Weekly Good News Roundup - 11/16/25

Here’s a recap of all of the good things that have happened over the past week 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 orders, TROs, and other documents discussed below are permanently available to Notes from the Front members in the archives here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com/archive

Not a Notes from the Front member yet? Upgrade here and get instant access to all of the documents, the private chat, the podcast and more!

Ok, on to this week’s good news!

SPANKED! *SUMMARY JUDGEMENT* FOR 20 STATES AGAINST THE DOT AND SEAN DUFFY FOR TYING GRANT FUNDS TO STATES HELPING ICE

This is a brilliant, and *decisive*, win!

Twenty states (California, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin) sued the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Secretary Sean Duffy, because, like so many other departments, DOT was conditioning the receipt of grand funds on extorted pledges that the states would cooperate with ICE and immigration enforcement.

And, also like so many other departments, the Court smacked the DOT down.

And not just a smackdown, a genuine spanking! A *summary judgement*!

We’ve discussed summary judgement before (most recently in the article about the shellacking that Trump got over withholding funds from ‘sanctuary jurisdictions), but to refresh your memory, a summary judgement basically means that the facts before the Court, and how the law applies to those facts, is *so* clear and iron-clad that there is *nothing* to decide. So instead of a trial the Court just says “Get out of here and stop wasting the Court’s time.”

In this particular case the Plaintiff States requested summary judgement (“C’mon judge, it’s so clear-cut!”), and the Court gave it to them.

In addition to the actual opinion and order for you Notes from the Front members (32 pages) I’m also including the actual judgement (2 pages) if only because it’s so fun to see this in a judgement:

“Judgment hereby enters … against Plaintiff* United State Department of Transportation, and, Sean Duffy, in his official capacity as Secretary of Transportation”

(*Instead of there being a plaintiff and a defendant, there are two plaintiffs because the administration filed a cross-motion for their own summary judgement, which the Court denied, hence the “against Plaintiff”… .)

I’m also including the administration’s opposition brief (14 pages), opposing the States’ request for summary judgement claiming that all the administration was requiring was that the states comply with existing Federal law, *and* I’m including the actual letter sent by DOT to the states, which the Plaintiff States have conveniently annotated by highlighting the sections of the letter that refute that.

JUDGE ORDERS NOEM, ET AL TO CLEAN UP HORRENDOUS, INHUMANE CONDITIONS AT CHICAGO BROADVIEW DETENTION FACILITY

(But also NO! *How* can they do this to fellow humans??)

If this feels like deja vu all over again, well, it is. A few months ago I told you about how a Federal judge ordered Kristi Noem, et al, to provide basic necessities to the Florida immigration detention center known as ‘Alligator Alcatraz’. Well now a Federal judge has ordered Noem and all of the other defendants, including Bovino, to remediate the inhumane conditions at the Broadview detention facility, which is where ICE and CBP detainees in the Chicago area are taken.

The TRO (included for Notes from the Front members, along with the Complaint, a few of the declarations attached to the Complaint, and another a short order which I’ll explain in a moment) is only 4 pages long, but oh, what those 4 pages reveal.

That a judge has to *order* that detainees be provided with basic human necessities such as soap, toilet paper, toothpaste, and menstrual products, just to name a few, speaks volumes.

And along with those and other basic supplies, he also has to *order* Trump and Bovino’s ICE/CBP to provide meals, bedding, showers, and sleep accommodations, and more.

It’s disgusting that the detainees are treated like animals, when the world can see that it’s the administration’s agents that are the animals.

The TRO is the result of a complaint which was filed with two named plaintiffs, Pablo Gonzalez and Felipe Zamacona, however they filed the Complaint also on behalf of “a class of similarly situated people”. In other words, they are hoping to have this become a class action. This is why you will see in the Complaint (76 pages and included for Notes from the Front members) the term “putative class” throughout.

I urge you to read the complaint - it will make you weep, and then your blood boil. I have also included a few of the more than *40* declarations that were attached to the Complaint, including from religious leaders, and detainees.

