Aloha Friday

October 17, 2025 — Aloha Friday

Oct 17, 2025

1017 Aloha AM TT

U.S. v. Bolton 8:25-cr-00314 · 8:25-cr-00314

Donald Trump's DOJ indicted John Bolton — his own former national security advisor. The charges: keeping classified documents in his home and using Signal to discuss national security matters with family members who didn't have clearance. Sound familiar? Bryan: "If none of these situations are ringing any bells, maybe do a little reading." He pled not guilty. Unlike Comey and James, this one was brought by a lawfully appointed prosecutor. Bryan: "The guy has been one of the biggest tightasses in national security for decades. The odds that he haphazardly threw classified documents around... the Jets have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl."

John Bolton, former National Security Advisor under Trump, was indicted on charges including unlawful retention of classified documents in his home and use of an unsecured communication system (Signal) to discuss national security issues — including discussions about attacks on other countries — with people who lacked the required clearance, including family members. Bryan explicitly flagged the mirror structure: each new Trump DOJ prosecution was designed to parallel an indictment against Trump himself or someone in his orbit, often using near-identical wording. Bolton pled not guilty. Bryan distinguished this case from the Comey and Letitia James prosecutions: those were brought by an interim US attorney (whose appointment was being challenged as unlawful); the Bolton case was brought in Maryland by Kelly Hayes, who was initially appointed as an interim US attorney for 120 days, at which point the district court elected to retain her — meaning her appointment was lawful. Bryan: "Still doesn't mean the case has legs. We're going to have to see. It just came out. Let's give it a few days." Bryan did not claim inside knowledge of whether Bolton actually did what was alleged — only that Bolton's reputation for strict national security discipline made haphazard document handling seem implausible.

Unauthorized retention of classified documentsunauthorized disclosure via unsecured communicationsEspionage Act

Constitutional question: The Espionage Act and related classified-information statutes apply to senior officials regardless of their personal views on classification policy. The retaliatory prosecution pattern Bryan tracks — each new case mirroring a prior Trump accusation — presents a Fifth Amendment due process question (vindictive prosecution) but only if the charges lack independent factual basis. The Bolton case's merits are less clear than Comey's or James's; Bryan reserved judgment on whether the factual allegations had substance.

AFGE v. OMB 25-cv-08302 · 3:25-cv-08302

The government shut down. Trump announced he would use the shutdown to fire everyone. A federal court in California disagreed. The judge found that OMB had "taken advantage of the lapse in government functioning to assume that all bets are off and the laws don't apply to them anymore." TRO issued. And a 3 PM Pacific hearing today to address plans to go ahead and fire people on Monday anyway.

AFGE v. OMB arose when Trump, facing a government shutdown, announced his intent to fire federal employees during the lapse in funding — using the shutdown as cover to restructure the federal workforce outside normal civil service protections. The American Federation of Government Employees sued and a California federal court issued a TRO barring the administration from firing anyone during the shutdown period. The judge's findings: OMB had treated the shutdown as a general authorization to ignore all employment laws and civil service rules — effectively claiming that a funding lapse suspended the entire legal framework governing federal employment. The court found this position "likely to be found both illegal and in excess of authority as well as arbitrary and capricious." An emergency hearing was scheduled at 3 PM Pacific time on October 17 to respond to evidence that the government was planning to proceed with mass firings on Monday (Oct 20) anyway, despite the TRO. The judge specifically prohibited livestreaming of that hearing; Bryan told viewers how to access it directly through Zoom but couldn't stream it himself.

APA (arbitrary and capricious)civil service protectionsgovernment shutdown employment law

Constitutional question: The separation of powers dimension: Congress controls appropriations, but the executive cannot weaponize a funding lapse (which is itself the product of a legislative-executive negotiation failure) to restructure the federal workforce in ways that would otherwise require congressional authorization or civil service procedures. The court's "all bets are off" characterization captures the administration's theory — that the shutdown created a kind of legal interregnum in which normal rules didn't apply. Courts have consistently rejected this framing.

Oregon v. Trump 25-cv-01756 · 3:25-cv-01756

The Oregon National Guard TRO was about to expire Sunday. Instead, the court set a trial date: October 29, nine in the morning, three days. The TRO that wasn't stayed stays in place until then. Result: the feds can federalize Oregon's guard, but still can't deploy a single troop into Oregon. Same deal as Illinois. They're paying for a National Guard they can't use.

The Portland National Guard case had two TROs — the district court's initial order (covering Oregon Guard) and the second order (covering all National Guard after the California Guard workaround). The 9th Circuit had partially stayed the initial TRO: allowing federalization, blocking deployment. The intact (un-stayed) TRO was set to expire Sunday, October 19. Rather than let the case go without court supervision, the district court set a three-day trial date for October 29 at 9 AM Pacific. The remaining TRO extends in place through the trial. Net status as of Aloha Friday, October 17: the administration can federalize Oregon's National Guard (and pay them), but cannot deploy them or any other National Guard troops into the state of Oregon. Bryan provided public dial-in details for the October 29 trial. Bryan also noted: as of that date, no First Amendment case analogous to Chicago Headline Club had been filed in Portland, though Bryan expected one would likely emerge.

10th Amendmentpresidential authority to federalize state National GuardTRO extension through trial date

Constitutional question: The 10th Amendment protection of Oregon's sovereign interest in its own territory and National Guard — the same constitutional frame as the district court's original TRO findings that the president lacked "colorable authority" and the factual predicate was "simply untethered to the facts." The trial would force a full evidentiary record on both questions: authority and factual predicate.

Newsom v. Trump 25-3727 · 25-3727

There's a new argument in the Newsom case at the Ninth Circuit. It's a little geeky. But here goes: the statute that lets the president federalize state National Guard says he can do it when he's "unable with regular forces to execute the laws." Illinois argued first, California echoed it: "regular forces" means the Army. You have to try the Army first before you can take our Guard. Bryan: gold star for innovation. He doubts it'll land. But Gavin, good on you.

Newsom v. Trump at the Ninth Circuit continued to develop. The case challenged Trump's authority to federalize the California National Guard under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which permits federalization when the president is "unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." Newsom's existing argument: if California is so dangerous that you need to federalize our National Guard, why are you sending those troops to Oregon? The Ninth Circuit had not yet responded to that argument. A new argument emerged this week — from Illinois first, then echoed by California: "regular forces" in § 12406 means the standing Army, not regular federal officers (ICE, FBI, etc.). Under this reading, the president must exhaust the Army's capacity before he can call on state Guard units. The administration pushed back: "regular forces" means the regular law enforcement infrastructure (ICE, FBI), not the military. Bryan's assessment: an interesting statutory argument, probably not a winner given how broadly courts have construed presidential authority to federalize, but creative enough to flag. "Gold star for innovation, Gavin. Good on you."

10 U.S.C. § 12406"regular forces" statutory interpretationArt. II commander-in-chiefArt. I militia clause

Constitutional question: The militia/National Guard clause architecture: Article I gives Congress authority to call forth the militia; Article II makes the president commander-in-chief of the militia when called into federal service; the statutes Congress passed to implement this authority (including § 12406) define the conditions. If "regular forces" is read to mean the Army, it reflects a constitutional sequencing principle — Congress requiring the president to use the professional military before drawing on state militia forces — that would protect state sovereignty in a more structural way than case-by-case factual challenges to the emergency predicate.

← October 16, 2025 — Morning Report October 20, 2025 — Morning Report →