to this week’s good news! Notes from the Front members: don’t forget that you can * listen* to this article, just like a podcast, by hitting the play arrow in the upper right-hand corner of the Substack app!
COURT ORDERS MINNEAPOLIS ICE TO ALLOW CLERGY TO ACCESS FACILITY
Even though the country’s attention has been largely turned away from Minneapolis, the Courts are still staunchly defending the rule of law and, most importantly here, how it applies to both detainees in detention facilities and access to them.
You may remember that last month the Court ordered that lawyers must have access to detainees without having to jump through hoops, pre-schedule it days in advance, and the like. And earlier this month the Court ordered that Congressional representatives must also be allowed the same access.
Well on Friday the Federal District Court in Minnesota completed the trifecta when it ruled that ICE could *not* prohibit or impede the clergy from accessing detainees in the Whipple ICE detention facility in Minneapolis.
I’m including the Complaint for Notes from the Front members, as it includes a great deal of context. This paragraph particularly stood out to me:
“For context, the number of federal agents in Minnesota equaled nearly one agent for every 1,000 of the Twin Cities’ 3.2 million residents. The number of federal agents was more than five times the number of officers in the Minneapolis Police Department and roughly equivalent to the combined total of the ten largest law enforcement agencies in the area. That number also dwarfed the 150 federal agents typically present in the Metro area prior to Operation Metro Surge.”
Wow!
It then describes various incidents between ICE and members of the clergy, including “On January 7, 2026, at least two pastors were shoved, shot at with pepper rounds, and exposed to pepper spray while protesting the actions of federal immigration agents in Minneapolis. One pastor, Rev. Ashley Horan, explained that her Unitarian Universalist faith compels her to protest because it affirms the inherent worth and dignity of every human being and the interdependence of all people,” and others.
One of the clergy members, in a statement to the Court (included for Notes members) explained that they were turned away from the facility on January 13th, and that “After our January 13 attempt, at least one of my clergy colleagues was able to speak to someone at the phone number provided. He was informed that clergy members would not be permitted to visit detainees at the Whipple Federal Building to provide pastoral care. No explanation for this denial was given.”
Another member of the clergy said in their statement (also included for Notes members) that “On Ash Wednesday, February 18, 2026, another clergy colleague and I again attempted to gain access to provide pastoral care, including the imposition of ashes, to detained immigrants. Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of Lent in the Christian tradition and is one of the most significant days of the liturgical year. The imposition of ashes is a central religious rite symbolizing repentance, human mortality, and spiritual reflection. Offering ashes to those who are suffering or in custody is a longstanding and essential pastoral practice. After passing through security, we were directed to Room 1601, which I understand to be the ICE office. A woman who identified herself as an employee of the Department of Homeland Security informed us that we would not be permitted to visit detainees. We explained that we were clergy seeking to provide religious ministry and, specifically, to offer the Ash Wednesday rite. The employee informed us that her supervisor had told other clergy members who had attempted to visit earlier that day that detainees were not permitted to receive visitors other than attorneys.”
And it’s not like they could come back on *another* Ash Wednesday, that was a specific holiday requiring specific actions *on that day*.
Well, Federal Judge Jerry Blackwell was having none of it, and in his order on Friday (also included for Notes from the Front members) the very first paragraph says:
“Defendants must remove and may not impose an access protocol for the Whipple facility that bars clergy visits in all circumstances, without regard to whether visits could safely occur, for the duration of this litigation.”
WOW!
Now to be clear, this does *not* mean that Judge Blackwell doesn’t care about safety! It means that he was not giving ICE *any* wiggle room to claim there were safety issues.
MINNESOTA SUES BONDI, NOEM, DOJ AND DHS OVER KILLING OF RENEE GOOD AND ALEX PRETTI!!!
This week the State of Minnesota, along with the Hennepin County Attorney and the Superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension SUED DOJ, DHS, BONDI AND NOEM’S *SSES OFF!!!!
Now I know that a lot of you were worried that because the administration was obstructing their access to evidence and other information, that Minnesota wouldn’t be able to sue them. And if you remember, I promised you that they would be suing them. And here it is.