Finally, there is a very short order which orders that the two named plaintiffs, Gonzalez and Zamacona, “are to be held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center”. I’ve not seen this before, but I infer it to be the judge saying “At least I can get you two out of that horrible place right now because by appearing in this court you’ve given me jurisdiction to do this for you.”

Notes from the Front members: the six documents are in your inbox.

ABOUT THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER THAT JUDGE ELLIS ISSUED IN THE CHICAGO “BOVINO’S PANTS ARE ON FIRE” CASE

Here is the brand spanking (heh, see what I did there?) new, hot off the presses Preliminary Injunction that Judge Sara Ellis issued in the case against ICE and CBP in which they have been caught lying so many times. (I hope to have the transcript of today’s hearing where the order was issued for you by tomorrow or the weekend.)

This is the case brought by journalists and protestors (the main named plaintiff is the Chicago Headline Club, which is a society of professional journalists).

This Preliminary Injunction (or as we in the biz shorthand it, “PI”) closely tracks the emergency injunction (also known as a TRO) in the case, but has even more legal teeth. For one thing, along with the findings of fact which will be contained in the Court’s yet-to-be issued opinion, this creates a record that is going to be really hard for the administration to get overturned on appeal.

For another, Judge Ellis fine-tuned this order based on the activities of and interactions with Bovino, et al, between the time that the TRO was issued and the time that the trial was concluded. For example, it’s now clear that ICE and CBP agents must wear identifying indicia in *two* places at all times. (For those of you who received the transcript of the last hearing, you know that Bovino said that sometimes the identifying information could be obscured by, say, where the agent is wearing his weapon.)

The bottom line is that agents cannot use “any riot control weapon, including those listed in this Order, against any Class member, without first giving at least two separate warnings at a sound level where the targeted individual(s) can reasonably hear it, unless justified by exigent circumstances when immediate action is necessary in order to preserve life or prevent catastrophic outcomes, as defined by Department of Homeland Security Use of Force Policy.”

Oh, she also makes clear that “Using hands-on physical force such as pulling or shoving to the ground, tackling, or body slamming any Class member who is not causing an immediate threat of physical harm to others, unless objectively necessary and proportional to effectuate an apprehension and arrest” is forbidden.

While nearly all of the 8-page order (included for Notes from the Front members) addresses what both plaintiffs and defendants can and cannot do, this is actually my favourite of the paragraphs in there:

“It is further ORDERED that in the interest of justice, the Court orders Plaintiffs to provide $0 in security, and the Court rules that any other requirements under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied.”

Notes from the Front members: the Preliminary Injunction is in your inbox.

And then…

JUDGE ELLIS CERTIFIED A CLASS IN THE “BOVINO LIES LIKE A RUG” CHICAGO HEADLINE CLUB CASE!

Here’s the first thing that you need to know about this order:

IT RECOGNIZES A CLASS!!

First, yesterday, Judge Ellis issues a preliminary injunction which spanks Bovino, ICE, CBP, etc., and now she publishes an order certifying a class which that preliminary injunction protects!

Judge Ellis starts out the class certification order with a light spanking of its own:

“This case arises from protests throughout the Chicagoland area associated with the federal government’s immigration enforcement and removal operations and deployment of federal agents, which have increased over the past several months. Plaintiffs allege that federal agents have targeted peaceful individuals, religious practitioners, and members of the media participating in or reporting on these protests with excessive force, threats, and/or detention. Among other things, these federal agents have allegedly fired rubber bullets and pepper balls, launched flashbang grenades, and indiscriminately sprayed tear gas at protesters, religious practitioners, and journalists without legal justification or adequate warning.”

(Just remove the term “alleged” in your head and you’ll see it for the spanking that it is, because we all know that the evidence demonstrated that it was actually going on.)

The order goes on:

“Plaintiffs now seek to certify a class of “all persons who are or will in the future non- violently protest, observe, document, or record Department of Homeland Security immigration operations in the Northern District of Illinois.” They also seek to proceed with two subclasses. The first is a religious exercise subclass for their RFRA claim of “persons who are or will in the future engage in religious expression in the form of prayer, procession, song, preaching, or proselytizing at Department of Homeland Security immigration operations in the Northern District of Illinois.” Id. The second is a press subclass of “all persons who are or will in the future engage in news gathering or reporting at Department of Homeland Security immigration operations in the Northern District of Illinois.”

