WEEKLY GOOD NEWS ROUNDUP FROM THE FRONT – 2/13/26
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 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 for $5 a month and get instant access to all of the documents, the private chat, our private dropbox including all of the Epstein files, and more!
Become a member: https://annepmitchell.substack.com/subscribe
Ok, on to this week’s good news!
YES!! AND NO! COURT ORDERS LAWYERS TO HAVE ACCESS TO DETAINEES IN MINNESOTA INCLUDING SINGLE MOTHER OF 3 RECOVERING FROM CRANIOTOMY WHOSE HEAD ICE AGENT SLAMMED INTO A WALL
As has also happened elsewhere, lawyers and representatives in Minnesota have been denied access to ICE detainees. One of the places in Minnesota where ICE is holding detainees is the Whipple Building. Ironically, the Whipple Building is named after Bishop Whipple, who was an 19th century *advocate for the rights of non-citizens*! In fact, the very first words in the Complaint that initiated this lawsuit (a class action complaint at that) are:
“ “Nations, like individuals, reap exactly what they sow; they who sow robbery reap robbery.”
-Bishop Henry Whipple, namesake of the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building.”
Now, while you might be forgiven for not knowing that elected representatives have a legal right to gain access to a detention facility, *nobody* doesn’t know that the incarcerated have a right to talk with their attorney, and that their attorney has an absolute right to access their clients.
Well, nobody other than ICE and CBP agents. (Of course, they actually know it, they apparently just don’t care.)
So when the lawsuit talking about lawyers being refused access to their clients who were detained in the Whipple Building was filed, it was a pretty clear slam-dunk. But not before many of those detainees had been brutalized – mentally, emotionally, and even physically.
The 26-page complaint includes:
“Since at least January 11, 2026, federal agents at Whipple, including FPS officers and at least one ICE attorney, have told attorneys for detainees that no visitation between detainees and attorneys is or has ever been permitted at Whipple.”
And:
“Many detainees who arrive at Whipple are not granted an outgoing phone call, which could be used to contact an attorney or to contact family members who might have arranged representation or be able to do so. Instead, officials at Whipple have informed detainees’ attorneys that detainees will not be allowed to make an outgoing phone call until after they have been “booked,” by which time the detainees have generally been transferred to a different immigration detention facility—usually or always outside Minnesota.”
And, in fact, this is what happened to one of the detainees who submitted a declaration, “L.H.M”. L.H.M, a single mother of three from Honduras (her youngest child is a U.S. citizen, she and her other two children are here while their asylum claim is being processed) explains that, after being ambushed during her regular immigration check-in, arrested, interrogated, and accused of being part of a Colombian gang (remember, she’s not even Colombian, she’s from Honduras):
“I was placed alone in a cell. I lost track of time. That night, January 27, 2026, I was transported to a facility called “Douglas County” in Wisconsin. I arrived at approximately 11:30 p.m. I remained there for no more than six hours before two officers returned in a van and took me back to the Federal Building in Minnesota. Because of this transfer, I went approximately 24 hours without food. I was not given any opportunity to make a phone call while at Douglas County, Wisconsin.”
It’s like they are playing the shell game with detainees. And that is by far not the worst of it for L.H.M.. Before her trip to Wisconsin and back, this happened, Remember that she had a *craniotomy* just *3 months ago*!
“We were transported to the Whipple Federal Building in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, where other officers were waiting. They spoke Spanish and appeared Latino. They searched us. A female officer slammed my head against the wall while checking my hair. I shouted “my surgery,” and I was afraid she would hit the right side of my head where I had been operated on. I said I preferred that she touch the left side instead. From this time on, my head hurt the whole time I was detained.”
(I need to take a moment to compose myself here.)
Ok, I’m back.
L.H.M.’s declaration is six pages of horrible (again, these documents are all included for Notes from the Front members, and again, you have been warned).
Before we go any further I need to explain something to you. There is a concept in some areas of law known as “next friend”. Basically a ‘next friend’ is someone, usually a relative or, well, a friend, who is not a party to the lawsuit, but who sort of stands in for a person who is unable to file the lawsuit themselves, either because they are legally barred from doing so (such as a minor) or.. wait for it.. because they are incarcerated with no access to a lawyer. Next friends usually (but not always) come up in petitions for Habeas Corpus (remember that is a petition asking the Court to order a prison or other place of incarceration to bring the prisoner before the judge – literally to “bring the body” to the Court).
In this case the primary lawsuit was brought by The Advocates for Human Rights, and within this lawsuit L.H.M. filed a request for Habeas Corpus through her ‘next friend’, C.A..
Well, on Friday the Court ordered that (order included for Notes from the Front members):
“Defendants shall allow full access to all detention facilities in the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building to Defendants’ counsel and Plaintiffs’ counsel (and party representatives) before Monday, February 9, at 5 p.m. CST. The parties may file supplemental declarations on or before Tuesday, February 10, at 5 p.m. CST. Defendants shall coordinate with their counsel and Plaintiffs’ counsel to organize the logistics of access.”