In their 43-page Complaint (of course included for Notes from the Front members), Minnesota lays out a *very* compelling case. To be clear, Minnesota is suing over the government’s failure to turn over evidence and their obstructionist actions in these killings; this is not the wrongful death lawsuit, the wrongful death lawsuit is being worked on by private attorneys for the families. THIS lawsuit is to force the DOJ, DHS, and Bondi and Noem personally, to turn over the evidence they have related to the shootings of Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and Julio Sosa-Celis (which in turn Minnesota will certainly want to share with the wrongful death lawyers, and equally certainly the government will want sealed and *not* shared with the wrongful death lawyers).
Minnesota also argues that DHS and DOJ are violating Minnesota’s Tenth Amendment rights to exercise the State’s own police powers within their borders. In fact, one example from the Complaint is “At the scene of the third shooting – the killing of Alex Pretti – federal immigration officers physically blocked investigators of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (“BCA”) from accessing the scene. That physical obstruction persisted even after state officials obtained a judicial warrant authorizing access to the scene.”
When you read this, you’ll see references to the case of Touhy. Touhy was a Supreme Court decision which essentially says that Federal agencies (such as DHS and the DOJ) *must* turn over records upon formal request (known as a “Touhy request”). However, it *also* says that each agency can promulgate its own Touhy regulations.
Of course DHS and DOJ stonewalled these requests, even though each agency’s Touhy regulations generally allowed the release of the requested information.
Says the Complaint, “Defendants’ responses to those requests -indeed, by and large, their refusal to respond at all – confirm that the federal government has adopted a policy and practice of refusing Minnesota authorities access to investigative materials relating to uses of force by federal immigration officers deployed to Minnesota as part of Operation Metro Surge. That policy has deprived state investigators of timely access to evidence in federal custody that is directly relevant to their investigations of potential violations of Minnesota criminal law.”
My best guess is that the Court will require the DOJ and DHS to turn over such evidence as meets certain criteria, they will appeal, and it will be upheld.
COURT WHACKS KENNEDY AND HHS WITH SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN FAVOR OF GENDER AFFIRMING CARE
Last Thursday Judge Mustafa Kasubhai of the Federal District Court of Oregon issued *summary judgement* in favour of 20 plaintiff states (and D.C.) that filed this lawsuit challenging HHS and Kennedy’s declaration (“the Declaration”) barring health providers who provide gender affirming care from participating in Medicare and Medicaid. Kennedy claimed that the Declaration didn’t do that, but it very much does.
The plaintiffs are Oregon (they are the lead plaintiff) along with Washington, New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
The basics of this lawsuit are that in December Kennedy issued and posted a 12-page declaration against gender affirming care. (The Declaration, along with the lawsuit Complaint, the States’ motion for summary judgement, HHS/Kennedy’s response, and the text of the minute order ordering summary judgement, are all included for Notes from the Front members).
The plaintiffs say that not only does the Declaration prohibit medical practitioners who provide gender affirming care from participating in Medicaid and Medicare, but that in fact HHS has already referred at least three children’s hospitals to the HHS Office of Inspector General based on the Declaration. They also point out that this interferes with the States’ sovereign ability to regulate healthcare within their borders.
And yet, says Kennedy and HHS in their response, the Declaration says no such thing. Nowhere does it say that healthcare practitioners who provide gender affirming care cannot participate in Medicaid and Medicare.
And you will see them saying this throughout their response.
And they’re right.
And, of course, they are also disingenuous.
Because what it *does* say is that, among other things, “Sex-rejecting procedures for children and adolescents are neither safe nor effective as a treatment modality for gender dysphoria, gender incongruence, or other related disorders in minors, and therefore, fail to meet professional recognized standards of health care.”
That “fail to meet professional recognized standards of health care” is *very* important here. Why? Because 42 U.S. Code §1320a-7, which is the Medicare and Medicaid Exclusion Act (full title: “Exclusion of certain individuals and entities from participation in Medicare and State health care programs of certain individuals and entities from participation in Medicare and State health care programs”), at §6(b), specifically spells out that, among the felons and fraudsters who can be excluded from participating in Medicare and Medicaid, the Secretary can also exclude, and I quote:
“Any individual or entity that the Secretary determines has furnished or caused to be furnished items or services to patients…of a quality WHICH FAILS TO MEET PROFESSIONALLY RECOGNIZED STANDARDS OF HEALTH CARE.” (I added the caps)
Fortunately Judge Kasubhai saw through this ruse, and issued the summary judgement (which I know from the minute order). While we don’t yet have the written order, we can imagine that what it does is vacate the Declaration, as that is what the Plaintiff states were asking for.
