WEEKLY GOOD NEWS ROUNDUP FROM THE LEGAL FRONT – 4/17/26
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!
If you’re not a Notes from the Front member, and would like 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, here – its just $5 a month and I make it very easy to cancel with a ‘cancel now’ link at the bottom of each legal update (don’t you just hate subscriptions that hide that ball?)
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/
Ok, on to this week’s good news! (By the way, in case you were curious, the below articles are what you would have received in your email inbox, as they happened, if you were already signed up at the link above – nothing more, nothing less.) Current Notes from the Front members: don’t forget that all of the documents are 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!
BOOYAH! APPEALS COURT SAYS “TALK TO THE APPELLATE HAND” IN TRUMP’S EFFORT TO STAY ORDER TO PRESERVE FUNDS FOR HOMELESS PROGRAMS
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is responsible for maintaining the Continuum of Care (CoC) program, which is the primary federal program helping to deal with homelessness, including providing housing for hundreds of thousands of people who were formerly homeless (also known now as ‘unhoused’) or who are faced with becoming unhoused; the CoC program also provides financial support to communities to help “guard against dramatic funding fluctuations for each community from year to year.”
Put simply, it’s a lifeline for programs for the homeless, and for the homeless themselves. Communities apply for funding through local “Continuums”, which coordinate the local communities’ application for the CoC funding (the process of applying for this funding is known as a “competition”, because the communities are competing for a finite number of grants and amount of funds. Says the CoC site “CoC funds are awarded through a competitive process announced in annual Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs). The CoC NOFOs set priorities that, in part, determine which grantees receive funding.”
In 2024 Congress set the funding opportunities to be 2-year opportunities, so the NOFO funds that were awarded were to cover 2024 and 2025. The 2024 funds were dispersed in January of 2025, and the 2025 funds were to be dispersed in January of 2026.
So of course Trump’s administration *rescinded* that, sending a notice in *November*, mere weeks before the 2025 funds were due to be dispersed, saying that they were rescinding the two-year approval and that everyone would have to apply to a new NOFO competition for 2025 funding!
The administration’s new MOFO (I know what I typed) announcement gave no explanation. The plaintiffs (several cities and some organizations) explained that “In one sentence … HUD rescinded the FY24-25 NOFO, with no explanation”.
(The Complaint is included for Notes from the Front members.)
Well, Judge Mary McElroy of the District Court of Rhode Island was having none of that, and issued a preliminary injunction, ordering HUD to immediately cease any forward motion on the new 2025 competition. She also ordered that all of the allotted funds be preserved (but not dispersed), while the case worked its way through the courts.
The defendants didn’t like that one little bit, and filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, which I’m including for Notes from the Front members because motions to dissolve, which is legalese for a motion to make something go “poof”, are much less common than are motions to stay.
The Court denied the motion to dissolve, citing to the decision in the case of New York v. U.S. Department of Justice which says “In life-or-death scenarios, times of crisis when someone faces domestic violence, homelessness, or a mental health crisis, it practically goes without saying that there can be no do over and no redress if services are unlawfully denied and someone suffers for it. That of course constitutes irreparable harm.”
So then the defendants filed a motion to stay the undissolved injunction, which the Court also denied.
Defendants (remember, the Trump administration, and specifically HUD) then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. And in a beautiful 41-page spanking (included for Notes from the Front members), saying, among many other things, that “the record paints a disturbing picture of the harms that would flow to the plaintiffs, their constituents, and the public from issuing a stay,” the U.S. Court of Appeals smacked HUD down, denying their appeal. Meaning the injunction remains in effect.
YES!!! COURT SCHOOLS HEGSETH IN PENTAGON PRESS PASS CASE!
Last week I told you how the administration’s attorneys in the Pentagon press access case actually had to file *corrections* to statements they had made in court because during oral arguments the DOJ’s lawyers had explained that *asking a question* of a Pentagon official was, and I quote, “soliciting a criminal act” if the answer to the question would have revealed classified information. You remember that fiasco, right? (If not, you can read about it here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/remember-how-the-court-smacked-hegseth )
And the week before I told you about the actual ruling from the Court, with a headline that I thought said it all: “Judge Pummels Pentagon Policy Prohibiting Press – Violates 1st and 5th Amendment! (What a Way to Wrap the Week!)”