Got that? ANYONE who is a non-violent protestor, and anyone involved in any form of religious expression, and anyone who is involved in, or who *will be* involved in news gathering or news reporting is a member of the protected class!

WOOT!

Taken together with yesterday’s preliminary injunction (I’m including that again in case you missed it) this means that not only are ICE, CBP, et al, enjoined from doing in the future all those nasty things to those to whom they have already done wrong, but they are enjoined from doing those nasty things to *anyone* who is in any of the classes or subclasses!

Have I mentioned that Judge Ellis is a bad*ss?

Notes from the Front members: the order certifying the class, along with yesterdays injunction in case you missed it, are in your inbox.

JUDGE IMMERGUT ISSUES PERMANENT INJUNCTION, FINDINGS OF LAW, AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT: “NO DEPLOYMENT OF ANY STATE’S NATIONAL GUARD TO OREGON”! (I Have Them and They’re Glorious!)

After a 3-day trial Judge Immergut published her findings of fact and conclusion of law (included for Notes from the Front members) as well as a partial Summary Judgement (ditto).

The bottom line is that Trump is *permanently* enjoined from deploying the National Guard in Portland. *Any* National Guard, from *any* state!

As you may have noticed I’ve been glued to my desk all afternoon and evening, because the Courts have kept me *very* busy (Four articles plus the post about the Supreme Court just now), so I hope you’ll forgive me my brevity in this article.

The partial summary judgement says, in the most relevant verbiage:

“This Court held a three-day bench trial that commenced on October 29, 2025, on Plaintiffs’ two claims that Defendants’ (1) federalization and deployment of members of the Oregon National Guard, and (2) the deployment of federalized California National Guard in Oregon was ultra vires {Ed. note: outside the scope of the law}because it violated 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and violated the Tenth Amendment.”

And then:

“However, with respect to the deployment of any state’s National Guard to Oregon, based on any of the above orders, THIS PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER IS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.”

(The allcaps are the Court’s!)

The findings and conclusions of law document is *106* pages long (both documents are included for Notes from the Front members), and here’s what I think is the heart of it:

“After analyzing these statutory provisions, as applied to the facts in this case, this Court arrives at the necessary conclusion that there was neither “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” nor was the President “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States” in Oregon when he ordered the federalization and deployment of the National Guard.”

Notes from the Front members: Both documents are in your inbox. Happy weekend reading!

COURT ABSOLUTELY SPANKS TRUMP FOR ADDING PARTISAN ATTACKS IN DEPT. OF ED. EMPLOYEES’ “OUT-OF-OFFICE” EMAILS! SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS!

As most are aware now, Trump’s government added (the Court says “plastered”) partisan messages on many Federal agency websites, blaming the Democrats for the shutdown, with such messages as “The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government” on the HUD site, and “Due to the Radical Left Democrat shutdown, this government website will not be updated during the funding lapse. President Trump has made it clear he wants to keep the government open and support those who feed, fuel, and clothe the American people” on the USDA website. But that’s not all.

In its 36-page opinion (included for Notes from the Front members), after noting those attacks, the Court says:

“Apparently, that wasn’t enough. The Department waited until its furloughed employees lost access to their e- mail, then gratuitously changed their out-of-office messages to include yet another partisan message, thereby turning its own workforce into political spokespeople through their official e-mail accounts. The Department may have added insult to injury, but it also overplayed its hand.”

Then the Court goes on:

“While the Department’s employees, along with other dedicated federal workers, have sacrificed much during the government shutdown, they still hold on to their First Amendment rights. And by promulgating the Revised Message, the Department has infringed upon those rights by unlawfully compelling its employees’ speech.”

And then the Court issues a *permanent* injunction *and* summary judgement for the plaintiffs (the American Federation of Government Employees), ordering that:

“Defendants are DIRECTED to immediately take steps to remove all partisan language that they or their agents caused to be added to Department of Education employees’ out-of-office e-mail messages”

The Court also permanently enjoined the administration from future modification of the out-of-office email of employees who are furloughed or out on administrative leave.

