WEEKLY GOOD NEWS ROUNDUP FROM THE FRONT – 12/13/25
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
Don’t get the Notes from the Front updates? Subscribe to the updates for free here; or become a member for $5 and get the updates plus instant access to all of the documents, the private chat, the podcast and more!
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/subscribe
Ok, on to this week’s good news!
COURT ORDERS RELEASE OF THE GHISLAINE MAXWELL FILES – HERE’S WHAT THEY CONTAIN
On Tuesday of this week Judge Engelmayer issued an order ordering the DOJ to release the files related to the investigation of Ghislaine Maxwell, including the grand jury files. To be clear, the DOJ is *asking* to release them, pursuant to the new Epstein Files Transparency Act.
As I explained earlier, the Court had received letters from the victims and victims’ attorneys expressing privacy concerns over the release, and also two letters from lawyers representing non-victims whose names may appear in the files – the latter strongly arguing that the grand jury records should *not* be released. (Those letters were included for Notes from the Front members.)
I have to say that Judge Engelmayer turned this around quickly, as his order talks about these letters, which were only received a few days prior.
In the 24-page order (included for Notes from the Front members) Judge Engelmayer lays out in a clear, relatively concise (for a legal document) manner the roadmap of how we ended up here, this morning, with this order.
He explains the history, and then in plain English explains *exactly* what the Epstein Files Transparency Act requires, including what types of files it requires be released to the public. There are nine categories of documents, including those relating to:
– Jeffrey Epstein including all investigations, prosecutions, or custodial matters
– Ghislaine Maxwell
– Flight logs or travel records, including but not limited to manifests, itineraries, pilot records, and customs or immigration documentation, for any aircraft, vessel, or vehicle owned, operated, or used by Jeffrey Epstein or any related entity
– Individuals, including government officials, named or referenced in connection with Epsteins criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity or plea agreements, or investigatory proceedings
___
For their part, the DOJ disclosed that it has documents in 20 different categories that meet the criteria for being released, these categories are recounted in the order and include:
– Financial records
– Grand jury subpoena returns from Internet service providers (e.g., Instagram, Microsoft, Google, other email providers)
– Records obtained from various government agencies (e.g., New York State Department of State, Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Virgin Islands Division of Corporations, NYPD computer checks, Delaware Division of Corporation records, police reports from various law enforcement agencies, SORNA records, FAA records)
– Search warrant returns (e.g., email, cloud, and other ISP searches; photographs, scans, and copies of materials obtained during physical searches; electronic searches of computers, telephones, and other electronic devices)
– Photographs and videos of relevant properties and locations (e.g., Epstein properties, Maxwell residence, Interlochen)
– Materials obtained from the Palm Beach Police Department and the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern District of Florida, including reports, photographs, and videos
– Forensic examination reports related to electronic extractions of various media
– Copies of photographs and other materials voluntarily produced by third parties, including victims
And so much more.
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS FIGHTING TRUMP’S CANCELLATION OF OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY PERMITS!
On his first day in office Trump issued, among many others, an executive order titled “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf From Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects” (the ‘Wind Memo’). The Court just disappeared it.
The part of the Wind Memo at issue says:
“Sec. 2. Temporary Cessation and Immediate Review of Federal Wind Leasing and Permitting Practices.
(a) In light of various alleged legal deficiencies underlying the Federal Government’s leasing and permitting of onshore and offshore wind projects, the consequences of which may lead to grave harm – including negative impacts on navigational safety interests, transportation interests, national security interests, commercial interests, and marine mammals – and in light of potential inadequacies in various environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act to lease or permit wind projects, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the heads of all other relevant agencies, shall not issue new or renewed approvals, rights of way, permits, leases, or loans for onshore or offshore wind projects pending the completion of a comprehensive assessment and review of Federal wind leasing and permitting practices. The Secretary of the Interior shall lead that assessment and review in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Secretary of Energy, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The assessment shall consider the environmental impact of onshore and offshore wind projects upon wildlife, including, but not limited to, birds and marine mammals. The assessment shall also consider the economic costs associated with the intermittent generation of electricity and the effect of subsidies on the viability of the wind industry.”
