Aloha Friday

January 9, 2026 — Aloha Friday Morning Report

Jan 9, 2026

0109 AM Aloha TT·[YT sequence name — confirm from CSV]

AFL-CIO v. OPM · 25-cv-01237

OPM gave the DOJ access to a federal database full of your personal information. OPM asked the court to dismiss. The court said: you still have five DOJ employees in there — no.

OPM handed DOJ access to federal personnel records containing protected personal information — then asked the court to dismiss, arguing it had put internal safeguards in place. The court wasn't satisfied: five DOJ employees were still inside the database, the policy could change tomorrow, and the privacy violation was live. Two motions, both denied. The AFL-CIO asked for enhanced discovery beyond the standard set; the judge said the request was too vague and unspecific — denied — but ordered the government to confirm by end of day whether its standard disclosure was complete. Privacy law violations still at issue; discovery ongoing.

PrivacyAPA

Constitutional question: Statutory rather than constitutional at the core — but sits at the intersection of executive surveillance power and federal employee privacy rights, with potential Fifth Amendment due process implications if the PII is used against employees.

U.S. v. New York · 25-cv-00205

The federal government sued New York, arguing that the state's refusal to share DMV records with immigration officials was blocking federal law enforcement. The court said: refusing to help is not the same as blocking. Case dismissed.

New York's "Green Light Law" bars the state DMV from sharing records with federal immigration officials. The Trump administration sued, framing it as an obstruction of federal immigration enforcement. The court rejected the theory cleanly: states are never required to assist in enforcing federal law — that's the 10th Amendment — and declining to share information is not the same as impeding federal enforcement. As Bryan put it: "Refusing to help is not the same as impeding. Otherwise, the 10th Amendment would be worthless." Case dismissed.

Federalismanti-commandeering

Constitutional question: The anti-commandeering principle — states cannot be conscripted to enforce federal law, and state laws limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement are constitutionally protected. The administration's attempted inversion (framing non-sharing as obstruction) was rejected as "hogwash" — the court found the 10th Amendment does not require states to be useful to federal enforcement.

In Re: Subpoenas · 25-mc-00019

The acting US Attorney investigating Letitia James had been operating past his legal term limit — without valid authority. A federal judge quashed all of his subpoenas and kicked him out of the investigation.

John Sarconi served as acting US Attorney for the Northern District of New York. Under 28 U.S.C. § 546, acting US Attorneys have a 120-day maximum statutory term; after that, district judges can appoint someone or leave the seat temporarily vacant. The judges chose neither to retain Sarconi nor to formally replace him — but he kept working anyway, issuing subpoenas investigating Letitia James for her state prosecutions of Donald Trump and the NRA. Judge Schofield quashed every subpoena and disqualified Sarconi from further participation in the investigation.

Federal prosecutorial authorityimproper appointment

Constitutional question: Appointments Clause and statutory appointment authority — whether official acts performed by an officer whose statutory authorization has expired are void. Related to the broader question of when "acting" authority ends and what happens to official acts taken in the void.

U.S. v. James · 25-4673

The DOJ just filed an appeal of the dismissed Letitia James indictment — almost a month after the dismissal. They're also now investigating loans she made to her hairdresser. Bryan's read: "full spaghetti against the wall territory."

The DOJ's pursuit of Letitia James continued on multiple tracks this week: a late appeal of the dismissed original indictment (filed nearly a month after dismissal — Bryan's guess is they were hoping for a grand jury indictment on a refile before being forced into the appeal lane), plus a new investigation into alleged loans James made to her hairdresser, plus an open malicious prosecution inquiry. The filing timeline was likely forced by Lindsay Halligan — the attorney whose authorization to operate as a US attorney was challenged in an unrelated Richmond case, where a judge gave her seven days to explain why calling herself a US attorney wasn't fraud. Bryan's assessment: with multiple grand jury attempts failing and new investigations opening on fresh angles, the DOJ is pursuing every available avenue regardless of viability.

Criminalprosecutorial conduct

Constitutional question: Whether targeting a sitting state attorney general for prosecuting the president constitutes selective prosecution driven by political retaliation — touching First Amendment rights of political opponents and separation-of-powers limits on federal prosecutorial authority used against state officials.

← January 8, 2026 — Morning Report January 12, 2026 — Morning Report (SCOTUS Day 1, January Quackdown) →