April 24, 2026 — Aloha Friday

Kash Patel sued a former FBI official who appeared on MSNBC and said Patel had been "visible at the nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor of the Hoover Building." The lawsuit was Patel's claim that he was being accused of a literal statement of fact — that he spent more minutes at clubs than at the office. The judge: a person of reasonable intelligence would read that as sarcasm. The legal standard for defamation is a false statement of fact that damages reputation. Hyperbole doesn't qualify. Motion to dismiss granted. Ten pages, half of which was blank space and two "massive unnecessary footnotes." Bryan on what comes next: if Patel files again and makes it past the pleading stage, discovery opens up. He'd have to demonstrate the allegation was actually false. FOIA, calendar records, all of it. Bryan's observation: "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." You don't file defamation complaints unless you have nothing to hide.

Dennis Hernandez had a final EOIR removal order and an ICE warrant when he escaped from custody. He was charged under 18 U.S.C. §1505 — which makes it a crime to obstruct or impede a pending proceeding before a federal department or agency. The Fourth Circuit overturned his conviction on two grounds. First: the EOIR proceeding was completely closed before he escaped. No pending proceeding to obstruct. Second: the ICE warrant phase was just police work — executing an arrest. Section 1505 protects "investigative proceedings" — the kind where an agency collects information to reach a decision or adjudication — not "mere police investigations." The comparison: *U.S. v. Kirst* involved the NTSB investigating a plane crash. The NTSB had subpoena power and could compel testimony, same as ICE. But the NTSB was using those powers to reach a judgment — an adjudication. ICE was using them to catch a person. Context determines whether you're conducting a proceeding or just executing a warrant. Fourth Circuit: Section 1505 doesn't apply to the latter. Bryan's caveat: the Fourth Circuit opened by calling this a "matter of first impression" — no prior case had addressed this question. So the opinion was on somewhat unstable ground, but for now it held.

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan helped a man evade ICE custody by letting him exit through a back door while ICE agents waited. She was charged under §1505 — the same obstruction statute — for impeding ICE's "investigative proceeding." The district court in her case had used *U.S. v. Hernandez* at the district court level to define "investigative proceeding" and concluded ICE's activity qualified. The Fourth Circuit just overturned that lower Hernandez ruling. The Fourth Circuit doesn't bind federal courts in Wisconsin. But Judge Dugan's conviction relied on the exact legal definition that the Fourth Circuit just declared wrong. That makes her conviction rest on "officially bad law." She had already petitioned for reversal. Bryan's read on the timing game: the DOJ would likely appeal the Fourth Circuit's Hernandez ruling. If it gets appealed and overturned before Dugan gets her petition heard, the bad law becomes unresolved again. But if her petition can get a response before any appeal resolves, she might have a procedural window even if the Fourth Circuit ruling doesn't survive. He was watching it closely.