In other words, an immediate halt to all authorizations for new, or to-be-renewed, wind energy projects. And several involved agencies (now known as “defendants” ;~) ) did so immediately halt.
Now, I suppose one could magnanimously argue that “it’s for the animals and the environment”, except that simultaneously, of course, Trump is pushing coal.
Also, the Court found *no* evidence that the impact assessments are actually happening, nearly a year later. (Yeah, next month it will be a year since he’s taken office, how crazy is that?)
The Plaintiffs, who are the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington, along with Washington D.C., and an organization known as ‘Alliance for Clean Energy New York’, sued under our old friend that has held this administration to account in so many of the lawsuits against this administration, the Administrative Procedures Act (‘APA’), along with various other statutes.
A key part of being able to bring an action under the APA is that the agency or agencies in your crosshairs have to have taken an action that is final. And while the executive order has “temporary” right in the title, the Court found (and prior cases have held) that “an interim agency resolution counts as final agency action despite the potential for a different permanent decision, as long as the interim decision is not itself subject to further consideration by the agency. In that event, the interim resolution is the final word from the agency on what will happen up to the time of any different permanent decision.”
I’m not going to go into much further detail, if you’re interested you can read the 47-page order (included for Notes from the Front members), however the key take-away here is:
Summary judgement for Plaintiffs!
As a reminder, summary judgement basically means that the facts are not in dispute, and the law is so clear that there really isn’t a credible controversy, and so the judge can make a determination without the need for a trial.
That is the case here, which means that the administration *should* re-start issuing wind permits and renewals, although I’m sure that they are going to try to appeal it.
SECOND COURT ORDERS RELEASE OF EPSTEIN DOCUMENTS (NOW IT’S EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION FILES, EARLIER IT WAS MAXWELL INVESTIGATION FILES) – Full Order Included Below
On Wednesday the Federal court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) issued an order directing the DOJ to release the investigation and grand jury files related to the investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. Note that there was a similar order on Tuesday – that order was regarding releasing investigation and grand jury records related to the investigation into Ghislaine Maxwell.
In any event, I’m taking the unusual step of including the entire text of the court order right here in the article, because it’s only 4 pages long, and I thought people who don’t get the source documents through Notes from the Front membership might like to see what these look like.
(NOTE: Forgive me if I point out that I paid for the PDF-to-text service in order to be able to post the text of this order, just like I pay for the transcripts of hearings and other non-free documents out of my own pocket, in order to make them available to you. And that’s not even taking into account the hours I spend cleaning them up, making them accessible, and writing them up so that people understand what they are looking at. So to the people who slam me for charging a paltry $5 a month for all that, perhaps you don’t realize how much work and how much of my own money goes into it.)
Here’s the full order
United States District Court Southern District of New York, United States of America,
-against-
Jeffrey Epstein
Defendant.
Decision & Order
The recently enacted “Epstein Files Transparency Act,” Pub. L. No. 119-38, 139 Stat. 656 (2025) (the “Act”), compels the U.S. Department of Justice (”Government”) to make public by December 19, 2025 certain evidentiary files. The files in question (”Epstein files”) are the subject of the instant motion which was submitted to the Court by the Government on November 24, 2025. See Gov’t Mot., dated Nov. 24, 2025 (ECF No. 85). In fulfilling its obligations to bring the Epstein files to the public quickly, the Government is also required to protect all Jeffrey Epstein “victims” by excluding (redacting) “personally identifiable information of victims or victims’ personal and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Epstein Files Transparency Act § 2(c)(1)(A).1
The Court hereby grants the Government’s motion in accordance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and with the unequivocal right of Epstein victims to have their identity and privacy protected. See also court rulings in United States v. Maxwell
I Legal Standard
“[W]hen the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts—at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd—is to enforce it according to its terms.” Lamie v. U.S. Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 534 (2004) (collecting cases). The Epstein Files Transparency Act states that: “Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall, subject to subsection (b), make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in the possession of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Attorneys’ Offices, that relate to .. Jeffrey Epstein including all investigations, prosecutions, or custodial matters.” Epstein Files Transparency Act § 2(a)(1) (emphasis added).
