Aloha Friday

April 17, 2026 — Aloha Friday

Apr 17, 2026

041726 TMR — First Amendment retaliation updates, last SCOTUS session of the season approaching

Open Technology Fund v. Lake · 26-5031

Carrie Lake lost on the merits, the appeal became pointless, and the court dismissed it. Maybe they just pay the $43 million and move on.

OTF v. Lake had moved fast since March. In January, a judge had granted a preliminary injunction because USAGM was withholding congressionally appropriated funds. Lake appealed that injunction to the DC Circuit. Meanwhile, at the end of March, the district court granted OTF's cross-motion for summary judgment — based on Lake's own evidence — and ordered the $43.5 million to be paid. Once a full merits ruling landed, the appeal of the preliminary injunction was moot. The DC Circuit dismissed it. As of Bryan's taping, Lake had not appealed the summary judgment. His read: maybe they just pay what they owe. Whether the feds still have any money is another question entirely.

Constitutional question: Congressional power of the purse vs. executive agency discretion to withhold appropriated funds.

American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President · 25-cv-01888

The government filed a motion to dismiss and didn't even argue the ABA was wrong about the constitutional violations. It argued nobody was really getting hurt.

The ABA sued the executive office over retaliatory suspension of security clearances and other sanctions against law firms and lawyers who represented disfavored clients. The president filed a motion to dismiss. The judge's summary of the government's position was almost too good to paraphrase: the government did not dispute that it was engaging in unlawful retaliation, viewpoint discrimination, and interference with the right to petition. It just argued the ABA hadn't proven a "realistic threat" of injury — that without a formal policy, the pattern of five firms losing credentials was just random unrelated incidents. The judge gave the government what Bryan described as "this look" and denied the motion. The government immediately appealed the denial. Bryan's take: spaghetti thrown at the wall, which was DOJ policy at this point — appeal everything.

Constitutional question: Whether the executive can chill attorney representation of disfavored clients by threatening professional licenses — and what "realistic threat" of injury means when five firms have already been hit.

AFL-CIO v. Social Security Administration · 25-cv-00596

The Fourth Circuit's ruling looked like a loss — until Bryan re-read it and realized it was actually a permission slip to keep digging.

This case challenged DOJ's misuse of private Social Security Administration data. A Maryland district court had issued a preliminary injunction. The government appealed. The Fourth Circuit (en banc) overturned the injunction — which surprised Bryan, given the court's reputation as middle-of-the-road today. But the re-read clarified why: the Fourth Circuit wasn't saying the conduct was fine. It was saying the preliminary injunction failed on one element — irreparable harm — because the harm requirement is about new future harm, not harm already done, and the evidence wasn't there yet. The district court had also stayed new discovery back in August. This week, the district court lifted that stay. Now the government will likely have to turn over substantial evidence about what happened to the Social Security data. If that evidence shows ongoing or future harm, a new injunction request becomes viable. The Fourth Circuit's order had explicitly sent the case back for exactly this analysis. Bryan's read: not a loss, a setup.

Constitutional question: The government's obligations when executive agencies obtain and misuse private citizen data — and what courts can do about it while the case is still pending.

National TPS Alliance v. Mullins · TPS Cases

The House used a discharge petition to force TPS renewal to a vote. The Supreme Court agreed to hear TPS arguments the week of Bryan's birthday. Things are converging.

The TPS landscape was heating up. This specific case — one of many challenging Trump's rollback of TPS designations for Syria, Haiti, Venezuela, and others — had a procedural development this week: the government tried to avoid turning over discovery and was denied. But the bigger news was the surrounding context. The House passed a bipartisan TPS renewal for Haitians using a discharge petition to override Mike Johnson. It still faced the Senate and a likely veto, but the move was notable. And SCOTUS agreed to hear TPS arguments the week of April 28th. Bryan's thought on the judicial dynamics: the legislature weighing in could push the judiciary to stay out (let them hash it out), or it could push the judiciary to limit executive power further since the political branch was already pushing back. He didn't know. But it would be a constitutional blowout, and summer was coming.

Constitutional question: The separation of powers question at the heart of TPS: whether the executive can unilaterally end protections Congress has authorized — and what the judicial role is when both other branches are in conflict over it.

← April 9–10, 2026 — Aloha Friday April 20, 2026 — SCOTUS AM (Spring Arguments Day 1) →