Late Night Orders

Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel, Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant news stories in the areas of law, government, courts, and the aspiration for justice.

And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.

This is amicus a law review on the broadcast stations of civic media as always I am both honored and delighted that you have chosen to spend some portion of this weekend in conversation and discussion in consumption of the latest news in our nation and across the planet when it comes to issues related to the rule of law the delivery of justice and government in general this weekend this weekend a special edition

a very special edition of Amicus the Law Review, doing some things in this broadcast that we have not previously done in the several years that we've been on the air, and that includes at the center of our broadcast this weekend, my recitation to you on one of the most significant statements of civic responsibility, of what government does, of what we should expect from our government of due process and the fundamental rights under our Constitution that has been

written about in years, and it comes from an appeals court called the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

We're gonna spend a lot of time talking about this major commission issued by three federal judges on Thursday of this past week that should give us hope for the future, that should give us a commission about what should happen next, and that also should tell our government what the expectations that we all have for its conduct and its behavior.

That's going to be the centerpiece

of our broadcast this weekend.

As always, however, we invite your communications, your questions, your inquiries about that and other matters which I will identify in our syllabus.

as we always do.

By calling in at 855-752-4842, my terrific producer Max always reminds me as well that you can also be a part of our conversation by dropping a question or an inquiry into our chat box, but be a part of our discussion because of the special nature of this particular broadcast this weekend.

This weekend, I'm gonna hold off on calls until the second hour.

but going to be encouraging those with great enthusiasm, as always, inviting you to be a part of this all-important discussion.

That number, once again, 855-752-4842.

Write down your questions, write down your increase, because as always, it is a lot.

It is a lot to consume.

And indeed, much of what we have to consume is a part of our syllabus.

this weekend.

We're going to begin by talking about some very late breaking news coming across the headlines just in the past several hours coming out of our United States Supreme Court that issued a major ruling very early this Saturday morning that affects due process in America, that affects the courts in America, affects our understanding of what our government can and should do to provide service.

and support, safety and understanding for all of us in our nation.

That's at the top of our hour.

We're then going to go back a couple of days, mixing up the chronology a bit, going back to Wednesday and talk about something that James Bosberg did.

You recall, well, he is this federal district court judge in the District of Columbia, who has been presiding for well over a month now over one of the major cases involving Venezuelan migrants.

And yes, indeed,

their extra judicial shipment deportation to that high-security brutal prison in El Salvador where approximately 238 of them are still incarcerated to this day.

We're gonna talk about what James Bosberg said this past week that changes the calculus of all of this.

Finding, finding that there is reasonable cause to believe that your government, your US Department of Justice, your president is in contempt.

of the orders of a federal court.

We'll talk about what he said.

We'll talk about the process, the due process that he is going to be giving to your government and the representatives of it in a way that they themselves did not afford.

to those deportees now in El Salvador.

James Bosberg looming large in these stories, the reports about the rule of law this past week.

Then we're going to go back one day and talk about another judge who's been much in our focus, her name is Paula Zinnis.

And she has also been presiding over one of these very notorious cases, no less significant than the other.

And that is that Maryland man.

improperly by the government's own admission through fault, through administrative error is what they called it, packaged up, deported to El Salvador, visited just recently by United States Senator.

And so we know that he is still alive.

We know that he is still there, but we don't know anything else about what's going on with him.

And we don't know.

We don't know the questions that both Judge Zinnis

and Judge Bosberg have asked.

We don't know the answers to those questions because the government, your government has not provided them.

And we'll talk as well about what Judge Zinnis has done, much in line with what Judge Bosberg has done, approaching that time of contempt by your government.

in a federal district court.

Judge Zinnis saying I'm going to get to the bottom of this once again as she did on Tuesday admonishing the representatives, your lawyers standing in front of her and telling them that she is going to permit.

The plaintiffs, the petitioners, the people again in particular who are advocating on behalf of that Maryland man, she is going to permit them to pursue what's called discovery, depositions.

She is talking about oral testimony in her courtroom to get to the bottom of this.

Why once again?

Because your government, your U.S.

Department of Justice under this president and under this attorney general, her name is Pamela Bondi, as you know, have refused repeatedly.

to provide the basic answers to the questions that Judge Bosberg has been asking, that Judge Zinnis has been asking, and in that context moving toward formal findings of contempt.

We're going to talk a little bit more about the predicates for that under something called 18 USA section 401 and 402.

The federal statutes that do indeed give judges the capacity, the authority to find entities

almost never the government itself but here the government itself in contempt of court and then necessarily going to be asking asking what that means we'll be asking the question and providing you yes indeed with an answer in this broadcast about whether or not we are in a constitutional crisis and I will tell you in anticipation of that discussion that that answer has long been given

And that the question we should now be asking is, what are we prepared to do to preserve our republic?

The question that Benjamin Franklin asked of all of us over these many years.

the question of whether we are prepared to protect it.

That's the question that we are now asking as we continue to examine the rule of law issues, the justice issues, the government issues that have been animated just the past several days, and yes indeed we're going to spend a lot of time.

You're going to hear what the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has said to us

to the government, to Donald Trump, to Pam Bondi, to all the representatives who appear in court across this nation on behalf of you and behalf of our government.

We're going to hear the stellar, the transcendent words that we have not heard in many, many years from an appeals court judge.

They're the kinds of words, kinds of language that we have previously heard from a Supreme Court.

talking with us in lofty, important ways about the arc of justice and about what we should expect in our nation.

the kinds of things that previous justices of the Supreme Court rallied when it came to understanding changes in the law, movements toward greater civil rights.

Once again, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

You may be wondering already, where is the Fourth Circuit?

It's basically the Mid-Atlantic states.

It's the district courts in West Virginia and Virginia and North Carolina and South Carolina.

The Court of Appeals meets in Richmond this past week.

A major, a major statement.

that takes its place among the major, major articulations of the rule of law in our American history in 238 years.

It is necessary that we all hear that this weekend and in the days and weeks and months and years ahead to understand what our nation is all about and what is at stake right now when it comes not only to representations made in front of Judge Bosberg and Judge Zinnis, but also to the United States Supreme Court, which is where we'll begin in just a moment.

We are necessarily, however, going to be recognizing, as we sometimes do, here on Amicus Allah Review, a major event, a commemoration of a major event in United States American history, not yet the United States at the time that this happened, 250 years ago this weekend, 250 years ago on April 19th of 1775.

a major series of events necessarily understood by all of us today.

Yes indeed, Lexington and Concord, those shots, the shot, other shots heard around the world as historians have since codified it.

I'm going to spend some time beginning now.

We're calling what happened in that mid-April day, days of April of 1775.

Why?

because we understand the contemporary events of our days, of the past several days, not as the physical shots that began our own Revolutionary War 250 years ago, but nonetheless, the shots being taken right now to our Republic, to our Constitution, the shots are also heard, not just here in Wisconsin, not just here in the United States, in those courtrooms, in Richmond, and in the District of Columbia, and also

obviously in Maryland as well, but in courtrooms around our nation, in rule of law institutions, our law enforcement services, shots being taken again, not physically, not violent shots in the physical violence sense, but shots about who we are as Americans.

And necessarily we're going to begin in our broadcast today by talking about what happened in mid-April of 1775, a British general named Thomas Gage.

That was his name.

He decided to set all of this off.

He couldn't possibly have anticipated what he was doing, but he decided to seize some weapons and some gunpowder that were being stored.

Yes, indeed, at that place called Concord, Massachusetts.

A word, a place in our nation's history that still rings large.

About 20 miles northwest of Boston.

He was facing what everybody thought was an impending rebellion.

And when violence he decided he decided he was going to seize those weapons and the gunpowder the Patriots spies already at at work in that time got wind of Thomas Gage's plan at the time a fellow named Paul Revere

You know him well from your history books.

We think about the poetry that also animates our recollection of our history lessons.

Paul Revere, other writers, spread the word of about 800 British soldiers who were dispatched to conquer.

Departing late in the evening of April 18th from Boston, the King's troops marched into the small town of Lexington around 5 a.m.

and there they found facing them a militia, a militia of patriots, about 70 men, and they were led by a captain named John Parker.

As Amicus Hallar review continues, I'm going to tell you more about the shots heard around the world 250 years ago today as a predicate to our further discussion in this broadcast about the shots in America having to do with the rule of law and justice.

Stay with us for all of that.

This is Annika Solar Review, a special edition of our broadcast this weekend, beginning with a commemoration of this major event in American history, 250 years ago, this Saturday, this weekend, April 19th, 1775, as the forces

of British General Thomas Gage convene on the town of Lexington, confronting this militia of about 70 men, some patriots, so led by Captain John Parker.

And when that vanguard of British forces rushed upon the town green there in Lexington, Captain Parker, Captain John Parker realizing that he is probably outgunned, outmanned, orders his troops to disperse.

And at some point, historians are unclear about exactly when, where, how, who did this, a shot rings out.