II Discussion
The “plain language” of the Epstein Files Transparency Act unequivocally intends to make public Epstein grand jury materials and discovery materials covered by the Epstein Protective Order, dated July 25, 2019 (ECF No. 38). See id. The Act also safeguards Epstein victims’ identities and privacy by requiring the Attorney General to “withhold or redact . . personally identifiable information of victims or victims’ personal and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Epstein Files Transparency Act § 2(c)(1)(A). The Government has committed to making “appropriate redactions of victim-related and other personal identifying information” expeditiously. Gov’t Mot. at 8; see also Gov’t Letter, dated Dec. 1, 2025, at 2 (ECF No. 88). In fact, the Act states that the Epstein files material must be made public “[njot later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.” Epstein Files Transparency Act § 2(a) (emphasis added).
A. Grand Jury Materials
The Act requires disclosure of Epstein grand jury materials by requiring disclosure of “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials.” Id. “All” is crystal clear and should be afforded its “ordinary, common-sense meaning.” Eisenhauer v. Culinary Inst. of Am., 84 F.4th 507, 517 (2d Cir. 2023) (citing United States v. Dauray, 215 F.3d 257, 260 (2d Cir. 2000)). Section 2(a) clearly includes the unsealing of the Epstein grand jury materials. See Ruiz-Ahnanzor v. Ridge, 485 F.3d 193, 197 (2d Cir. 2007) (where Congress was aware of a category and did not exclude the category from the statute, that category is covered). The Act supersedes the otherwise secret grand jury materials under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). See United States v. Mohammed, 27 F.3d 815, 820 (2d Cir. 1994).
B. Protective Order Materials
The clear language of the Act requires the Attorney General to make publicly available the discovery materials included in the Protective Order, dated July 25, 2019 (ECF No. 38). The Act requires disclosure of “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in the possession of the Department of Justice” related to Epstein, including materials otherwise subject to the July 25, 2019 Protective Order. Epstein Files Transparency Act § 2(a).
C. Victim Rights
Epstein victims’ attorneys have written to the Court, and the Court agrees, that disclosure under the Act “CANNOT come at the expense of the privacy, safety, and protection of sexual abuse and sex trafficking victims . .” Clearly victims’ safety and privacy are paramount and consistent with Section 2(c}(1 }(A} of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
Date: December 10, 2025
New York, New York
Richard M. Berman, U.S.D.J.
SPANK, SPANK, SPANK!! COURT ISSUES INJUNCTION REQUIRING TRUMP TO DEFEDERALIZE AND RETURN CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD TO CALIFORNIA’S CONTROL!
When the *very first* sentence in an order is “The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one,” you know that, to paraphrase that that old Smucker’s commercial, it’s got to be good.
(Anyone else here remember that SNL skit take-off on that Smucker’s commercial?)
In a 35-page opinion and order (included for Notes from the Front members) issuing a preliminary injunction against Trump and his henchministration, and ordering them to return the California National Guard troops to Governor Newsom’s control, Judge Charles Breyer (brother of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer) didn’t just spank the Defendants, he pulled down their pants, bent them over his judicial knee, and used a wooden paddle.
Here’s just the first paragraph:
“The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. Defendants, however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one. Six months after they first federalized the California National Guard, Defendants still retain control of approximately 300 Guardsmen, despite no evidence that execution of federal law is impeded in any way—let alone significantly. What’s more, Defendants have sent California Guardsmen into other states, effectively creating a national police force made up of state troops. In response to Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin this conduct, Defendants take the position that, after a valid initial federalization, all subsequent re-federalizations are completely, and forever, unreviewable by the courts. Defendants’ position is contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court ENJOINS Defendants’ federalization of California National Guard troops.”
Now remember, up until now the Courts had blocked the *deployment* of the National Guard troops, but had let the federalization remain. But true to form, when you give Trump an inch, he’ll grab it by the (expletive deleted).
Judge Breyer provides a most excellent point-to-point roadmap of all of the various shenanigans that Trump has pulled with all of the various National Guard deployments across several states, not just in California, but in Oregon and Illinois as well.