SUPREME COURT 9-0 SAYS INTERNET PROVIDERS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR USERS’ MISDEEDS
Yay! I get to report on a case that draws on my background as an Internet law and policy attorney! The Supreme Court *just* issued its opinion in the Cox (the Internet provider) case. And it’s a beaut! And, again, a *9-0* decision!! (Included for Notes from the Front members.)
First, for nearly *30 years*, ever since the passage of the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) way back in *1998*, it has been the case that Internet providers have what is known as a “safe harbor” when it comes to their users violating copyright. Basically, so long as they do something about the copyright-violating user once it’s brought to their attention, the Internet provider can’t be held legally liable for the acts of that user.
For example, if, while logged in to their Cox Internet services, one of Cox’ customers – let’s call him Fred – downloads a pirated version of a song, Cox is *not* legally responsible for that. Now, if it is brought to Cox’ attention that Fred was using Cox’ services to illegally download that song, and if Cox does nothing about it, now Cox has knowledge and is *allowing* it.
(Fun fact: This is very similar to the Federal law that I wrote having to do with merchants who have affiliates and whose affiliate advertise the merchant through spam. If the merchant doesn’t know that their affiliates are spamming, well, they don’t know. But once it is brought to their attention that the affiliate is advertising the merchant through spam then that merchant is on the hook for the spam *as if the merchant themselves hit ‘send’ on that spam*!)
Anyways, the DMCA has always provided this safe harbor for Internet providers, such as Cox, since 1998.
Well, Sony, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group, and several other labels don’t like this. So they sued Cox saying that because, when they notified Cox of infringing behaviour on the part of Cox’ users, Cox didn’t hop to it to their satisfaction, that Cox was a) contributorily liable (meaning they were affirmatively contributing to the infringement), and/or b) vicariously liable (meaning they benefited from it even though they were just passively contributing to it). Isn’t it cool how in the law you can argue X and/or Y? :~)
Well, the lower court clearly was not well-versed in Internet law and policy, because the lower court found for Sony on both theories.
Cox appealed to the Fourth Circuit appellate court who partly agreed with Cox and partly with Sony, using a products infringement precedent that concluded that “supplying a product with knowledge that the recipient will use it to infringe copyrights is exactly the sort of culpable conduct sufficient for contributory infringement.”
The Supreme Court directly and roundly admonished the Fourth Circuit, saying that they got it wrong, wrong, wrong, because a) this case had only one of the elements of the precedent on which the Circuit court had relied, and not two other required elements, and in any event b) the Circuit court’s decision “also conflicted with this Court’s repeated admonition that contributory liability cannot rest only on a provider’s knowledge of infringement and insufficient action to prevent it.”
And then in that beautiful 9-0 decision the Supreme Court said “Internet providers, we’ve got your back.”
COURT HALTS CONVERSION OF WAREHOUSE TO ICE DETENTION FACILITY!
Buried among all of the other things going on, I found this gem! DHS has acquired a warehouse property in Maryland with the intention of turning it into an ICE detention facility. And the state of Maryland sued to stop it. And the Court said “Not so fast, ICE”, and *ordered* that DHS *stop* the work of converting that facility (let alone opening it), until the Court could be fully briefed on the issues.
And DHS complied.
(Notes from the Front members, I’m including the Court’s TRO, DHS’s notice of compliance, then Maryland’s request to turn the TRO into a preliminary injunction (“PI”) and then the Court’s response to that.)
The initial order from the Court was a 14-day TRO. While both parties were figuring out briefing schedules the State of Maryland let the Court know that it would be filing a request for a preliminary injunction (to give them some breathing room rather than having to pull everything together before the TRO expired in 14 days). Then they did file it. And on that same day the Court issued *another* order, both approving the briefing schedule *and* saying, in essence, “I’m going to extend the TRO until I can issue an order on the request for the preliminary injunction.”