(And I have to say that I was sad that more people didn’t recognize my stellar alliteration. 😂 You can see that alliteratively headlined article here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/woot-judge-pummels-pentagon-policy )
Well, now the Court issued an order in that same case, on the motion that was the subject of that “asking a question is a criminal act” hearing.
You see, following the last pummeling, Hegseth reissued the press access policy memo, just slightly reworded (“meet the new memo, same as the old memo”), and so the New York Times (the named plaintiffs) filed a motion to compel the Pentagon to comply with the Court’s order (which had basically done the judicial equivalent of redlining the Pentagon’s press policy). It was the hearing on the Motion to Compel during which the DOJ’s lawyer informed the Court that asking a question could be a criminal act.
To say that the Court was not amused would be a massive understatement.
And so today Judge Paul Friedman issued a 20-page opinion and order (included for Notes from the Front members) making sure that all of the boys and girls at the Pentagon understand the meaning of the First Amendment to our Constitution.
He *opens* the opinion with this:
“Proposed by Congress in 1789, and ratified in 1791, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides:
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’
The First Amendment empowers the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of official proscription.”
Yowza!
He then goes on to explain how Hegseth tried to “end run” the order from a few weeks ago by “hastily issuing a new “interim” policy that defies the Court’s Order in both “letter and spirit.’ “
And this is just page 3! Can you *feel* the spanking coming on??
And that ‘interrim’ policy, instead of restoring journalists’ access which was what the Court had ordered, instead restricted *everyone’s* access! It was like Hegseth was saying “You don’t like how we’re deciding who gets access to what? Fine, then nobody will get access to anything! You get cut off and you get cut off, *everyone* gets cut off!”
Except he forgot one little thing. He’s not the boss of the Court. The Court is the boss of him when it comes to little details like, oh, I dunno.. *violating the Constitution*!
Says the Court “In short, the Department has responded to the Court’s express instruction to return the PFACs previously held by The Times’ journalists and restore the access to the Pentagon that came with those credentials by instead cutting off that access for all journalists. That response flouts the Court’s explicit directives and disregards the constitutional principles at the heart of its Opinion.”
And then:
“The Court cannot conclude this Opinion without noting once again what this case is really about: the attempt by the Secretary of Defense to dictate the information received by the American people, to control the message so that the public hears and sees only what the Secretary and the Trump Administration want them to hear and see. The Constitution demands better. The American public demands better, too. Over the past few weeks, the Court has received dozens of letters and postcards from people across the country explaining what the First Amendment means to them.”
Then he quotes one of the letters! And, oh yeah, describes the Pentagon as, and I quote, “Kafkaesque”!
Spank, spank, spankety spank!
WOOT!! JURY REFUSES TO CONVICT MAN WHO RETURN-LOBBED A TEAR GAS CANISTER “SEVERAL FEET ABOVE LAW ENFORCEMENTS’ HEADS” – I HAVE THE ACTUAL CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
This past Friday, April 10th, a federal jury in Southern California refused to find Jonathan Caravello guilty of “assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer” after a Border Patrol agent threw a tear gas canister into a crowd of protestors including Caravello, and Caravello picked up the tear gas canister and threw it back to towards the Border Patrol agents.
According to the 10-page Complaint (really more of a whine – but a highly comedic whine), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents and Border Patrol (BP) agents were executing a search warrant at a “massive marijuana farm”, when protestors started showing up. (Notes from the Front members: the entire 10-page Complaint is included for you.)
And here’s where the comedic parts start (at least I find them funny). Says the agent who swore out the Complaint (let’s call him Agent Orange):
“…based on my training and experience, conversations with other law enforcement officers, and my knowledge of marijuana cultivation, I understand that implements used in marijuana cultivation include shovels, scissors, and both large and small hand tools.”
“knowledge of marijuana cultivation” 😂
But wait, even if you don’t find the above funny, you are *sure* to find this funny:
“The protestors gathered and started chanting “CHINGA LA MIGRA”… In my training and experience and use of an online translator, “CHINGA LA MIGRA” is Spanish for “Fuck the Immigration.” “
Bwahahahaha… “in my training and experience and use of an online translator, “chinga la migra” is Spanish for “Fuck the Immigration.” “
You have to admit that right there is funny.