Historians still debating exactly who fired that first shot, but the nervous British shoulders fired a volley in response to how that first shot is received.

They killed seven and they mortally wounded one of the retreating militiamen, the Patriots, at that day.

The British column then moved on toward Concord from Lexington, leaving the dead.

the wounded and the dying in their wake, a part of our American history.

People dying 250 years ago today to begin to establish what would become the United States of America.

Parker and his men would have revenge, however, later on that very afternoon.

Arriving in Concrete about 8 a.m., the British commanders, their name were Francis Smith and John Pitcairn, ordered several of their companies at that time, about 220 troops in all, to secure

to ensure the security of the North Bridge across the Concord River.

And then continue another mile onto a place called Barrett Farm.

You may recall much of this from your history books and your history lessons of the times that you're in school.

And it was there at Barrett Farm that a suspected cache of arms and powder was presumably, again, historians somewhat unclear on this, located by the time the British arrived at the North Bridge, a growing assembly of close to 400 militia.

400 militia from Carcord and the surrounding towns had gathered on the high ground overlooking that bridge.

News of all of this was happening in Lexington now in Concord.

passing through the public, the community of that time.

From their vantage point on the hill, they could see some smoke, some very interesting smoke rising from Concord, the result of British burning some supplies that they had uncovered.

But thinking, thinking however at the time, the town itself, their own town was being put to fire, being torched at the time, Lieutenant Joseph Hosmer of Concord shouted to his fellow officers, again, the history

of 250 years ago today, he said, will you let them burn the town down?

Will you let them burn their town down?

Words that should be important to us today when we think about what we are prepared to do to preserve our own republic 250 years later.

He said, will you let them burn the town down?

The decision was then made to take action.

Colonel James Barrett ordered his companies to march upon the bridge, but not to fire do not fire He said on the British soldiers on this first fired upon and a thing called the Acton company these are them the minute men Commanded by a 30 year old captain 30 years old his name is Isaac Davis at that time and He was placed at the head of the column and was asked when asked if they were prepared to confront the British troops Davis said this he said I haven't a man

afraid to go no one among my troops he said is afraid to defend our belief in fundamental notions of decency and rightness and yes indeed although they did not talk about it at that time is due process and equal protection and the kinds of things that we will spend most of our broadcast talking about the day today he said I haven't a man afraid to go raising again the question for us now

Are we afraid to go forward to protect our Republic?

The Minutemen formed up and they marched down the hill, according to historians.

And as they did that, the British soldiers intimidated now, now by the colonial numbers, far exceeding what they saw early in the day, orderly advance.

They retreated to the opposite shore and prepared to defend themselves.

And when Davis's company, again, according to all of the reliable accounts, came within range, British soldiers opened fire.

They killed Isaac Davis and also Abner-Hosper and another Acton Minutemen.

Major Buttrick of Concord shouted, for God's sake, fire.

For God's sake, fire, that happened 250 years ago today, Concord and Lexington.

And the Minuteman replied with their own volley, killing three British soldiers, wounding nine other Brits.

This volley, this volley, right then, right there.

Following the first shots, this volley is considered the shot, actually the shots.

heard around the world and the rest of the British troops retreated back into town.

Smith and Pitcairn ordered a return to Boston, which devolved into a rout as thousands of Minutemen, Patriots, descended on the area after what had happened in Lexington and Concord.

The British were attacked from all sides by this, this what can only be described as a swarm, huge numbers of angry Minutemen, along what is now known, you may recall this as well, as Battle Road.

And when they reached Lexington, John Parkour and his men had their revenge.

They fired on the British regulars from behind cover and for the next 12 miles, the British were continually ambushed by the Minutemen who were there.

They were shooting from trees and rock walls and buildings and other edifices.

The emotions of the fight carried well beyond April 19, inspiring American warriors on that day and others to rise up and fight again, even in the face of staggering odds against them.

That's what happened.

That's what happened 250 years ago today You recall as well from your literature classes.

Maybe your history classes as well Ralph Waldo Emerson was a conquered poet He dubbed these people the embattled farmers.

They were not American citizens yet

They did not know what had started on that.

They could not possibly have seen what would happen 250 years later.

They would have to wait until 1776 and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that followed years after that.

But on April 19, 1775, they were loyal British subjects of the British government.

who believed that they were standing up to defend and fight for their rights.

That's what they were fighting for 250 years ago today.

In doing so, they changed the world forever.

And that is the question that we ask today as we have asked in recent weeks and will continue to ask on the broadcast stations, service media, what are we prepared to do now to defend our republic, to follow up on that battle cry, if you will, not to violence.

not to that kind of deathly fatal aggression, but to preserve what Ben Franklin talked about.

Preserving the Republic, if indeed you can preserve it.

They changed the world forever.

Are we prepared to change it?

today to ensure that the history of the past 90 days, the past three months or so, is not the history that continues beyond, because we do undeniably today, in weeks past, in days past, and continuing to this day, have undeniably not just a constitutional crisis, but we've got a challenge to the very fabric of our nation.

That is the principle thesis.

the premise of my argument to you today based upon the things that we are now going to talk about.

And that includes indeed what the United States Supreme Court weighing into this very issue has done just in the early morning hours of this Saturday.

This live broadcast, if you're listening again tomorrow afternoon or on a podcast, it happened in the very early morning hours of April 19th, 2025.

The United States Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court

early in the morning blocking the Trump administration early Saturday from deporting another group of Venezuelan immigrants accused of being gang members under the so-called expansive powers of this rarely invoked law that the administration is attempting to use to accomplish something illegal.

When we come back, I'll tell you more about what the Supreme Court did, about what the courts of appeals are doing, what district courts are doing here on Amicus.

a lot of you.

This is Amicus, a lot of you.

My name is Jim Santel, joined in the studios here in Racine by my excellent producer Max and together in our second hour, we're going to be taking your increase in your questions about any of the issues we're discussing today.

Once again, necessarily focusing upon.

The events, the circumstances, the petitions, the resolutions of those by our federal judges, including district court judges and appeals court judges.

And yes, indeed, our United States Supreme Court.

I hasten to add, as I necessarily must, that this is a lot.

There is an awful lot going on.

And one of the missions that we've adopted here on this broadcast is not to provide you with every last detail, but enough information so that you can understand.

the broad movements in all of this, the understandings that underplay and provide predicates for the decisions being made by district court judges, by appellate court judges, by Supreme Court justices as well.

Give you some sense of the arguments being made.

Those are being adopted.

Those are being rejected.

not to grasp in its entirety the great numbers of things that are going on even as we get together this weekend and every weekend to talk about these things but to give you some sense

about the great concern that all of us should have on this 250th anniversary of the shot, the shots heard around the world, Lexington and Concord, why it is important that we should not only be concerned, but we should ask ourselves now the question that we are in a constitutional crisis.

What are we prepared to do?

What are we prepared to do to preserve a republic as those actin minute men of 250 years ago also asked themselves?

We know that the Supreme Court in the early morning hours.

Yes, indeed.

They were up in the first minutes of Saturday, April 19th, 2025, issuing an order blocking the Trump administration in yet another case involving the proposed deporting of another group of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador in an

a brief unsigned order giving no reasoning as is often the case in these emergency petitions.

Another issue we've talked about, the number of these happening expeditiously, government and others running very quickly, jumping over the normal procedures of our trial and appellate courts, this emergency docket sometimes called the shadow docket.

No reasoning.

But decisions made by justices, this time in a brief unsigned order, the Supreme Court's saying this, the government, that's the Trump administration, that's Pam Bondi, that's the Homeland Security Department, directing not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees, the people who are now identified as likely deportees from the United States until further order of this court, keep them grounded.

keep them here is what the Supreme Court said very early on the morning of Saturday.

Interestingly, although we do not have reasoning, we do not have the kind of exposition that we'll hear, for example, from the Fourth Circuit in our second hour, we do know that justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito both dissented.

Both the Senate, a seven-to-two decision, telling the Trump administration, don't you move any more of those detainees?

How did this particular case come about?

It is not the same case coming out of the courtrooms of Judge Bozburg and judges in us, and others now around the nation.

But we know that more than 50 Venezuelans were scheduled to be flown out of the country, presumably once again to El Salvador.

From an immigration detention center, this time it's in Anson, Texas.

Attorneys in recent days has already secured some orders, barring similar deportations in other courts under this Alien Enemies Act, again invoked by the administration.

establishing perhaps by virtue of executive authority that we are at war that somehow we've been invaded.

Interestingly, as an aside, our government telling us effectively that we are now at war with Venezuela or at least with this group of terrorists, of gang members identified by the administration that we may be at war according to the president and under the Alien Enemies Act, that's the basis upon which he

is ordering not only the seizure, but the deportation of enemies in our land who pose a threat to the safety and security of all of us.

In recent days, other court orders in other courts, places like New York City and Denver and Brownsville, Texas, all of them, again, it's a lot going on, all of them, likewise, in joining the movement.