You may be wondering why the Court didn’t also address the messages on the websites. It’s because this particular lawsuit, while mentioning the websites, was brought specifically over the government’s violation of the employees’ 1st Amendment rights. By altering each employee’s out-of-office email message, in other words by literally putting words in their digital mouths, the government violated their 1st Amendment rights against the government compelling speech.

On the other hand, and as the Court actually notes in this opinion (again, included for Notes from the Front members), the messages on the websites are not attributable to any one person, and so aren’t compelling an individual to publish such speech. “After all,” says the Court in a footnote, “there is little risk that a person visiting the website would attribute the banner’s speech to the employee who altered the website’s code.”

This may lead you to wonder “Just where *are* the lawsuits against the messages on the websites?”

Those messages almost certainly violate the Hatch Act. However the Hatch Act requires that a complaint be filed with the Federal Office of Special Counsel. There have been many Hatch Act complaints filed with the OSC over the website messaging. The OSC has 60 days to respond to each complaint (so the 60 days hasn’t passed yet as these messages went up during the shutdown). If the complainant doesn’t like the OSC’s decision they can appeal it to the Federal Merit Systems Protection Board. And if they don’t like the decision from the MSPB, then, and only then, can they bring it to a regular court, by appealing the MSPB decision to a Court of Appeals.

All of this to say that the only issue before the Court in this decision was the changed email messages, and the Court gave the administration a decisive spank.

Notes from the Front members: The opinion and order are in your inbox.

REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED UTAH JUDGE REJECTS REPUBLICAN REDISTRICTING, ADOPTS DEMOCRATS REDISTRICTING MAP

In a stunning decision that shows that even in a state where the state House, state Senate, and state Governor’s office are all controlled by Republicans, Democrats can still prevail if they put their mind to it, Utah State District Court Judge Dianna Gibson just flat-out rejected the partisan gerrymandering of the Utah legislature, and instead adopted the map proposed by the plaintiff Democrats.

WHY THIS MATTERS: Utah has not had a single Democrat in Congress since 2021. There hasn’t been a Democratic Senator from Utah since 1977. There hasn’t been a Democratic Representative from Utah since the aforementioned 2021.

The Utah State House and Senate are also unbalanced, with ratios of 6:22 in the Utah Senate, and 14:61 in the Utah House.

So, yes, this is a Very Big Deal.

Judge Gibson, who was appointed by… you got it, Republican… Governor Gary Herbert, starts her 90-page opinion (included for Notes from the Front members) by saying “In 2018, Utahns exercised their fundamental constitutional right to alter or reform their government via an initiative that, among other things, banned partisan gerrymandering and ensured that voting maps adhered to neutral criteria like respecting county and municipal lines, compactness, and communities of interest. That initiated law, known as Proposition 4 (“Proposition 4”), was expansive in scope, reflecting the people’s desire to use all available tools, data, and metrics to identify and prohibit increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering schemes.”

In addition to telegraphing that this decision was going to be a data geek’s dream, it taught me that people from Utah, whom I’d always imagined to be called “Utah-ans” are, in fact, referred to as “Utahns”. (Am I the only person who didn’t know that?)

And indeed, data-laden this decision is. The decision is full of terms like “Mean-Median Difference”, “Partisan Bias”, “Efficiency Gap”, and “Partisan Symmetry Measure”.

Within that context, Judge Gibson includes her impression of each side’s expert witnesses; she finds the Plaintiffs’ experts to be prepared and credible, and Defendants’ to be, er, less so, saying of one that “He seemed to recall certain aspects of his map drawing process in great detail when asked on direct examination but with noticeably less detail when asked on cross examination. His testimony regarding the application of the partisan bias test appeared to rely solely on the fact that “measures of partisan symmetry,” as assessed through the partisan bias test, was required by S.B. 1011. ... He also generally admitted the many errors in his report and in the analysis he conducted as part of the legislative process.”

Still, Judge Gibson seemed to be even handed in her assessment of all of the expert witnesses.

She also seems to have an amazing, comprehensive grasp of all of the various data tests and data sets.