That’s full access by 5:00 p.m. *today*.
THEN, *just yesterday* (yep, on a Sunday) the Court had to elaborate on that order:
“Plaintiffs may have two attorneys and two party representatives attend the Whipple Building visit ordered by the Court;
2. Plaintiffs’ counsel and representatives and defense counsel may interact with detainees in the Whipple Building on topics relevant to this case; and
3. Plaintiffs’ counsel and representatives and defense counsel may not carry cellular phones and cameras during the visit.”
The Court having to spell things out like that, like a parent having to intermediate between and scold children, would be laughable… if it weren’t so freaking serious! (Dammit, now my blood is boiling again.)
WOOT!! THIS “LOSS” IN THE CALIFORNIA MASK BAN FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT CASE IS ACTUALLY AWESOME
You may hear or read in the news that California suffered a loss in the administration’s challenge to the California “No Secret Police” and “No Vigilantes” laws that were passed in California in November. The No Secret Police law bans law enforcement from wearing face coverings, with a few delineated exceptions. The No Vigilantes law requires law enforcement personnel to wear clear identification (name or number), again with a few delineated exceptions.
Even though the laws were passed, California held off on putting them into effect because of the lawsuit.
First let’s cut to the chase: the reason the news is calling it a loss. The Court *did* issue a preliminary injunction against California implementing the No Secret Police law. That’s what the news is reporting as the loss, and we’ll get to that in a minute.
But first look at all this winning:
First, the Court ruled that the No Vigilantes law is fine. And in part that is because, second, the Court says:
“The Court first considers whether the challenged provisions are within the powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. Cf. United States v. City of Arcata, 629 F.3d 986, 992 (9th Cir. 2010) (challenged ordinance “regulating the federal govermnent’s military recruitment efforts is not a power reserved to the states.”). Here, unlike in Arcata, the challenged provisions, restricting law enforcement officers in California from wearing masks indiscriminately and requiring visible identification, are within the state’s police powers.”
Plain English: Remember how the 10th Amendment says that all powers not *expressly* granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states? This is the Court saying that yes, passing a mask ban and a requirement to wear identification *is* a proper exercise of the *state’s* police power, even if it is being applied to Federal agents.
Furthermore, “the Court finds that the United States has not met its burden to show that enforcement of the challenged provisions, which prohibit law enforcement officers in California from wearing masks and require law enforcement officers in California to have visible identification, would interfere with or take control of federal law enforcement operations. Although the challenged provisions dictate how a federal officer may carry out his law enforcement duties-prohibiting a facial covering and requiring the display of visible identification that includes their agency and either a name or badge number in non-exempted circumstances – the Court finds them analogous to traffic laws that, in a similar sense, dictate how a federal officer may operate a vehicle on state roads but are nonetheless enforceable against federal officers, subject to immunities.”
In fact, the 30-page opinion and order (hot off today’s presses, and included for Notes from the Front members – you’ll notice that it hasn’t even yet been put into the orderly format of a published court opinion, it’s in ‘minutes’ format) is almost entirely the Court explaining how the administration has a very weak case and California a pretty strong one.
So what’s with the loss?
You see, there is a fatal flaw in the California mask law. In fact, it’s *such a stupid* flaw that California deserved to “lose” on it. The California law carved out one big exception in the masking law (which is why the masking law was no good, but the No Vigilante law stands): In what I can only imagine was the drafting of the law by an intern who got their law degree by drawing Squeaky from the back of a matchbook (remember those?), the California law *exempted* California state law enforcement from the “no masks” law. In other words, the law said that no law enforcement person operating within the state of California, whether Federal, city, or county, could cover their face; but hey, California state police and CHiP (remember them?), *you* get to cover your face.
Well, that created a legal hole so big that the administration could drive an unmarked SUV through it. “No fair!” cried the administration, “that *discriminates* against Federal law enforcement!”
And the Court agreed.
Even before the ink dries on this opinion, the No Secret Police law is being rewritten to cure that fatal flaw. Said California State Senator Scott Weiner “Based on communications with the Governor’s office, we removed state police from the bill. Now that the Court has made clear that state officers must be included, I am immediately introducing new legislation to include state officers. I will do everything in my power to expedite passage of this adjustment to the No Secret Police Act.”
OMG YES!!! COURT ABSOLUTELY RIPS HEGSETH APART AND *BLOCKS* PENTAGON FROM DOWNGRADING MARK KELLY’S RANK AND PAY!!
This… this .. *amazing* order is… ohmygosh (chef’s kiss). I am literally giddy with glee!
In an awesome 29-page opinion (of course included for Notes from the Front members), Judge Richard Leon does the legal equivalent of drawing and quartering Hegseth!