The situation in Anson, however, was especially urgent because the lawyers had mounted challenges in three different courts in five hours, in five different

and hours firing on all cylinders.

The lawyers started with an emergency filing in a federal district court in Abilene, Texas.

They claim that officers of a place called the Blue Bonnet Detention Center in Anson had already started distributing notices, giving paper notices to some Venezuelan immigrants, informing them that they're about to be deported.

They could face deportation as soon as Friday night, giving them some, some level, not enough, but some notice about what had happened.

They asked a judge, his name is Judge James Wexley Hendricks, who was overseeing that particular case.

to issue an immediate order protecting all the migrants in the northern district of Texas who might face this imminent deportation.

And when Judge Hendricks declined to grant their request of initially and then later on the lawyer's final summer request with the Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit.

Court of Appeals, they're located in New Orleans.

The lawyers then also filed, again, shooting on all opportunities here, firing on all cylinders, this emergency petition to the Supreme Court.

asking the justices to say they're getting on buses.

They're being loaded onto planes, presumably very soon.

You need to immediately pause that happening, stop any deportations, because many of the Venezuelan men had already been loaded onto buses, according to the petition to the Supreme Court, headed to the airport.

Interestingly, interestingly, all of this is happening again under these claims that these members are gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

This is Trendy Arragua, this violence street gang.

This is the predicate for the government to seek to have their move and actually accomplish their removal from our nation, from the lands in which they do in fact get protection.

During a hearing again, back in the District of Columbia.

in front of the same judge before many of these lawyers, including the government, have been petitioning previously.

Yes, that's James Bosberg again.

Lots of moving, lots of split screens, lots of multiple screens here.

Judge Bosberg entertained some additional argument in cases pending in front of him, and it was there, and the reason I raise it now is that the lawyers who are representing the detainees told the judge, told James Bosberg,

on Friday night that they are prepared to file petitions in every single federal district court in the United States of America to stop this from happening.

And a lot of their predicate, of course, was what happened, what came out of Judge Bozburg's court, went up to the Court of Appeals, ultimately the Supreme Court, you recall this well, we've talked about it.

The Supreme Court issued this order saying that implicitly,

The administration can indeed invoke the Alien Enemies Act, but you have to provide due process.

You have to give all these deportees, all the migrants, all the people you're...

planning to put on those buses and planes you have to give them notice you have to tell them what they're charged with and you've got to ensure that they've got an opportunity to push back to make defenses to the government we call that due process in the Supreme Court even while it adopted this view

curious and odd and unsupported as it is that somehow we're at war that we've been invaded and therefore the Alien Enemies Act is properly invoked.

So nonetheless, if you want to do this, Mr. President and Pam Bondi, Attorney General, you've got to make sure that everybody who gets on a plane anywhere has been given due process and some judicial officer has told them that they must go.

that they made the finding that they are indeed subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act.

Drew Ensign, this deputy assistant attorney general about whom we've spoken a lot, a lawyer for the Justice Department, your Justice Department, gave his word.

that no flights were scheduled apart from the Blue Bonnet Center on Friday night or even Saturday morning, April 19th, 2025, adding the migrants there would be given at least 24 hours notice before they were deported.

Well, notice is good.

That's good, Mr. Ensign.

But Judge Bosberg, again, appropriately skeptical of all of this, these assertions, Judge Bosberg, of course, on the receiving end of many of the misrepresentations and refusal, basically, to provide

basic information of the past month, pointed out, pointed out to your government, had to tell the government, your department of justice, your president, your attorney general, that the notice forms the government is giving to these Venezuelan men did not contain the explicit due process statement that they were able to challenge their deportations.

It's one thing the judge was telling them to provide notice.

Which, again, is it in a language that they understand?

Is it in English?

We don't know yet.

That is another issue plainly for a due process protection.

It's one thing to tell them in whatever language that they're going to be leaving to state the obvious.

It's another thing to say that you can, in fact, petition your government to push back on this, to challenge this action.

And that's why this is so important.

And that is exactly what the Supreme Court has said that your government must do.

Question whether or not.

that is going on.

On Friday, other Venezuelan migrants at the detention center, again, facing this imminent deportation, one of them known simply as FGM, instructed to sign a removal waiver in English, again, even though he speaks only Spanish.

When he refused to sign, the immigration officers told him that the waiver was coming from the president.

All right.

That may in fact be true.

The president of the United States of America is directing that this happen, that these migrants not be given due process, given a notice that they're going to be put on a bus and sent to El Salvador, but nothing more.

And that you'll be deported if you did not sign this notice.

That's what they were told.

And that's what prompted once again this application, this emergency application granted, thankfully, by the Supreme Court in the very early hours of April 19th.

one of these shots, not a physical shot, not a bullet shot, not a gun shot, but shots being volleyed right now inside our systems of justice, our courts, about what we do with due process.

What's this, what this means?

And what we mean as a nation, the Supreme Court, again, not a unanimous Supreme Court.

Nonetheless said, hold off, Mr. President.

Hold off, Pam Bondi.

Hold off Homeland Security, State Department, Justice Department.

Do not put them on those buses.

Do not put them in those planes.

Don't you do that.

And so we are waiting on April 19th.

uh, 2025 to see what the United States government, your government does, your Department of Justice does, Homeland Security does, in response to an unmistakably clear directive from, from the United States Supreme Court not to poke anybody else on those planes.

You recall the reason why this was so important is because on March 15th, when we were on the air here a month or so ago, all of this began to percolate up when in a courtroom of, yes, now let's move to James.

James Bosberg once again.

On that day, James Bosberg entertaining these arguments.

On behalf of what we learned since that time to be about 238 Venezuelans, they may in fact be violent.

They may in fact be members of this gang.

But the judge saying at that time that I'm directing you government not to put them on those planes.

If those planes are in the air, turn them around.

If they're still on the ground, do not tell the pilots to take off.

That's what James Bosberg said.

on March 15th.

And ever since then, in an attempt to determine whether or not your government, your Department of Justice, your Drew Ensign's of the world, representing you in the federal district court, have misrepresented, lied?

to a federal district court judge.

He's been attempting for a month to figure out exactly when those planes left.

Did they leave after?

After he gave the order?

In which case the government, yes indeed, would be in contempt with a capital C?

Or were they in the air?

And did they land already in El Salvador?

We still don't know.

And the judge's simple questions of that day remain unanswered by your Department of Justice.

to make a probable cause finding, not only as to that issue, the contempt shown by your government to another branch of government.

The contempt show not only on that issue, but what have you done also to afford those 238 almost 250 migrants now sitting in that prison in El Salvador, the due process that now we know the Supreme Court has told us they are entitled to.

What have you done to get them back here?

And they're likewise.

No response.

No meaningful response.

A lot of word salad.

A lot of subversive language suggesting that things are being done without any specificity.

But a federal judge.

A federal judge as late as this past Wednesday.

This is James Bosberg.

He's the chief judge of the District Court in the District of Columbia.

opens up this high-stake contempt investigation into whether the Trump administration and Donald Trump has violated his order, not just contempt of court, but also raising questions beyond constitutional problems, but issues about the future of our republic.

When we come back, we'll talk more about what Judge Bosberg did just this past week when this broadcast continues.

This is Amicus.

Hello, all of you.

My name is Jim Santel here in the broadcast venue of Civic Media here in Racine.

In the second hour, taking your calls, taking your questions, your comments, obviously...

by telephone that's 855-752-4842 but also on the Dropbox be a part of our discussion at this critically important time once again in our nation's history observing today the 250th anniversary of the shots heard around the world asking once again on this broadcast as we do implicitly every broadcast what are you prepared to do

to preserve your republic we're speaking now about these events of the just the past several days that underscore the volatile time in which we are living when we are threatened with the future of our republic supreme court late late last night actually early saturday morning telling the administration do not send these venezuelan migrants on we'll see what the response is if there is contempt by this administration or in the wake of an explicit

from the Supreme Court, which this president has promised to follow, at least he's said that out loud.

What is the administration going to do in the hours and days just ahead?

We know that this past Wednesday, James Bosberg, the district court judge, the chief judge in the District of Columbia, absolutely at his wits end, exasperated by the representations and misrepresentations by Department of Justice lawyers who are sworn to take an oath.

not only to the, to you, to the government, to the Department of Justice, not to the president.

They do not serve as the president's lawyers.

They serve as your lawyers, but also they have an oath of office as representatives of the bar to be straightforward.

And when asked questions for which there's no privilege, nor their protection into law obliged to respond, or at least to find out, that's what I did for 30 years.

That's what every single assistant U.S.

attorney and U.S.

attorney has done for time immemorial.

We respect, even if we disagree with the decisions, the rulings or directives of federal district court judges, when they ask information for information, you provide it.

Our government is not doing that, sending James Boseberg.

through the roof through the roof again this past week this past Wednesday the judge again entertaining an argument about what is going on should he find the government in contempt not only with respect to what happened on March 15th but again about whether or not you have followed his directives to provide due process to those 238 people in that prison in El Salvador a 46 page ruling

46 pages, James Bosberg said he is going to begin contempt proceedings.