This is notable for a couple of reasons:
1. For everyone who is upset about ICE trying to open massive facilities around the county (and that includes me), the Courts are taking notice (at least when it’s properly brought to their attention in a properly filed lawsuit); and
2. The Court went out of its way to extend the TRO past the 14 days, saying, and quoting a precedent case, also out of Maryland, “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(2), for good cause the Court may extend a TRO for a “like period” as its initial duration, so long as its reasons for the extension are entered in the record. “Although there is little case law on what constitutes ‘good cause,’ ‘a showing that the grounds for originally granting the [TRO] continue to exist’ is sufficient, and courts have also found ‘good cause’ where more time is needed fully to consider the parties’ arguments and motions or ‘where the moving party need[s] additional time to prepare and present its preliminary injunction.”
Which is legalese for “DHS, you’re my b*tch until I say we’re done.”
THIS JUDGE JUST ORDERED THAT VIDEOS OF DOGE BROS BEING DEPOSED *CAN* BE PUBLICLY POSTED – MUCH TO THE ADMINISTRATION’S CHAGRIN!
This order stems from a lawsuit that was filed by the Authors Guild over DOGE terminating many grants that had already been awarded by the National Endowment for the Humanities.
First, in another, contemporary lawsuit filed by the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Historical Association, and the Modern Language Association (I promise you this is relevant) there is this great explanation of events:
“NEH’s 60-year history of fostering the humanities came to a crashing halt earlier this month, at the hands of the United States DOGE Service (“DOGE”). Two DOGE operatives who have been hopping from small agency to small agency to dismantle the agencies, Defendants Nate Cavanaugh and Justin Fox, arrived at NEH to do the same. According to accounts of former or current NEH staff, these operatives demanded lists of open NEH grants and then indiscriminately terminated the vast majority of the grants. According to former or current NEH staff, Cavanaugh and Fox did not even bother having NEH officials effectuate their work; Cavanaugh and Fox themselves emailed nearly 1,500 NEH grantees from a “Grant_Notifications@nehemail.onmicrosoft.com” email address, notifying the grantees that their awards had been terminated. NEH’s Acting Chairman Michael McDonald actually admitted to staff a day after the grant terminations that “they”—DOGE—had written the termination letters and that he was not even aware of the full scope of the terminations. According to former or current NEH staff, Cavanaugh and Fox subsequently demanded that NEH mass terminate its staff, resulting in the abrupt issuance of reduction-in-force notices to roughly 75% of its workforce.”
Wow!
Ok, back to the Authors Guild lawsuit. The day after the Authors Guild lawsuit was filed it was *consolidated* with the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) lawsuit, as it was related. So it’s important to note that *both* lawsuits are being heard in tandem by the same judge, Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York.
The plaintiffs in the Authors Guild lawsuit deposed some of the DOGE bros, including Nathan Cavanaugh and Justin Fox, and also Michael McDonald, that acting NEH Chairman. Those depositions were videoed.
Then the *American Council of Learned Societies* co-plaintiff, the American Historical Association, posted the videos of those depositions on YouTube.
And the government kind of lost their mind, and requested Judge McMahon to order that the videos be taken down, which she did. But only temporarily until she could hear and consider the issue.
Upon considering the facts and the issue, Judge McMahon decided that those videos *could* be posted publicly, because they were items of substantial public interest in terms of how the public’s government is being run, and also the government had not previously made a motion, let alone a compelling case, that they needed to be sealed or otherwise confidential. As the Court explains:
“Here, the testimony in the videos concerns the conduct of public officials acting in their official capacities – a context in which the public interest in transparency and accountability is at its apex. That interest weighs against the imposition of a broad, post hoc restriction on dissemination.”
The Court goes on to other reasons that it is not going to grant the government’s request, and that it *is* going to allow the videos to be posted publicly.
And here is the link to the videos:
JUDGE ISSUES *PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION* HALTING THE GOVERNMENT’S BLOCKING THE USE OF ANTHROPIC!!
HOLY SHIRT BELLS!! That escalated quickly – and in the best way! This lawsuit went from being filed to a *preliminary injunction* in *just 19 days*!!!
As you probably know, Anthropic took a hard stand against the government using Anthropic’s AI, Claude, for either surveillance of Americans, or for guiding fully autonomous weapons.
In retaliation a) Trump decreed that *every* federal agency would immediately block Anthropic from *ever* having another government contract, and b) Hegseth announced that anyone wanting to do business with the federal government must *immediately* sever any business relationship that they have with Anthropic. Finally, the government designated Anthropic as a “supply chain risk”. That, according to the Court, is a label “that applies to adversaries of the U.S. government who may sabotage its technology systems.”