At the end of a very thorough analysis she orders, among other things:

“The Court APPROVES Plaintiffs’ Map 1 as the judicial remedy to meet the Lieutenant Governor’s November 10, 2025 deadline to have a congressional plan that complies with both federal and Utah law in place in time to prepare for the 2026 elections;

The Court hereby ORDERS that Map 1 be implemented for use in Utah’s congressional elections. The Court ORDERS the Lieutenant Governor, as Utah’s chief elections officer, to implement and administer all future congressional elections in Utah in accordance with Map 1 as the judicially approved congressional plan, until another validly enacted legislative plan takes effect or as otherwise ordered by an appellate court.”

Notes from the Front members: the full ruling and order is in your inbox.

JUDGE IN CHICAGO ORDERS MORE THAN 600 DETAINEES TO BE RELEASED ON BOND FROM BROADVIEW AND ELSEWHERE!!

On Wednesday of this week Judge Cummings of the Illinois District Court on Wednesday ordered the release of more than 600 ICE detainees, provided they did not pose a “high public safety risk”.

While I have this week’s order, the more foundational document in this case is the Consent Decree, which is a settlement agreement ordered by the Court (both documents are included for Notes from the Front members).

Here are the main points:

This case was first filed in *2018*! “How can that be?” you may be wondering, “are we trapped in some kind of Back to the Future timewarp thing?”

You see, back in 2018 Margarito Castañon-Nava sued the Department of Homeland Security over violations of 8 U.S.C. §1357 which, as you’ll recall from my article yesterday, deals with when ICE and CPB can make warrantless arrests. (That Complaint is also included, for a total of three documents.)

That lawsuit, which was certified as a class action, resulted in a Consent Decree that was entered in February of 2022. (So slowly turn the wheels of justice.) Part of the Consent Decree was that the DHS had to let everybody know, through a “Broadcast Statement of Policy”, what ICE / CPB agents were and were not allowed to do. (That Broadcast Statement of Policy is part of the Consent Decree I’ve included, starting on page 18 of the Consent Decree (Settlement Agreement).)

All was quiet on the Consent Decree front after 2022… until March of this year, when the plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Enforce” that 2022 consent decree. You see, it seems that ICE and CBP were up to their old tricks again, making warrantless arrests, and detaining people, in violation this time not only of 8 U.S.C. §1357, but also in violation of the Consent Decree (which is, again, a settlement agreement, in this case *signed by DHS* which, once approved by the Court, is basically a court order).

So Judge Cummings’ order is based on his finding that DHS violated that Consent Decree.

Now, as you read through these documents you’ll find that the number of detainees to be released on bond being reported in the media (615) is the number of detainees being cited by the plaintiffs; the number who are actually to be released (actually by today, in fact) depends on how many of those 615 are *not* considered to be a “high public safety risk”. Also, the number could go much higher as more people who were arrested in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1357 and the Consent Decree are discovered.

Notes from the Front members: the Order, the Consent Decree, and the original Complaint are in your inbox.

And finally:

A NEW EPISODE OF THE ‘NOTES FROM THE FRONT’ PODCAST IS UP! FEATURING SAM DALEY-HARRIS, AUTHOR OF ‘RECLAIMING OUR DEMOCRACY’!

Sam Daley-Harris doesn’t just talk the talk when it comes to saving our democracy - he walks the walk, sings the song, and champions the cause!

His book, Reclaiming Our Democracy: Every Citizen’s Guide to Transformational Advocacy, is a must-read for every citizen warrior.

His Results organization gives every citizen a chance to spread their wings to effect change, and his Civic Courage offering trains whole organizations on how to advocate for our democracy with his transformational advocacy model!

And he has the track record to back it all up - he’s been doing this for decades!

Sam is awesome! (My new microphone, however, is not, so please forgive where my audio is a bit fuzzy at times - Sam’s, however, is perfect. :~) )

Notes from the Front members: The podcast is up now! You can watch it here:

___

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! It’s only $5 a month, and with it you get all of the documents that are included with each article, access to our private chat, the podcast, and more! You can cancel any time. Join here

This is me, reporting from the front line of the battle to save the soul of our country, wishing you a great weekend!