That is no small thing for a district court judge to do against whom, against the administration, against the White House, against your Department of Justice, and asking what it had to do to get the answers that it wanted and to get the assurances that the rule of law is observed in this nation.

giving scores of Venezuelan men deported to El Salvador under this so-called expansive wartime authority, a challenge, a challenge to the opportunity to challenge the removal.

Here's what the judge wrote.

He said, the court does not reach such conclusions lightly or hastily.

Indeed, this is rare.

It's not unprecedented, but it is rare.

He said, indeed, it has given defendants, meaning your administration, your president, your attorney general, your secretary of homeland security.

ample opportunity to explain their answers.

Listen to this.

None of their responses has been satisfactory.

He is threatening contempt proceedings and he is promising, promising more down the road.

Let's talk a little bit more about contempt proceedings.

We've done this in the past.

The federal district courts, the appeals courts, the district court, the supreme court has capacity under language of statute passed by the Congress.

Here's your moment of civics as we sometimes

get into in the law school that sometimes is amicus allura view it's section 401 of title 18 of the United States code is in the criminal law section of our statutes it says a court of the United States shall have the power to punish by fine or imprisonment or both in its discretion such contempt of its authority

and none other as misbehavior of any person in its presence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, that seems to qualify.

Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions, again in vocation.

And here it is, number three, disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

There is another section, section 402, which we've seen invoked recently by the Department of Justice, which Judge Bosberg has also implicitly made reference to talking about the mechanisms for enforcing contempt through criminal.

prosecution, people, corporations, associations willfully disobeying any of these rits or processes or decrees by doing any of these acts or thereby forbidden from doing them.

If their act they're doing that is of such a character as to constitute a criminal offense that can be prosecuted for contempt as provided under other sections.

of this law.

That's the predicate.

This judge has not only the discretion, but the legislative, the statutory authority to impose these kinds of remedies.

Yes, indeed, sanctions, fines, and indeed imprisonment.

And what does James Bosberg do?

This is the jurist, again,

who now is affording your government, who has thwarted his questions, has told him, given him answers in ways that make no sense, told them that they don't have the information somehow, and basically stonewalled him, invoking once again the language of Richard Nixon from the 1970s, refused to provide the judge the basic information that he is entitled to get.

How has Judge Bosberg responded?

He says, you know what?

I'm going to give you, you, the attorneys who are appearing in front of me, the parties, namely the Department of Justice, your government, I'm going to give you due process in my court.

The due process that you appear to have denied to those 250 people in El Salvador, maybe also denying the 50 people in Texas and others around the country, you're not affording due process to other people in this nation.

But Judge Bosberg, to his amazing credit, he does what a judge should do.

He says, I'm going to give you due process.

And here's what he says.

He says, I'm very angry.

That's my word, not his.

I won't read exactly all the things that he said.

We've visited some of that in the past.

But he talks about this fragile balance of power between the executive and the judicial branches.

And he said, should administration officials slow walk those efforts to respond to him further, they've already done that.

It's been a month when a simple question has not been answered like, when did the planes take off?

What are you doing right now to get these people back?

Those answers, those questions, not answered.

Judge Bosberg warned that he could make a criminal referral to the Justice Department or even appoint an outside prosecutor.

What does he say in particular?

Let's unpack that.

Let's talk about the due process that this judge is going to afford these defendants in his courtroom.

We're going to talk about all of that, the roadmap he provided to what happens next in his courtroom.

We'll talk about Judge Zinnis and we'll talk about the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in our second

hour as Amica Solar Review continues.

Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel, Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant new stories in the areas of law, government, courts, and the aspiration for justice.

And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.

This is Amicus, a law review.

My name is Jim Santel, joined in the Civic Media studios by my producer Max and together.

We are so encouraged by the number of you who are calling in, sending notes about our topic this morning, a special edition of Amicus Allora View.

As we go into detail to provide some understanding, it's not complete.

It is imperfect, but nonetheless, the broad strokes of what's been going on.

Recently, in the area of, yes, indeed, Venezuelan migrants and issues related to their deportation, but much larger issues beyond that, the go to the rule of law, and the notion that we have a nation of checks and balances where one branch of government is obliged to follow the orders of another, and if not to appeal those and pursue other mechanisms, that's what James Madison put in place with our Constitution.

Question.

No longer whether we're in a constitutional crisis, we are there unmistakably as we have judges now finding that your government is basically in contempt of the courts.

The question now is what do we do about that and what are the frayed edges of a republic as this goes forward, focusing right now upon what's going on in Judge James Boseberg's court.

This is the place once again where all this started a month ago, having to do with this 238 member group of Venezuelan migrants.

packed up without due process, sent to that prison where they remain to this day.

The judge very frustrated not only in getting answers to whether or not his decision on March 15th was overtly.

disregarded by this administration.

That is contempt.

That is a violation of the rule of law.

That's a violation of the fundamental notions that underpin our Constitution.

But also about what the government is doing, if anything, to get them back to provide the due process.

And what did he say this past week in this major order?

He said he is frustrated.

He's going to get to the bottom of this.

He said he is going to come up with some way of giving the Venezuelans some opportunity, he said, to contest their deportations.

He said he would order

sworn declarations from the Trump administration in an effort to determine who in the administration was responsible for disobeying his instructions.

Who is it?

Who's out there?

Who is telling me no?

Coming up to this point, not providing any of those names, he said, if that failed to turn up the culprit, Judge Bosberg said he would then require depositions.

That's sitting down in front of a court reporter under oath.

answering questions under oath under penalty of perjury from officials, or he said, or hold hearings with live witness testimony also under oath to get to the bottom of this.

If that technique was unsuccessfully said, he would refer the case to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution under, yes indeed, section 402 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

And given the unlikely of the department under this present administration would bring those charges,

Judge Bosberg said he might avail himself of one final opportunity, one final option again, but even he said using a special provision of the criminal contempt law that does indeed permit judges as a judge overseeing this matter to appoint a lawyer from outside, not within the Department of Justice to prosecute the contempt.

That's an option that's also out there underscoring the extent to which he is not only animated a month into this, but he is going to get to the bottom of this and he is going to direct people to provide information.

And indeed, if he doesn't get it, if the Department of Justice upon his referral does not prosecute his contempt referral there, he may indeed appoint.

a private attorney to do that prosecution.

He's got the authority to do that.

Now, what happened, again, lots of things happening in the middle of the night, including just this morning with our Supreme Court, in a single page order, a three judge panel of the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

This is the circuit court above Judge Bosberg.

Said it was entering what's known as an administrative stay.

We saw the Supreme Court do this in another case recently, just to give itself more time to consider the validity of these contemporaries.

that are proposed by the trial judge James Bosberg.

So we're going to hear at some point soon from the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia as Judge Bosberg continues to pursue that.

In another district court.

in America.

We've got Paula Zenis.

Paula Zenis, who one day before that, the hearing in front of Judge Bosberg on Wednesday, a day before that on Tuesday, she is saying the same things.

The attorneys were appearing in front of her in connection with a particular case.

You know this well now.

His name is Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.

He is the individual that, yes, indeed,

by the government's own statement, by the statement of our Solicitor General to the Supreme Court, by representations made by the White House, by Homeland Security, by the State Department, improperly included among that 238.

A group sent to El Salvador should not have been done.

Administrative error, they called it.

We know, in fact, the story behind Mr. Abrego Garcia.

He came to the United States illegally in 2011.

Eight years later, he was arrested while looking for work at a homeland depot in Maryland.

But an immigration judge who initially ordered his deportation ultimately determined that he should not be sent back.

That's the due process affording to him at that time.

It's called withholding from removal order.

It meant this, and this is the important point.

It meant that Mr. Abrego Garcia could stay in the United States with legal protection.

And last month, again, Mr. Abrego Garcia was suddenly pulled over by federal immigration authorities, accusing him of being a member of the MS-13 gang, and inaccurately.

inaccurately telling him that his protected status had changed.

It had not.

And within three days, he's on a plane.

He goes to the other migrants to this high security prison, which is known for its human rights violations.

He's visited.

He's visited by a senator, as you know, just this past week.

We know he's alive.

We know he's there.

We've seen pictures of him.

But we know nothing else because, again, the attorneys appearing in front of Judge Sinis back in her courtroom in Maryland are not providing any more information.

And indeed, this past Tuesday, she scolds the Trump administration, just like Judge Bosberg did, for dragging their feet, complying with a Supreme Court order, another Supreme Court order that directed the White House.

to facilitate that's the word we're using now to release that Maryland man who is wrongly deported to El Salvador.

last month.

She said just this past Wednesday to date, nothing has been done.

Nothing, she underscored.

Stern words coming from any judge, but she said once again, she is intending to force Trump officials to answer questions in writing and in depositions.

Again, the same kind of thing that Judge Bozburg is promising about what they've done so far to get Kilmar, Armando, Abrego, Garcia out of the prison and back in this country.