Honestly, the Complaint is like a script for a new sitcom: Viva la Chinga
Anyways, so this protest broke out, and eventually the HSI and BP agents started using tear gas. One of the tear gas canisters thrown into the crowd by the agents rolled near Caravello, and he attempted to kick it back towards the agents, but instead it rolled past Caravello. So he bent down, picked up the canister, and then lobbed it back towards the agents. “A BP Agent reported that the canister was thrown at law enforcement and recalls that the canister came within approximately several feet above law enforcements’ heads.”
Ooooh nooooos! Approximately *several feet* *above* law enforcements’ heads! Oh the horror! 😱
Well, much like what happened with Sandwich guy, and also with several other defendants that the government couldn’t get prosecuted, the government LOST BIGLY with Caravello, because the jury lobbed a “not guilty” verdict at the prosecution.
Here’s the thing: the government keeps trying to bring these people to justice, and what they are *failing* to recognize is that they *have* brought them to justice – because justice is served *when the 1st Amendment right to protest is protected from despotic governments*!
WOOT!! HOME COURT JUDGE DISMISSES TRUMP’S LAWSUIT AGAINST THE WALL STREET JOURNAL! “YOUR COMPLAINT *PROVES* THE WSJ’S CLAIMS!”
What a way to have started out the week!! This Monday, April 13th, *Florida* District Court Judge Darrin Gayle handed Trump his ask (I know what I said) when he *dismissed* Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal.
You probably recall that Trump sued the WSJ for defamation over their coverage of the infamous Epstein ‘birthday book’ and the ‘letter’ from Trump in the shape of a naked woman that was included in the birthday book. Trump filed his complaint (included for Notes from the Front members) in July of 2025, and in his complaint Trump asserted that *there was no birthday book*! He also asserted that the WSJ had done no actual investigation or they would have discovered that “there was no birthday book”, and he alleged that they had made the whole thing up in order to defame him.
Well, in November of 2025 the Epstein Full Transparency Act was passed, and the DOJ and the House started dumping into the public record a whole bunch of Epstein-related documents. Some of the House dumps included the Epstein estate’s documents that they had produced to the House in response to a House subpoena, and those documents included… wait for it… the “nonexistent” birthday book.
Now, you will recall from my previous lectu..er… articles that in order for there to be defamation of a public figure there not only has to be an untruthful statement made by the defendant about the plaintiff, and not only does the defendant have to have known that it was untrue, but when it comes to defamation of public figures there has to be *actual malice*. In other words, the untrue, defamatory statement has to have been made intentionally with malice towards the plaintiff.
As Judge Gayles notes in his beautiful 17-page order (included for Notes from the Front members), “The production included a copy of the Birthday Book. The Birthday Book includes a page matching the Article’s description of the Letter.”
When you read the opinion and order you will see that the order says stuff like “dismissed in part” and “granted in part”; the bottom line is that the lawsuit is dismissed. It is dismissed “without prejudice” which means that Trump can file it again if he wants, but the Court also gave him a very short leas..er… deadline, he has two weeks. Of course he would have to entirely reformulate his legal arguments to do so, and while I would certainly not advise the cub DOJ attorneys to tilt at this particularly windmill, who knows what they will do?
Now, I have a special treat for Notes from the Front members: the actual transcript of the Court hearing! It’s a delight! In it you will see lots of “incorporation by reference”s and “judicial notice”s. So here’s a quick Learn a Little Law with Anne:
“Judicial notice” is a rule of evidence that allows a judge to take some piece of evidence as true without having to put on a hearing to have the evidence authenticated. “Incorporation by reference” is a rule of evidence that allows one document to incorporate a second document by simply referring to it – for example in document 1, rather than saying “see document 2”, document 1 “incorporates” document 2 into document 1 so that it is *part* of document 1 even though you can’t see it in document 1.
(And “rule of evidence” refers to actual published rules; you can for example look up the Federal Rules of Evidence, although I don’t recommend it unless you are either an insomniac or a masochist. But here’s a tidbit for you: the Hearsay rule of evidence (the one that laypeople most often invoke *and* most often get wrong) is a rule against admitting testimony quoting something said by a third person *for the truth of the matter asserted*. Our evidence professor in law school explained it to us this way: The testimony “I heard him say he was Jesus” *can* be admitted to show the guy’s state of mind (he’s effing crazy), but it *cannot* be admitted to prove ‘the truth of the matter asserted’ in other words it can’t be admitted to prove that the person is in fact Jesus.)