After explaining the facts and procedural history, Judge Breyer turns to Trump’s claims that the law, specifically 10 U.S. Code § 12406, which deals with calling up the National Guard, permits him to call up the National Guard of any state to repel an invasion or to suppress a rebellion. The orders federalizing the National Guard, said Trump, were permitted under §12406.
Responded Judge Breyer:
“Defendants nevertheless attempt to circumvent the scope of Section 12406 by characterizing the Orders as extensions of federalization, which they argue are outside the statute’s reach. Opp’n at 4 (“Congress decided against subjecting the continuation of a mission to further regulation by Section 12406.”). Indeed, at the motion hearing, Defendants confirmed their position that, after an initial federalization, all extensions of federalization orders are utterly unreviewable, forever.”
To be clear, Trump was saying that a *Federal court* could *not* review his orders, like, forever.
Judge Breyer goes on:
“That is shocking. Adopting Defendants’ interpretation of Section 12406 would permit a president to create a perpetual police force comprised of state troops, so long as they were first federalized lawfully. Such a scenario would validate the Founders’ “widespread fear [of] a national standing Army,” which they believed “posed an intolerable threat to individual liberty and to the sovereignty of the separate States.” Defendants’ argument for a president to hold unchecked power to control state troops would wholly upend the federalism that is at the heart of our system of government.”
Well, I mean..yeah. Isn’t that what Trump is aiming for?
And we’re only up to page 12! Not even halfway through the spanking!
The thing is, the 9th Circuit had *already* rejected the notion that a president’s actions under §12406 are completely unreviewable. In fact, this very case had been returned to the District Court *from* the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after the 9th *specifically* had rejected that argument. And hey, what the heck, I’m throwing that decision in for Notes from the Front members too.
You’ll also note an example of something that I have mentioned many times: court decisions often turn on the definition of a single word or term. People don’t always understand why lawyers are so damned picky when it comes to language – we choose our words *very*carefully. Because words matter. That’s also why many legal documents seem impenetrable to the lay person (and why I make a point of explaining things in plain English).
A perfect example of this is contained in this order. There is an *entire section* on the definition of “is unable”.
Also, you will see the abbreviation “Opp’n” throughout the order following a quote; that means that the quote is from the ‘Opposition’, in other words from the Trump administration.
The order ends with:
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
– Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles.
– Defendants are DIRECTED to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.
– The Court STAYS this order until noon on Monday, December 15, 2025.
– Plaintiffs are ORDERED to post a nominal bond of $100 within 24 hours.
The bond shall be filed in the Clerk’s Office and be deposited into the registry of the Court. If said bond is not posted by the aforementioned date and time, this Order shall be dissolved.”
You may be wondering why they are only enjoined temporarily instead of permanently, and that is addressed in a final footnote, which says:
“Plaintiffs asked the Court at the motion hearing to enjoin any future federalizations based on the same circumstances. In light of the deference owed the President’s determinations under Section 12406 and the Court’s recognition that circumstances are always changing, the Court DENIES this request. Plaintiffs may return to this Court to challenge any future federalization order that they believe violates the law.”
COURT ORDERS RELEASE OF KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA AND IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS! HERE ARE THE FACTS ABOUT EVERYTHING GOING ON THIS WEEK IN HIS CASE
We all celebrated on Thursday when we got the news about the Court ordering Kilmar’s release, but I wasn’t going to write an actual coverage article until it actually happened and had stuck, and also until I had all of the facts, as there are a *lot* of moving parts in his case, and I didn’t want to go off half-cocked.
Now I have all of the facts, as well as the relevant documents (there are three documents – the Opinion and two orders – which are of course included for you Notes from the Front members).
To recap, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was picked up by ICE for an immigration violation and then illegally deported to CECOT in El Salvador. Why was it illegal? Because at the time he had a protective order (it may not have been called that, but that’s essentially what it is) saying that the ONE PLACE he could *not* be deported to was El Salvador, because there was a credible expectation that a gang there would try to kill him.
After he arrived in El Salvador, the administration *admitted* that they had committed an oopsie (yes, that’s a real legal term), but refused to bring him back from El Salvador, saying that they were unable to.