And she noted that

Every passing day was another that Abraigo Garcia, he's a 29-year-old father of three, is suffering harm in that Salvadoran custody.

And the judge set up a fast schedule.

officials to provide documents to sit for depositions.

These are orders of the court in a written order.

She said she will allow Mr. Abrego Garcia's lawyers to make 15 requests for documents.

She's going to let them ask for the government to produce those and she will enforce those orders and also to depose them, sit them down, get them into a room.

and ask them questions under oath, as many as six of them name them, she says, and I will order that they sit down for depositions.

That's not an extraordinary thing, but it is very atypical.

She also said that the lawyers were entitled to explore the lawful basis, these words, if any, for Mr. Abrego Garcia's continued detention in that prison, including

Who authorized his initial placement there and who presently authorizes his continued confinement?

Is that the President of the United States of America?

Is that the Attorney General?

Is that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security?

Is that the lawyers who are appearing in front of her?

She doesn't know.

because she has not been told, but she said we're going to move.

There will be no tolerance, she said, for gamesmanship or grandstanding.

None of that will happen.

This, of course, all comes in the wake of her previous hearings in which she has gone down this road before asking these questions, noting that we deported Mr. Abrego Garcia without notice, legal justification, or due process.

She's described the government's behavior as a grievous error.

She added the White House by refusing to retrieve him from one of the most inhumane and dangerous prisons in the world in a way that has shocked the conscience.

That's what this judge has said previously and again this past week.

Stunningly, stunningly, of course, we know that even this past week, more developments, Ensign Drew Ensign, the fellow who's appearing in front of the judge, said,

You know, if Mr. Abrigo Garcia presents himself at a port of entry in this country, we will then facilitate using the Supreme Court word, his entry to the United States.

Judge Zinnis rolling her eyes.

She said, not only skeptical, the White House can simply sit back and wait for someone else to free Mr. Abrigo Garcia, pointing out that the word facilitate required much more and requires his return.

The defendants there remain obligated at a minimum to take steps she set available to them toward aiding, assisting, or making easier a brago Garcia's release from custody.

And that was the order that she reaffirmed just this past week.

She is not happy.

She is not pleased with what your government has said.

to her and she is likewise like Judge Broseberg is going to get to the bottom of this we are at crisis point this is indeed the constitutional crisis that we have talked about we don't need to ask that question anymore it is here we've got a government that is saying no we've got a government that is saying no to another branch of government and not availing itself

at least not overtly to the mechanisms through which those kinds of things are contested and yes indeed that leads us to the centerpiece of our broadcast today and that is what the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has said about what Judge Zinnis has said in recent days.

All of this, of course, comes from Judge Zinnis.

The administration takes this up to the Court of Appeals.

And the Court of Appeals, again, in the fourth judicial circuit in our nation.

Once again, that's West Virginia.

It's Virginia.

It is Maryland.

And it is the Carolinas, North Carolina, South Carolina, kind of the mid-Atlantic states they meet in Richmond.

Federal Appeals Court, again, this is just this past week.

This happens on Thursday.

We've talked about what Judge Boesberg did on Wednesday, what Judge Zinnis did on Tuesday, what the Supreme Court did just earlier this Saturday, and now this happens on Thursday.

So we're jumping around a bit chronologically, but it helps to understand the mechanisms through all of this.

opinion author broad judge Harvey Wilkinson the third we shouldn't have to do this in America we shouldn't but we do it he's a very conservative jurist he's appointed by Ronald Reagan it's not just simple instructions to the White House it is also a statement about the rule of law and in tones that should prompt every single American to stop

and digest and understand what he said.

Here is the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals telling us not only about what Judge Zinnis has done, but what this administration has done as well in recent days as we come back.

You'll hear that, and then we'll take callers about all of this happening here in our discussion on Amicus, Allah review.

This is amicus a lot of you my name Jim Santel we are reciting the recent history of America and the history 250 years ago as we observed today the shots heard around the world shots now going on not physical shots not shots of violence but inside our courtrooms that shake us to the very core as we think about the future of our nation the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Thursday of this week issuing

a document that should stand in the annals of our nation's history for all time.

They're reviewing what Judge Zinnis has said.

They go...

over the top to praise her for her handling of this case.

A decision written by Harvey Wilkinson III.

He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

President George W. Bush considered him naming him to the Supreme Court.

Here's what the Court of Appeals says.

Take this in.

It is difficult, they say, in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter.

But in this case, it is not hard at all.

The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons

without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order.

It claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.

Court of Appeals says this should be shocking not only to judges but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

The government asserts that Albrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13 perhaps.

But perhaps not.

Regardless, he is still entitled to due process.

If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order.

Moreover, the government has conceded that Albreto Garcia was wrongly or mistakenly deported.

Court of Appeals says, what then should it, why then should it not make what was wrong right?

Supreme Court's decision to go on to say remains as always our guidepost.

That decision rightly requires the lower courts to give due regard to deference owed to the executive branch in foreign affairs.

That would allow sensitive diplomatic negotiations to be removed from public review.

It will recognize as well the facilitation of a Brego Garcia's return leaves the executive branch with options in the execution to which the courts, the courts may pursue.

with the Supreme Court's decision.

That decision, they say, struck a balance.

That does not permit lower courts to leave Article 2 by the wayside.

The Supreme Court's decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing.

It requires the government to facilitate Albrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.

goes on to say, facilitate is an active verb.

It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear.

The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be deluded by its constriction as the government would have us do to a narrow term of art.

Court says we are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by an administrative agency and contained in a mere policy directive.

Thus, the Court of Appeals goes on to say, the government's argument that all it must do is remove any domestic barriers to his return is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court's command that the government facilitate Albrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador.

Facilitation, the Court of Appeals,

part of appeal says.

does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country's prison that the withholding order forbids and further to do so in disregard of a court order, though the government not so subtly spurns.

Facilitation, the Court of Appeals says, does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to a foreign land, to a foreign detention center in the manner

attempted here.

Allowing this would facilitate foreign detention more than it would domestic return.

It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish, here we go, the very values of which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood firm.

The government is obviously frustrated, the Court of Appeals says, and displeased with the rulings of the court.

Let one thing be clear, the Court of Appeals said, court rulings are not above criticism.

Criticism

keeps us on our toes and helps us to do a better job.

Yes, indeed.

Court rulings can overstep and they can further intrude upon the prerogatives of other branches.

Courts thus speak with the knowledge of their imperfections, but also with a sense that they instill a fidelity to law that would be sorely missed in their absence.

energy in the executive is much to be respected.

It can rescue government from its lassitude and recalibrate imbalances too long unexamined.

The knowledge that executive energy is perishable and that if understood properly, impatience with the courts can come.

And courts in turn are frequently attuned to caution and are often uneasy with the executive branch's breakneck pace.

and the differences do not end there.

The court of appeals goes on to say, the executive is inherently focused upon ends.

The judiciary, much more upon means.

Ends are bestowed on the executive by electoral outcomes.

means are entrusted to all of government, but most especially to the judiciary by the Constitution itself.

And finally, the executive processes enormous possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport, but with powers, calm restraints.

If today the executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurances will there be tomorrow that will not deport American citizens and

then disclaim responsibility from bringing them home.

Court of Appeals goes on.

And what assurances shall there be that the executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies?

That threat the force circuit says even if not the actuality would always be present and the executive's obligation to quoting the Constitution Take care that the laws be faithfully executed was would lose its meaning today This is last Thursday both the United States and the El Salvadoran government disclaim any authority or responsibility to return Albrego Garcia To our nation we are told that neither government has the power to act

The result will be to leave matters generally and Albrego Garcia specifically in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort.

The basic differences between the branches mandates a serious effort at mutual respect.

The respect that courts must accord the executive must be reciprocated by the executive's respect for the courts.

Too often today, this has not been the case, as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court's orders are sadly illustrative.

It is thus in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower's sage example.

Putting his personal opinions aside, President Eisenhower honored his inescapable duty to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in Brown versus Board of Education.

Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both.

This is a losing proposition all around.

The judiciary will lose much from the constant intimate intimations of its illegitimacy to which

By dent of custom and detachment, we can only sparingly reply.

The executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all its attendant contagions.

The executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.

when we come back, when it take callers about that, about the rule of law in America, and about where we go from here, here on Amicus, a law review.

My name is Jim Santel.

This is Amicus, a law review, spending our entire broadcast this weekend on the calamity that right now is the challenge to the rule of law and separation of powers, the United States of America, raising the question, what are we prepared to do?

What are we prepared to do?

Getting some advice on that, some perspective on that, not just from me, not just from you, but from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that responds to a challenge to what Judge Zinnis has done in saying, I need answers, I want

I want the petitioner here in my court.

His name, of course, is Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.

I want some answers.

I want this done.

The Court of Appeals in no uncertain language saying that, yes, indeed, the executive branch has great authorities and great powers under the Article II language in our Constitution, but so does Article III.

and judiciary has responsibility to determine what the law is and to provide that check and balance.