The transcript is where Trump’s attorneys assert that the WSJ didn’t even fully investigate their claim of the alleged birthday book, and as evidence of this Trump’s attorney says “And in addition to that they take the position very clearly that the Department of Justice would not comment on the article and the FBI refused to comment on the article.”
Do you see the problem here? Trump is basically saying “they didn’t investigate” (because they were just out to ‘get’ Trump) when actually they *did* attempt to investigate but Trump’s DOJ and Trump’s FBI wouldn’t give them the time of day.
You’ll also find such gems in the transcript as:
“WSJ: And is plaintiff really suggesting that there is a second letter in the world, in the shape of a woman with the exact same wording and the squiggly signature of Donald Trump mimicking pubic hair? I don’t think so.
THE COURT: Well, that’s the question I am going to ask them.”
And:
“THE COURT: Do I need to lift the stay on discovery?
TRUMP’S TEAM: {paragraphs of backpedaling, because of course they don’t want discovery to happen}”
WOW!! TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SETTLES AND AGREES TO REINSTATE PRIDE FLAG AT STONEWALL MONUMENT!
This really is a banner week from the front lines of the legal battle to save the soul of our democracy (yes, pun intended). First Trump’s lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal gets dismissed, and now the Trump administration *gives in* and *settles* the lawsuit over their removal of the Pride flag at the Stonewall Monument and agrees to restore it!!
For those not familiar, the Stonewall Monument commemorates the Stonewall riots that followed the New York City police raiding a gay bar that was located at the Stonewall Inn, in June of 1969. The Stonewall Monument is the first monument in the U.S. dedicated to LGBTQ+ rights. The area in which the Stonewall Inn sits, in Greenwich Village, was designated a national landmark in 2000. The inn itself was designated a New York City landmark in 2015. And in 2016 President Obama declared it a national monument.
According to the Complaint, “In 2022, after extensive advocacy by the LGBTQ+ community, the National Park Service (“NPS”) installed a flagpole inside the Stonewall National Monument to fly a Pride flag. The Pride flag, which generally consists of differently colored horizontal stripes representing a rainbow, has been and remains a widely recognized symbol of LGBTQ+ equality since the 1970’s.”
The raising of the Pride flag over a national monument was a Really Big Deal, and according to the Complaint “At the time, the NPS explained this watershed event – the first Pride flag flown permanently on federal lands – by pointing to “the significance of the rainbow flag to Stonewall National Monument and the community” and NPS’s commitment “to telling the complex and diverse histories of all Americans.”
But on February 9th of this year Trump’s National Park Service removed the flag, citing a supposed policy that allows only the American flag, Department of the Interior flags, and POW/MIA flags to be flown in national parks.
That is, of course, bullpucky. While the Department of Interior’s (DOI) own policy, outlined in a memorandum titled “Guidance on the Display and Flying of Non-Agency Flags and Pennants within the National Park System” (included for Notes from the Front members) *does* say “Subject to the below exemptions, only the U.S. Flag, flags of the DOI, and the POW/MIA flag will be flown by the NPS in public spaces,” but guess what are included in “the below exemptions”? Flags that “provide historical context”!
A mere 8 days later, on February 17th, a lawsuit was filed against the National Park Service and others.
And less than two months after that, today, April 13th, a stipulated settlement was reached and filed with the Court! (Both the Complaint and the settlement are included for Notes from the Front members.) That the settlement is stipulated means that it has been agreed to by and between the parties *and* is filed with the Court, and that, when the Court endorses it, it has the weight and force of a court order.
The settlement says, among other things, that “Within seven (7) days of the filing of this Stipulation, NPS shall hang three equally sized, three feet by five feet flags on the flagpole at Stonewall. NPS will hang the American flag at the top of the flagpole in accordance with current guidance, and below the American flag, on either side, NPS will hang the rainbow Pride and NPS flags.”
—
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 helps support my coffee habit and helps me keep on with all of the research and writing I do for you. Join here:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/
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