February 27, 2026 — Aloha Friday

Federal immigration law lays out a prioritized sequence of where deportees must be sent: generally the country they came from, then alternatives in a specific statutory order, and only as a last resort a third country with no connection to the person. The administration had been bypassing this waterfall and sending people directly to unrelated third countries — Africa, for example, in the Abrego Garcia case. The district court issued a final order (not a preliminary injunction — a final decision on the merits) holding that the statute means what it says. You work through the waterfall in order. You don't skip to Step 4. The judge stayed the order for 15 days to allow for the inevitable appeal, but the underlying legal question is resolved: the administration cannot deport people to countries they have no connection to without first exhausting the statutory alternatives.

The Center for Taxpayer Rights sued over the IRS sharing taxpayer data with ICE for immigration enforcement purposes. Privacy law requires the IRS to specifically identify individuals and state a criminal basis before sharing tax return information (26 U.S.C. § 6103). Instead, the IRS had signed off on thousands of bulk requests in a single day. The court issued a preliminary injunction based on the circumstantial evidence that no one could have reviewed that many requests. The government appealed. While the appeal was pending, a new declaration from an IRS employee arrived at the district court — described by the judge as significantly stronger than the original circumstantial evidence, and potentially a "bombshell." The Feb 27 update: the judge issued a procedural order noting she might add the new declaration to the appellate record if the Court of Appeals found it useful — but the real news was that the judge signaled she finds the new declaration very strong evidence that the IRS violated the law. Bryan's read: "Probably not good news for the IRS or the administration."

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to halt construction of a new East Wing Ballroom at the White House, framing its case primarily around the president's constitutional authority (or lack thereof) to approve such construction. Judge Richard Leon denied the preliminary injunction at this stage — but did not dismiss the case. His reasoning: the plaintiffs built their case around the Constitution when they should have built it around statutes. The president's actions here are far more likely to have violated specific statutory requirements (procurement, historic preservation statutes, appropriations laws) than the Constitution in the abstract. Constitutional violations are harder to prove, give courts less to work with, and create bigger disruption when they're found. Bryan's framing: "They brought a bazooka to a dart game. The judge told them to come back with a sledgehammer — a wrecking ball is overkill." The judge recommended filing an amended complaint focused on statutory violations.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia was pulled over in 2022 with nine other people in a car owned by someone later convicted of human smuggling. Police talked to Kilmar, decided there was nothing there, gave him a warning, and left. Federal agents re-investigated in March 2025 and again found nothing, formally closing the case. Then Kilmar was deported to El Salvador, asserted his constitutional rights before the Supreme Court, was ordered returned, and immediately after his return the DOJ reopened and prosecuted the 2022 traffic stop. The legal theory: vindictive prosecution — charges brought in retaliation for asserting constitutional rights, regardless of actual guilt. At the Feb 26 hearing, government witnesses including Special Agent Saud (who said she initiated the investigation after seeing an article on a "far-right website" and acknowledged Kilmar "was in the news a lot") and U.S. Attorney Rob McGuire (who agreed reopening a month-old closed case that had sat dormant since 2022 was "extraordinary") testified that no one pressured them from above. The government's defense: coincidence. The evidence: emails between top DOJ officials and the Tennessee U.S. Attorney's office discussing the investigation around the time of Kilmar's return.