The language of this order is lofty.

It is the kind of thing that civics, professors and teachers and high schools and colleges and universities across the country should be teaching on Monday morning of this week.

Families across the nation should be if you want to printing this out or putting on your screens and doing the kind of recitation that I just did in the past segment so we understand from this nonpartisan apolitical panel what America is all about and what that

observation today of 250 years since shots around a world lexington conferred means today and here in the end is how that order finishes the judges say it is as we have noted all too possible to see in this case again the case involving mr abrigo garcia this case an incipient crisis but it may present an opportunity as well here's what the judge says we cling to the hope

that it may not be naive to believe that our good brethren in the executive branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos.

This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us all while there is still time.

And that is the affirmation from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Here's what the Supreme Court should do, which is nothing.

Let that stand.

Let that stand as the final word in this case.

They do not have to take the appeal.

They do not have to pursue an emergency application.

They may well do it.

But the Court of Appeals has told us everything we need to know about all of these cases and gone beyond just the specifics as hugely important as they are with respect to Mr. Arbrego Garcia.

but also told us about who we are as a nation, how this works, and how the rule of law right now threatened beyond a constitutional crisis, threatening to destroy, destroy our very country if we don't push back on this incipient crisis.

the Court of Appeals identified the case.

Kilmar Armando, Arbrigo Garcia, also brought on behalf of his spouse and his minor child against Kristi Noem.

She is the Homeland Security Secretary against Pamela Bondi.

She is the Attorney General and against Marco Rubio.

He is the Secretary of State.

You can read it again to your family, to your friends, to others out there who may be interested in consuming this as we all must be at this time of great importance in the United States history.

We are

so appreciative also to have at this time, callers on the line for a long period of time.

Let's get to those right now.

Rick from Waukesha, you've been on the line for a while.

Rick, delighted to have you with me this weekend.

Thank you for taking this.

I just have a question about the judge's decision in the Supreme Court of the votes.

I don't know if this has happened in history before or not, but

I think, like, they're shaving the votes.

Like, shouldn't it have been an amnest?

Sure, right?

You're being a very good point, Rick.

The answer is this decision issued quite literally hours ago by the Supreme Court saying, yes, indeed, with respect to those folks in Texas, you've got to give them due process seven to two.

It was a split decision.

We often get that, of course, in the Supreme Court.

Your point, which I'm going to take it to be on something this important due process under our Constitution for everybody who's here, not just citizens, it should have been unanimous.

Made reference in the Court of Appeals opinion to Brown versus Board of Education.

The Chief Justice there worked very hard to get a unanimous opinion.

Why?

Because it was important to send the message to all Americans

that yes indeed separate is inherently unequal.

There are good things that come from education when somebody who's sitting to the left and the right of me is different from who I am.

It was important for the Supreme Court to make that unanimous decision.

The answer is it did not come.

It did not come hours ago and yet that is the decision of the Supreme Court.

Those people in those deportees, those migrants in Texas, subject to that order, they do have to be given due process.

We will see.

if indeed the administration follows that.

Rick, I appreciate your very good thought, your very good question here on Amicus.

Thank you.

Jim, from Brookfield, calling in his very good.

Jim, Brookfield also appreciate your being a part of our discussion.

Good morning, Jim.

Thank you for your expert legal analysis on this constitutional crisis that our nation is facing right at this moment, which years ago would have been

Unthinkable.

Absolutely.

This morning we are, you know, facing this and it's just unbelievable.

I mean, I lived through the Watergate era and I mean, that's like child's play compared to what we're facing right now.

My question is, okay, the judge does rule they're in contempt.

Could you please outline like what's the first step?

When is it officially that they are in contempt and would it be an individual?

Would it be Christie Noam, Bondi, you know, Rubio, the president?

And and what what are the steps?

What would happen?

And what would what could the administration do?

Just ignore it or you know, when are we officially in contempt who zeroed in on it?

And you know how that and what happens at first initial step.

How does this work?

Great question.

And we will see, right?

Judge Boasberg is outlined what he's going to do to make that happen.

The answer is exactly what you described.

You attempt as well.

He is trying to do to find out again who made these decisions.

Who should be deposed?

Who should I summon in?

And he's got the power to bring them into court.

that may happen sometime soon.

Maybe get Kristi Nomen, maybe get the Attorney General in, maybe get the Secretary of State in, maybe submit them to these deposition questions outside of court.

But he's going to require that somebody take responsibility to give him those answers.

And again, he can compel their production at a deposition.

He can order them to be in court.

Here's the question once again, which you've implicitly identified if they don't show up.

If they don't cooperate, if they say no once again, it can way beyond a constitutional crisis, that is then the question of what is happening to America?

What is happening to our executive branch that simply says, no, we're not going to follow what a judge says.

We know that there have been those times when people have said, gee, you know, you and what army, how are you going to enforce this?

A compel me to come in.

Andrew Jackson said that the Supreme Court led to the Trail of Tears when he refused to follow what the Supreme Court had told them with respect to our indigenous populations in Georgia years ago.

We may be headed to that again.

And although there's a process, it assumes that indeed an executive branch authority, whether it's Kristi Noem or the attorney general will say, all right, I will be there.

And I will respond to those questions.

And you can identify, here are the people finally getting those answers.

If that doesn't happen, the question, Jim, comes back to you and me and everybody else who's calling in and being a part of our discussion this morning.

What are you prepared to do?

What are you prepared to do to ensure that courts mean something in America and that this president, this executive branch, which up to now has been saying no?

does not continue to do just that.

There is no good answer to that.

That is when, again, Benjamin Franklin, a republic, if you can keep it.

But there is a process.

There is a process.

And hopefully, hopefully, as the Court of Appeals has said, you'll follow it, Mr. President.

You'll follow it.

You've got an opportunity here.

Make good on this.

Show the American people what our nation is all about.

Jim, call in again, and we'll talk more about what happens, how this practically plays out.

Excellent question as Judge Bosberg administers just that.

Thanks so much for being a part of our discussion this weekend.

Joe from Madison calling in.

Joe, delighted to have you with me once again.

I

knew with good, good chance that this miasma, this total world of legal opinions and cases and all that you would give us the lowdown on it and you would be clear and descriptive.

And indeed, you have delivered beyond all expectations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is so helpful.

My question has to do with the issue of impeachment.

You had

alluded

to it briefly that this administration has threatened impeachment of judges when they don't like the decisions that the judges have.

How would this go?

I should be smarter about knowing this, but several points.

Number one, who does impeachment of judges?

What are the charges that you have to have for an impeachment of a judge?

What would the administration suggest?

And if that impeachment were to go forward under this Republican Congress in some way, then does that put a hold on any of the orders that the judge may have had in reference to these cases?

I'd be interested if you could give me a little bit of information about that.

And thank you so much for all that you did with this show, putting it together under such time pressures.

Thanks,

Joe.

Joe, thanks so much, only for the very kind and thoughtful comments about it.

I'm delighted to do this.

That's the commission of our program, right, Joe, to be Amicus, a friend of the community and providing that kind of information.

Appreciate the comments and appreciate, especially again, another great, just like Jim's question, a great practical question.

How does this play out?

The good news here is we have seen this template, Joe, in recent times because the same way that presidents are impeached, we've never had one actually removed by the Senate is the same.

process that applies to federal district court judges.

And what that means is you got to begin the House of Representatives.

You got to be able to pass articles of impeachment.

And as Gerald Ford said, articles of impeachment, although they do talk in the Constitution about high crimes and misdemeanors, that has been the subject of an awful lot of discussion and dispute and disagreement.

The United States House of Representatives can define itself.

Hopefully if they have some legitimacy at all to what exactly it is a just a judge has done That would suggest that we need to remove that person there have been there was a Supreme Court Justice a long time ago named a Samuel Chase who was impeached basically for political reasons Was not successful in removing him, but the process is the same the House of Representatives has got to identify exactly what a judge Bosberg a judge is in us other judges all these other judges around

in the country, what specifically have they done to violate their oath of office, aside, Joe, from what you've just said, from an opinion that you may not like.

That's not a basis for doing it.

Nonetheless, the House, if it's got enough votes, and right now it's got a razor-thin majority, as we know.

Republicans could issue articles of impeachment, and then you know what the rest of this is all about.

It goes over to the Senate.

For what?

A trial.

We've seen this again in recent lifetimes, including mine.

And there, of course, the Supreme Court Justice presides over the trial of a judge there.

Again, that has happened from time to time most often.

Often judges, trial court judges who have been impeached, they often resign before that happens.

But there again, there is proof.

There should be proof to prove up the charges, if at all, before the members of the Senate.

There you need a two thirds majority, that's 67 of them, to remove a judge from his or her position.

That's a very high burden.

You'd like to think that members of our Senate would recognize these things for what they are, that they're just attacks on the, but not,

liking or disliking the decisions of a judge.

But there again, it's a trial of the sort that we've seen with respect to Donald Trump and Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson many, many years ago in our history.