Judge Rita Lin of the Northern District of California *swiftly* tamped this dumpster fire out saying, among other things:
“The balance of equities and public interest therefore decisively favor Anthropic. As already discussed, the financial and reputational harm that Anthropic is experiencing as a result of the likely unlawful Challenged Actions risk crippling the company. In addition, amici have credibly described significant harms to the public interest if injunctive relief is denied. A brief submitted by military leaders warns that the Challenged Actions “will materially detract from military readiness and operational safety.” Employees from other major companies in the AI field explain that the Challenged Actions threaten to “chill open deliberation” and “professional debate” amongst the people best positioned to understand AI technology and its potential for “catastrophic misuse.” A nonprofit advocacy group for small developers explains that their members are particularly vulnerable to sudden, large changes in government procedures, and the confusion and ambiguity created by the Challenged Actions will impose significant costs on them. For all these reasons, the balance of equities and public interest favor Anthropic.”
And speaking of those amicus briefs, I’m including two of them which you’re going to want to read, one is from retired former military officers, and the other from retired former national security government officials.
Anthropic graciously didn’t object to the government’s request to stay the injunction for seven days so that they could appeal it to the Court of Appeals. That’d be the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. ;~)
EPSTEIN SURVIVORS FILE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST DOJ AND GOOGLE OVER REDACTION FAILURES AND FAILURE TO REMOVE UNREDACTED CONTENT
A group of Epstein survivors have just filed a class action lawsuit against the DOJ for failing to redact their information before releasing documents to the public. The lawsuit also names Google for failing to remove the content from search results and AI-generated content.
In the 29-page complaint (included for Notes from the Front members) “Jane Doe 1” explains that “Survivors now face renewed trauma. Strangers call them, email them, threaten their physical safety, and accuse them of conspiring with Epstein when they are, in reality, Epstein’s victims.”
With respect to Google, the Complaint says that “Even after the government acknowledged the disclosure violated the rights of the survivors and withdrew the information, online entities like Google continuously republish it, refusing victim’s pleas to take it down.”
I predict that this is going to be a tough case; the government may ultimately settle with the survivors, as the government *did* admit they screwed up.
However, as to Google, first, I highly doubt that they “refused”; more likely they said they “couldn’t”. And also it’s going to be rather like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube; Google can attempt to scrub any search results containing certain search terms, but they can’t remove those search terms from the published sources – at best they can do a search term whack-a-mole. For this reason I predict that there will be a settlement with the survivors consisting of a “best effort” by Google and a large amount of money. (I also think it’s not out of the question that Google will then turn around and sue the DOJ for indemnification.)
JUDGE ABSOLUTELY SPANKS ICE AND NEWLY MINTED DHS DIRECTOR MARKWAYNE MULLEN FOR MAKING SH*T UP!!
This week Judge Nancy Brasel of the Minnesota Federal District Court tore DHS, and by extension their newly minted director Markwayne Mullen (hey, his name is even in the caption now) to pieces for, among other things, *making stuff up*! Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up! (See what I did there?)
(Oh yeah, she also issued not just a preliminary injunction, but a *”mandatory* preliminary injunction”! Meaning rather than just maintaining the status quo, as is the aim of a TRO and standard preliminary injunction (”PI”), it requires that enjoined party to do some *affirmative*, remedial action.)
This case was brought by the organization Advocates for Human Rights on behalf of several detainees who had been detained at and processed through the Whipple ICE detention facility in Minneapolis.
In a blistering 69-page opinion and order (included for Notes from the Front members) Judge Brasel didn’t just issue a preliminary injunction, and didn’t just *annotate the opinion* and give it a *table of contents* (very unusual for a court opinion), and doesn’t just *meticulously* go through each point (assuring nearly zero chance of successful appeal); she also blistered, removed, chopped into little bits, and then handed ICE their backsides.
The *very first words* out of her printed mouth are:
“In recent months, as part of “Operation Metro Surge,” Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested thousands of noncitizens without warning, brought them to a holding facility, flew them across the country, and pressured them to sign self- deportation documents – all without the opportunity to speak with an attorney. Attorneys were refused physical and phone access to their clients, and vice versa. Often, attorneys did not know when or where their clients were detained.”