Then they finally did bring him back, but not without first trumping up (heh, see what I did there?) some specious charges out of Tennessee, charging him with human smuggling (bringing immigrants into the country in his car). This allowed the administration to *immediately* arrest him and take him into custody as soon as he touched down back in the U.S..
After he was arraigned in Tennessee for the human smuggling charges he was released, and almost immediately picked up again by ICE, and he has been in ICE custody ever since.
Until Thursday.
In a glorious 31-page opinion (again, included for Notes from the Front members), Judge Paula Xinis ordered Abrego-Garcia’s *immediate* release, saying that the administration has *no* legal grounds by which they could continue holding him in detention.
Judge Xinis is meticulous in her opinion and order, no doubt anticipating the administration appealing it, so she made sure to have all of her legal Is dotted and Ts crossed.
I particularly like this passage:
“First, because Respondents have no statutory authority to remove Abrego Garcia to a third country absent a removal order, his removal cannot be considered reasonably foreseeable, imminent, or consistent with due process. Although Respondents may eventually get it right, they have not as of today.”
Bahahaha…”Although Respondents may eventually get it right”..
But on a more sober note, Judge Xinis points out that in addition to the “never remove this guy to El Salvador” order,… the current removal order for Abrego Garc… waaaait a gosh darned minute.. there IS NO REMOVAL ORDER!!!
Yep, that’s right, the administration actually *had no order to remove him*!
Not only *that*, but, as the Judge notes, Costa Rica has offered to take Abrego Garcia and his family, *and* Abrego Garcia has said THAT HE WANTS TO GO THERE!
And yet, the administration not only has refused to facilitate his *voluntarily* self-deporting to Costa Rica, but keeps trying to send him to *other* countries instead – countries where he would be imprisoned and horribly treated. In fact, they *lied*, saying that Costa Rica did not want Abrego Garcia, and that’s why they *had* to send him to, in the case of that argument, Liberia. Because, this administration is a bullying administration, run by the Bully in Chief and his various henchbullies.
Putting that all together, Judge Xinis determined that at this point it was clear that this case was not actually about getting an illegal immigrant out of the country, and also that the administration had no lawful authority on which to base his continued detention, and so she ordered Abrego Garcia’s immediate release. And she also built a solid record to thwart any appeal.
Remember that courts often issue the actual order separately from the Opinion, as is the case here, and the Order itself (also included for Notes from the Front members) is the sweetest part of all, saying:
“1. Petitioner Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s Petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby GRANTED;
2. Respondents SHALL release Abrego Garcia from ICE custody immediately”
Now, he was released last night. He got to spend the night with his wife and son. And some of us held our collective breaths to see what would happen this morning, knowing as we do that ICEy shenanigans may have been afoot. And here’s what happened:
At the crack of the Court’s opening this morning his lawyer went in and got an order (also included for Notes members) saying, and I quote:
“Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia in ICE custody until this Court can receive further briefing from the parties and conduct a hearing on the TRO Motion”
In other words, not only is he free, but ICE *cannot* detain him again until further order of the Court.
Yay!
I wonder when the made-for-tv movie about all this will happen.
Of course, he’s not out of the woods yet, as he still has the trial for the Tennessee stuff (that’s scheduled for July of 2026), and of course the administration *could* go back to the drawing board and try to ‘get it right’.
By the way, those of you who have been with me for a while and so who have been privy to various explanations of Habeas Corpus, this is a perfect example of that. In fact, the very first paragraph of the Court’s opinion is:
“Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia (“Abrego Garcia”) petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus to release him from the custody of Respondents, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Kristi Noem, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Director Todd Lyons, ICE Baltimore Field Office Director Nikita Baker, and Attorney General Pamela Bondi.”
See how that worked? He petitioned for a writ of Habeas Corpus, which basically said “Please bring me before you, Judge Xinis, so I can plead my case regarding why I should not be locked up, and if you agree then please order these government officials to release me.”
Finally, Abrego Garcia now has some options, he can go to Costa Rica, or he can stay here and try for a green card (his wife is a U.S. citizen), or he can apply for asylum.
___
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!
Anne
Source