During that time period, of course, to answer your other question.

A judge remains in place, right?

That judge still is in office.

It is only when the United States Senate, if at all, if at all, as that 67-member vote votes to remove that judge, at that point, that judge is no longer a federal district court judge and then is stripped of all authority.

But until that time, all of the orders, all the proceedings continue, and there's nothing about that impeachment.

Although publicly you may say, gosh, maybe it tends to suggest that the judges prior orders should not be followed.

Those orders, including the orders these past several days of Judge Zinnis and of Judge Bosberg, and yes indeed of the Supreme Court just hours ago, they all have legitimacy, not just historically, but in the laws of our land going forward.

They are the law of the case.

They are the law that again, if it all revisited, needs to be revisited by another federal judge, another appeals court judge,

another Supreme Court judge.

Gosh, we hope that in this time that the...

Members of our Congress do not go down this road do not pick up on what the President has said calling for impeachment that they heed the the other thing that our Chief Justice has said which is Mr. President although he didn't call him out by name We don't impeach judges just because we don't like what they do We can criticize as the Court of Appeals before circuit said we criticize them all we want.

That's the first amendment.

We don't call

for their overthrow.

We don't call for them to be ripped from power because of their decisions.

That's been our history and that's been our tradition.

When we come back, more callers on this important and special edition of Amicus, a lot of you.

This is Amicus Solar Review.

My name is Jim Santel and this is our final segment of this special edition of Amicus Solar Review.

Delighted as always to be in discussion with you about these hugely important issues that are important, yes, to the Venezuelan migrants and to immigration issues and to all the things that have populated the headlines in recent times, but also to the very nation that we are all about.

In the constitutional crisis that we are in right now, I appreciate so much your contributions to our discussion as well.

Dale, calling in from Wausau, thank you for being a part of our broadcast.

Thank you, Jim.

This denial of due process is the most unconstitutional and leadingly troubling thing by far to come out of the Trump administration.

And you know, Trump had said many times that

His administration will be looking at vengeance towards any perceived injustices that Trump feels that he has faced.

And that would be peaceful protesters, attorneys that have represented people Trump doesn't like.

And his talk about the homegrown terrorists in this country, that they're horrible people.

And so anyone, everyone in this country could be deported, picked up by ICE and deported to El Salvador or Guantanamo Bay or some other location.

And everyone is fair game to Trump's whims on who he'd like to have deported out of the country.

And I'll tell you what, from what I'm seeing and what I'm hearing, this one thing.

this denial of due process is the most motivating type thing that I have seen and heard lately, you know, with people all around the country.

And I think this denial of due process, this is something that's going to cause the downfall of Trump and his administration.

This is just completely lawless.

And so that's

And Dale, here, here, exactly.

A call to enforce what we are as a nation, right?

And again, Dale, your words track completely.

The words of the Court of Appeals before a circuit when they ask, and what assurance will be there?

The executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon others, political enemies.

The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present.

And the obligation to take care of the laws, be faithfully executed, to lose its meaning, appreciate so much, Dale, those observations, that is the concern.

That is why not in a hyperbolic language, we are regrettably acknowledging that we are in a constitutional crisis and asking once again, what are we prepared to do to ensure that...

not only these judges, but all of us have a right to petition government and have the opportunity to do so in a way that has been our tradition for 238 years.

Dale, I appreciate so very much your observation.

Greg, also calling in.

Greg, you've been on the line for a long time.

Thank you for your participation.

Yes, sir.

Thank you so much for taking my call.

A quick question about, do those who are actually carrying out deportations such as ICE agents

could they face criminal or civil liability?

Because, you know, it's saying, um, you're just following orders, but it's an illegal order really isn't a valid defense.

Right.

And once again, the fact we're even asking that question, Greg underscores the, not the absurdity, but the great challenge of all of this, right?

They are right now.

plainly pursuing the orders given them by Christine Ohm, by our Homeland Security Secretary, and even these attorneys appearing in court, right?

Plainly on the directive of Attorney General by the representatives of our State Department, by Marco Rubio.

It only goes so far.

I was a federal employee for something next to 30 years.

I took an oath in office not to a particular president or even a particular attorney general, although I had the great honor to be serving under a fellow named Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch and many other attorneys general, even when I was an assistant United States attorney.

the notion was always you have a greater allegiance and that is to the nation and to do what's right.

And when that day comes, when you believe that you are doing something that's contrary to the oath of office that all of those Homeland Security, all those ICE agents took when you're doing that and you feel that you are violating it, you need to voice that and you need to resign.

You need to let them know that you are not going to do that behavior.

Indeed, there could be civil lawsuits coming out of this.

There may not be criminal prosecutions for people following orders, but plainly,

Greg, you're invoking the history that came out of the Second World War as well, right?

I was simply following orders.

I was not doing anything out of my own sense.

There is a sense, a personal sense of every single federal employee, every state employee, every public service employee to do the right thing.

And that's the tension that we're going to be seeing in the, we already saw it seeing in the days and weeks ahead as the executed orders are done by human beings.

Kristi Noem herself is not doing these things.

She's directing.

people to do, but may in fact be, and almost certainly are, are illegal, unconstitutional things.

That's why the day's right ahead, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court order of early this morning, Saturday morning, is so interesting.

Watch carefully to see what this administration does and does not do.

We also have, I know that Mark, you've been on the line for a long time, don't have a lot of time, but Mark, appreciate your comment as well this

morning.

can't let ourselves be distracted from the other things that Trump is doing in all this.

I mean,

I

see this morning where he wants to have the Justice Department take over his Eugene Carroll case, his appeals on that.

And for the tariffs that Donald Trump is actually issuing, the care should be taken there to make sure that Donald Trump isn't giving granted himself exemptions to profit himself as opposed to his business competitors.

You know, he'll give himself an exemption on his Trump products produced in China, where competitors, you know, producing, well, nothing similar, but, you know, the competitors that are actually trying to produce products and they'll be tarp, but Trump will not be because of gross violations of...

Fairness and and justice on that

fairness and decency and and again mark your your point implicit Maybe even explicit and all of that is we've got processes in statutes passed by the Congress our representatives there They're interpreted by the judges.

They're applied by executive branch authorities.

That's how the system works And if it doesn't or if we've got a grievances again, that's what the First Amendment is all about.

That's what our Constitution is about.

What do we do?

We apply the processes that are established.

What happens what happens and that's the

question where we are today, what happens when indeed the executive branch simply says no.

We've come to the end of the rule of law, end of the checks and balances that we have been holding dear.

And we also are remembering once again the call.

call, not to physical arms, but 250 years ago today.

I haven't a man afraid to go.

That once again, was the response to the British troops, Lexington Concorde, everybody coming forward.

No one's afraid.

No one's afraid, as you indicated, Mark, to

advocate for what is right and decent and good and what America is all about.

I thank you all for your contributions for listening.

This weekend, as always, we'll be back another weekend down the road and another week coming up, coming up of history and of rule of law in America.

Have a good weekend, everybody.

You're listening to Civic Media.

You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.

Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.

Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel.

Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant news stories in the areas of law, government,

Courts and the aspiration for justice.

And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.

This is Amicus, a lot of you on the broadcast stations of Civic Media, as always.

I am both honored and delighted that you have chosen to spend some portion of this weekend in conversation and discussion, in consumption of the latest news in our nation and across the planet when it comes to issues related to the rule of law, the delivery of justice, and government in general.

This weekend, this weekend, a special edition.

a very special edition of Amicus, a law review, doing some things in this broadcast that we have not previously done in the several years that we've been on the air.

And that includes at the center of our broadcast this weekend, my recitation to you on one of the most significant statements of civic responsibility, of what government does, of what we should expect from our government, a due process and the fundamental rights under our constitution that has been

written about in years, and it comes from an appeals court called the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

We're gonna spend a lot of time talking about this major commission issued by three federal judges on Thursday of this past week that should give us hope for the future, that should give us a commission about what should happen next, and that also should tell our government what the expectations that we all have for its conduct and its behavior.

That's going to be the centerpiece

of our broadcast this weekend.

As always, however, we invite your communications, your questions, your inquiries about that and other matters which I will identify in our syllabus.

as we always do.

By calling in at 855-752-4842, my terrific producer Max always reminds me as well that you can also be a part of our conversation by dropping a question or an inquiry into our chat box, but be a part of our discussion because of the special nature of this particular broadcast this weekend.

This weekend, I'm gonna hold off on calls until the second hour.

but going to be encouraging those with great enthusiasm, as always, inviting you to be a part of this all-important discussion.

That number, once again, 855-752-4842.

Write down your questions, write down your increase, because as always, it is a lot.

It is a lot to consume, and indeed, much of what we have to consume is a part of our syllabus.

this weekend.

We're going to begin by talking about some very late breaking news coming across the headlines just in the past several hours coming out of our United States Supreme Court that issued a major ruling very early this Saturday morning that affects due process in America, that affects the courts in America, affects our understanding of what our government can and should do to provide service.

and support safety and understanding for all of us in our nation.

