Aloha Friday

March 27, 2026 — Aloha Friday

Mar 27, 2026

032726 TMR — Reyn Spooner, Aloha Friday

Anthropic v. Department of Defense (Preliminary Injunction Granted) · 26-cv-01996

The judge stayed up late, and the result was a preliminary injunction that covered all three government communications at once.

After a week of hearing updates — the Anthropic case moved fast. Bryan wore the Reyn Spooner to announce that while he was writing his recap of Thursday's hearing, the judge quietly issued her preliminary injunction overnight. Three separate communications had to be addressed: the president's February 27th order to the whole government to stop using Anthropic, Hegseth's DOD-specific directive calling Anthropic a supply chain risk, and the March 3rd letter formally notifying Anthropic of that designation. The judge's order blocked all three from being implemented, applied, or enforced — and barred any new guidance issued in furtherance of their purpose. Her reasoning: Anthropic had checked every box to make a prima facie First Amendment retaliation case. The government failed to rebut it. Anthropic also had a strong APA argument because "supply chain risk" is a legal term with a definition, and the government hadn't met it. Order stayed for seven days to allow an appeal. Bryan's read: expected, but still a significant win.

Constitutional question: Whether the executive can punish a private contractor for protected speech — and whether the APA's procedural requirements can curb presidential directives.

Open Technology Fund v. Lake · 25-cv-00840

Carrie Lake tried to argue the court didn't have jurisdiction. The judge reminded her he'd already answered that question — five months ago.

Carrie Lake, running the US Agency for Global Media, had been trying to defund OTF and other agencies aligned with a free press. She'd already lost one lawsuit over Voice of America. In this one, she got shut down in four pages. The judge said: $43.5 million was appropriated by Congress to OTF through USAGM. Lake barely argued she was allowed to withhold it. Instead she said the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge's response: I already told you I have jurisdiction. I asked if you were sure. You never responded. Your own submitted evidence says OTF is entitled to the money. Motion to dismiss denied. Motions granted. Pay up.

Constitutional question: Whether the executive can effectively nullify congressional appropriations by defunding agencies it dislikes.

African Communities Together v. Lyons (ACT v. Lyons)

The DOJ lawyer told the court that ICE's courthouse-arrest tactic was legal. Then a bulk email showed up proving he was wrong — and he'd apparently read it before saying that.

ICE had been showing up outside immigration courthouses and detaining people immediately after their scheduled appearances. Civil rights groups challenged the practice under the APA, arguing ICE hadn't followed proper rulemaking procedures to establish this policy. In August 2025, the judge asked: is this compliant with existing ICE regulations, or is ICE just going rogue? The DOJ attorney said he'd checked that morning — this is exactly what ICE agents are supposed to do. The judge, relying on that representation, allowed the tactic to continue. Then, days later, the DOJ lawyer received a routine bulk email to all ICE agents with a note clarifying that the policy permitting courthouse pickups had never applied to immigration courthouses. Whoopsie daisies. Plaintiffs immediately moved to have the September decision reconsidered. The judge had only allowed this because it was APA-compliant. If it never was, someone's in trouble — Bryan wasn't sure who, but the hearing was coming.

Constitutional question: The constitutional baseline of due process for immigration court appearances — and whether executive agencies can bypass rulemaking by claiming existing authority they don't actually have.

Svetlana Doe v. Mark Wayne Mullen (formerly Noem) · TPS Case

The government filed evidence that the secretary of homeland security couldn't possibly have read before she made her decision — because it was still being written.

This TPS (temporary protected status) case covered Colombians, Cubans, Haitians, and others seeking family reunification. Former Secretary Noem had revoked their TPS designations, citing an internal audit showing 700-plus fraudulent family reunification applications filed under deceased people's names. The APA requires her to point to something — evidence she actually relied on. DHS submitted an administrative record certifying it contained everything Noem reviewed. Except: the audit wasn't there. January 20th, plaintiffs pointed this out. January 24th, the court granted an injunction. February 13th, DOJ asked the plaintiffs for permission to add documents. Plaintiffs said no. Three weeks later, DOJ just filed the documents anyway. And here's the kicker: the report they filed was updated on January 23rd — three days after plaintiffs had already flagged the missing evidence, and weeks after Noem made her decision on December 4th. She could not have relied on a document that wasn't finished yet. A hearing was scheduled to strike the unauthorized filing from the record. Bryan's take: there may be no clean path forward for the government here.

Constitutional question: The procedural foundation of executive rulemaking — whether an agency must demonstrate that it actually reviewed the evidence it claims justified a decision.

← March 25, 2026 — SCOTUS AM (March Madness Day 3) March 30, 2026 — SCOTUS AM (March Madness Day 6) →