At the very outset Judge Leon says “Secretary Hegseth contends that this Court is not yet competent to decide the issues in this case. He and his fellow Defendants argue that military personnel decisions are exempt from judicial review and, in any event, that Senator Kelly should first be required to go through the military appeals process so the military can have the first crack at adjudicating his First Amendment rights. I disagree. This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees. After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” “
“EXEMPT FROM JUDICIAL REVIEW”?? WTAF?? I mean, we knew that the administration often *acted* like that, but increasingly they are saying the quiet part out loud (a sign of *false* bravado, as they know they are circling the drain – witness Bondi’s histrionics yesterday).
This opinion is also a *fantastic* review of the basics of the 1st Amendment! This is because Hegseth largely predicates his defense on the legal premise that service members have somewhat curtailed 1st Amendment rights. That is true. FOR ACTIVE DUTY MEMBERS (where it arguably makes sense). But NOT for *retired* military personnel!
Here are some more of my favourite quotes from this opinion and order:
“The next factor of the retaliation test is whether Defendants took retaliatory action against Senator Kelly sufficient to deter “a person of ordinary firmness.” … There is no question that such actions would deter “a person of ordinary firmness in plaintiff’s position.” Indeed, they already have. Per an amicus brief submitted by forty-one retired officers, many veterans are today “declining” to “participate in public debate on important and contested issues” out of fear of “official reprisal.” “
And…
“More specifically, it is a particularly valuable asset for our country to have retired veterans contributing to public discussion on military matters and policy. Given their “distinct perspective and specialized expertise,” it is essential for retired veterans to contribute to our “public discourse” on issues of military policy. Allowing Defendants’ actions against Senator Kelly to stand would further chill the speech of these retired servicemembers and thereby “impoverish public debate on critical issues relating to our military and its role in domestic and foreign affairs.” “
And…
“Put simply, Defendants’ response is anemic!”
And then…
“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years. If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Hopefully this injunction will in some small way help bring about a course correction in the Defense Department’s approach to these issues.
For the foregoing reasons, Senator Kelly’s motion for a preliminary injunction on his First Amendment claim is GRANTED”
BOOYAH!
SPANK!! A VERY ANNOYED JUDGE BOASBERG ORDERS THE ADMINISTRATION TO BRING BACK ILLEGALLY DEPORTED VENEZUELANS WHO WISH TO RETURN TO THE U.S.
You remember this case, it’s the “Planes in the Air” case which was first filed, yes, almost exactly a year ago. That’s when Judge James Boasberg learned that the administration had put a bunch of Venezuelan immigrants on airplanes bound for the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador, and Judge Boasberg *ordered them to turn the planes around*.
They didn’t, arguing that by then the planes were outside of the Court’s jurisdiction (however they did halt a plane that had not yet taken off).
Then came the infamous related case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was among those sent to CECOT but who had an order in place specifically saying that the *one* place to which he could *not* be deported was El Salvador.
[In case you’re not caught up on what’s going on with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, you can read my three articles (complete with all documents) about his case here:
About his release and current situation: https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/about-kilmar-abrego-garcias-release
The transcript of the hearing that led to his release: https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/i-have-the-actual-transcript-of-the
The Court’s order dealing with the administration’s vindictive prosecution of Abrego Garcia: https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/court-reveals-order-dealing-with ]
Ok, back to today’s order:
Of the 137 Venezuelans sent to CECOT, many had filed Habeas Corpus petitions through their attorneys (remember that Habeas Corpus literally means “you have the body” and you need to bring it before the Court). In other words, they were requesting that the Court order that the men be brought to court, where the Court could, they would hope, assist them.
In the interim, the Venezuelans had been released from CECOT and either sent back to Venezuela in a prisoner swap, or to third countries.
Now you’re essentially caught up, other than to say that some of these Venezuelans want to return to the U.S. to continue to have their original asylum or other claims processed, even though they know that they will be taken into custody again as soon as they set foot in the U.S.!
And today Judge Boasberg ordered the administration to facilitate their return, on the administration’s dime.
Said Judge Boasberg in his 7-page order (included for Notes from the Front members) (be sure you don’t have any food or drink in your mouth as you read this):
“The Court offered the Government the opportunity to propose steps that would facilitate hearings for the class members on their habeas corpus claims so that they could “challenge their designations under the [Alien Enemies Act] and the validity of the [President’s] Proclamation.” Id. Apparently not interested in participating in this process, the Government’s responses essentially told the Court to pound sand.”
Yes, “pound sand” is a legal term. I actually snorted out loud when I read that!
The Court goes on:
“Believing that other courses would be both more productive and in line with the Supreme Court’s requirements outlined in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, the Court will now order the Government to facilitate the return from third countries of those Plaintiffs who so desire. It will also permit other Plaintiffs to file their habeas supplements from abroad.”
The Court then orders the government to “promptly return to Plaintiffs upon written request by their current counsel all passports and identification documents that any agency currently retains, and it shall make good-faith efforts to obtain any of Plaintiffs’ passports or identification documents that were transferred to El Salvador.”
And I’m sure that he also said, under his breath of course, that the government in general, and Noem in particular, should go pound sand.
___
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:
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/subscribe
This is me, reporting from the front line of the battle to save the soul of our country.
Anne
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
Source