That's at the top of our hour.

We're then going to go back a couple of days mixing up the chronology a bit.

Going to back to Wednesday and talk about something that James Bosberg did.

You recall well, he is this federal district court judge in the District of Columbia who has been presiding for well over a month now over one of the major cases involving Venezuelan migrants.

And yes, indeed,

their extra judicial shipment, deportation to that high security brutal prison in El Salvador, where approximately 238 of them are still incarcerated to this day.

I'm going to talk about what James Bosberg said this past week that changes the calculus of all of this.

Finding, finding that there is reasonable cause to believe that your government, your US Department of Justice, your president is in contempt.

of the orders of a federal court.

We'll talk about what he said, we'll talk about the process, the due process that he is going to be giving to your government and the representatives of it in a way that they themselves did not afford.

to those deportees now in El Salvador.

James Bosberg looming large in these stories, the reports about the rule of law this past week.

Then we're going to go back one day and talk about another judge who's been much in our focus, her name is Paula Zinnis.

And she has also been presiding over one of these very notorious cases, no less significant than the other.

And that is that Maryland man.

improperly by the government's own admission through fault, through administrative error is what they called it, packaged up, deported to El Salvador, visited just recently by United States Senator.

And so we know that he is still alive.

We know that he is still there, but we don't know anything else about what's going on with him.

And we don't know.

We don't know the questions that both Judge Zinnis

and Judge Bosberg have asked.

We don't know the answers to those questions because the government, your government has not provided them.

And we'll talk as well about what Judge Zinnis has done, much in line with what Judge Bosberg has done, approaching that time of contempt by your government.

in a federal district court.

Judge Zinnis saying I'm going to get to the bottom of this once again as she did on Tuesday admonishing the representatives, your lawyers standing in front of her and telling them that she is going to permit.

The plaintiffs, the petitioners, the people again in particular who are advocating on behalf of that Maryland man, she is going to permit them to pursue what's called discovery, depositions.

She is talking about oral testimony in her courtroom to get to the bottom of this.

Why once again?

Because your government, your U.S.

Department of Justice under this president and under this attorney general, her name is Pamela Bondi, as you know, have refused repeatedly.

to provide the basic answers to the questions that Judge Bosberg has been asking, that Judge Zinnis has been asking, and in that context moving toward formal findings of contempt.

We're gonna talk a little bit more about the predicates for that under something called 18 USA section 401 and 402.

The federal statutes that do indeed give judges the capacity, the authority to find entities

almost never the government itself but here the government itself in contempt of court and then necessarily going to be asking asking what that means we'll be asking the question and providing you yes indeed with an answer in this broadcast about whether or not we are in a constitutional crisis and I will tell you in anticipation of that discussion that that answer has long been given

And that the question we should now be asking is, what are we prepared to do to preserve our republic?

The question that Benjamin Franklin asked of all of us over these many years.

the question of whether we are prepared to protect it.

That's the question that we are now asking as we continue to examine the rule of law issues, the justice issues, the government issues that have been animated just the past several days, and yes indeed we're going to spend a lot of time.

You're going to hear what the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has said to us

to the government, to Donald Trump, to Pam Bondi, to all the representatives who appear in court across this nation on behalf of you and behalf of our government.

We're going to hear the stellar, the transcendent words that we have not heard in many, many years from an appeals court judge.

They're the kinds of words, kinds of language that we have previously heard from a Supreme Court.

talking with us in lofty, important ways about the arc of justice and about what we should expect in our nation.

the kinds of things that previous justices of the Supreme Court rallied when it came to understanding changes in the law, movements toward greater civil rights.

Once again, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

You may be wondering already, where is the Fourth Circuit?

It's basically the Mid-Atlantic States.

It's the district courts in West Virginia and Virginia and North Carolina and South Carolina.

The Court of Appeals meets in Richmond this past week.

A major, a major statement.

that takes its place among the major, major articulations of the rule of law in our American history in 238 years.

It is necessary that we all hear that this weekend and in the days and weeks and months and years ahead to understand what our nation is all about and what is at stake right now.

When it comes not only to representations made in front of Judge Bosberg and Judge Zinnis, but also to the United States Supreme Court, which is where we'll begin in just a moment.

We are necessarily, however, going to be recognizing, as we sometimes do, here on Amicus Allah Review, a major event, a commemoration of a major event in United States American history, not yet the United States at the time that this happened, 250 years ago this weekend, 250 years ago on April 19th of 1775,

a major series of events necessarily understood by all of us today.

Yes indeed, Lexington and Concord, those shots, the shot, other shots heard around the world as historians have since codified it.

I'm going to spend some time beginning now.

We're calling what happened in that mid-April day, days of April of 1775.

Why?

because we understand the contemporary events of our days, of the past several days, not as the physical shots that began our own Revolutionary War, 250 years ago, but nonetheless the shots being taken right now to our Republic, to our Constitution, the shots are also heard not just here in Wisconsin, not just here in the United States, in those courtrooms, in Richmond, and in the District of Columbia, and also

obviously in Maryland as well, but in courtrooms around our nation, in rule of law institutions, our law enforcement services, shots being taken again, not physically, not violent shots in the physical violence sense, but shots about who we are as Americans.

And necessarily we're going to begin in our broadcast today by talking about what happened in mid-April of 1775, a British general named Thomas Gage.

That was his name.

He decided to set all of this off.

He couldn't possibly have anticipated what he was doing, but he decided to see some weapons and some gunpowder that were being stored.

Yes, indeed, at that place called Concord, Massachusetts.

A word, a place in our nation's history that still rings large.

About 20 miles northwest of Boston.

He was facing what everybody thought was an impending rebellion.

And when violence he decided he decided he was gonna seize those weapons and the gunpowder the Patriots spies already at at work in that time got wind of Thomas Gage's plan at the time a fellow named Paul Revere

You know him well from your history books.

We think about the poetry that also animates our recollection of our history lessons.

Paul Revere, other writers, spread the word of about 800 British soldiers who were dispatched to conquer.

Departing late in the evening of April 18th from Boston, the King's troops marched into the small town of Lexington around 5 a.m.

and there they found facing them a militia, a militia of patriots, about 70 men, and they were led by a captain named John Parker.

As Amicus Hallar review continues, I'm going to tell you more about the shots heard around the world 250 years ago today as a predicate to our further discussion in this broadcast about the shots in America having to do with the rule of law and justice.

Stay with us for all of that.

You're listening to Civic Media.

Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.

Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.

This is Amica Solar Review, a special edition of our broadcast this weekend, beginning with a commemoration of this major event in American history, 250 years ago, this Saturday, this weekend, April 19th, 1775, as the forces

of British General Thomas Gage convene on the town of Lexington, confronting this militia of about 70 men, some patriots, so led by Captain John Parker.

And when that vanguard of British forces rushed upon the town green there in Lexington, Captain Parker, Captain John Parker, realizing that he is probably outgunned, outmanned, orders his troops to disperse.

And at some point, historians are unclear about exactly when, where, how, who did this, a shot rings out.

Historians still debating exactly who fired that first shot, but the nervous British shoulders fired a volley in response to how that first shot is received.

They killed seven and they mortally wounded one of the retreating militiamen, the Patriots, at that day.

The British column then moved on toward Concord from Lexington, leaving the dead.

the wounded and the dying in their wake, a part of our American history.

People dying 250 years ago today to begin to establish what would become the United States of America.

Parker and his men would have revenge, however, later on that very afternoon.

Arriving in Concrete about 8 a.m., the British commanders, their name were Francis Smith and John Pitcairn, ordered several of their companies at that time, about 220 troops in all, to secure

to ensure the security of the North Bridge across the Concord River, and then continue another mile onto a place called Barrett Farm.

You may recall much of this from your history books and your history lessons of the times that you're in school.

And it was there at Barrett Farm that a suspected cache of arms and powder was presumably, again, historians somewhat unclear on this, located.

By the time the British arrived at the North Bridge, a growing assembly

of close to 400 militia, 400 militia from Carcord and the surrounding towns had gathered on the high ground overlooking that bridge.

News of all of this, what was happening in Lexington now in Concord.

passing through the public, the community of that time.

From their vantage point on the hill, they could see some smoke, some very interesting smoke rising from Concord, the result of British burning some supplies that they had uncovered.

But thinking, thinking, however, at the time, the town itself, their own town was being put to fire, being torched at the time, Lieutenant Joseph Hosmer of Concord shouted to his fellow officers, again, the history

of 250 years ago today, he said, will you let them burn the town down?

Will you let them burn their town down?

Words that should be important to us today when we think about what we are prepared to do to preserve our own republic 250 years later.

He said, will you let them burn the town down?

The decision was then made to take action.

Colonel James Barrett ordered his companies to march upon the bridge, but not to fire.

Do not fire, he said, on the British soldiers on this first fired upon, and a thing called the Acton Company.

These are the Minutemen.