Oh, you just *know* it’s not going to get any better for them! And it doesn’t. The very *next* paragraph says:
“Due process is not a game of keep-away. ICE recognizes detainees’ right to access counsel in theory and written policy, but not in practice. Instead, it has placed obstacle after obstacle in front of detainees and their attorneys, blocking communication between clients and counsel.”
(pausing a moment to rub hands with glee)
Now, Judge Brasel refers to the TRO that she had put in place previously in this case, and acknowledges that Defendants *have* made efforts to comply, and that in fact things with respect to locating detainees, not transferring detainees away from Minnesota for at least 72 hours after they are detained, and some other requirements of the TRO *have* gotten better. But detainees’ access to counsel, and vice versa, is still *very* problematic.
After recounting the hardships faced by many at the Minneapolis Whipple detention facility, she goes through an analysis in order to grant provisional class certification. Class certification means you have identified a class of people to whom a decision will apply, beyond the plaintiffs. And Judge Brasel explains that she doesn’t even need to go through this analysis, but she *does anyway* (again, appeal-proofing).
“True,” she explains in the class certification section, “Defendants may not impede a detainee’s access to counsel in exactly the same way each time. Even so, each type of deprivation results in the same constitutional injury.”
Then, in what I am sure will come to be known in legal circles and law schools as “Judge Brasel’s footnote 19”, she says this (read this carefully, don’t skim over it! And maybe don’t have any liquid in your mouth while you read it.):
“Perhaps most egregiously, Defendants twice quote Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota v. Rounds, for the propositions that: (a) mandatory injunctions are “particularly disfavored,” and (b) Plaintiffs must show a likelihood of success on the merits by a “heavy and compelling weight of evidence” rather than a fair chance of success. Neither of these quotes appear in Planned Parenthood, nor in any Eighth Circuit case the Court has found that addresses injunctions. Even under the most charitable of readings, Planned Parenthood cannot possibly stand for such a proposition; the case discusses the heightened burden that applies to enjoining state statutes and does not involve mandatory injunctions at all. This portion of Defendants’ brief included other mis-citations as well.”
In other words, THEY MADE STUFF UP! Either that, or they used AI and the AI MADE STUFF UP!
Now, I’ve seen a lot of commentary on this that says that the DOJ lawyers must have relied on artificial intelligence (AI) in order to arrive at such an – to use Judge Brasel’s word – egregious falsity. But I think that underestimates the non-artificial intelligence level of the current crop of attorneys at the DOJ. Or, in the alternative, if their level of intelligence isn’t low enough to explain such a misreading, then their level of dishonest making stuff upitude and thinking the judge won’t catch it may be. My point is that the use of AI is only one possible explanation for the falsehoods in their brief.
Judge Brasel wraps Footnote 19 up by saying, about their false citations:
“The Court questioned Defendants’ counsel at the hearing and received unsatisfactory responses.”
(snort)
Then she goes on to issue that mandatory preliminary injunction, *requiring* ICE to, among several other things:
Provide a “list of free legal service providers, and written notification of the Detainee’s A-number shall be furnished to each Detainee in English, Spanish, Somali, French, and Hmong.” AND that “Defendants shall provide, without charge, to each Detainee who is illiterate or not proficient in any of those languages an in-person or telephonic oral translation of these materials,” AND that “Defendants shall provide Detainees with reasonable and equitable access to telephones. Within one hour of detention and prior to being transferred out of the Whipple Federal Building, Detainees shall be provided free, private, and unmonitored access to the telephone. Defendants shall permit Detainees to make a reasonable number of calls necessary to reach counsel or family.”
ALL WITHIN ONE HOUR OF THEIR BEING DETAINED!
Oh, I almost forgot to mention: guess who appointed Judge Bresel?
—
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, and the like) are in the archives here. If you’re not a Notes from the Front member yet, please consider joining us to access all documents, our private chat, our private dropbox, etc.. Plus your $5 a month helps support my efforts grabbing, purchasing, explaining, and storing documents before they can be disappeared (much of which I have to pay for out of my own pocket): You can cancel any time. Join here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com/subscribe
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 Federal CAN-SPAM Act
CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Author: Notes from the Front
Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Source