Transcript
A Return to the US and Privacy Concerns at the Social Security Administration
Amicus: A Law Review · Sat Jun 7, 2025
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.
This is amicus a lot of you on the broadcast stations of civic media My name is Jim Santel and I am your host on this broadcast both this hour and Next hour as well.
This is as always our weekly weekend wrap-up a review our analysis our examination of those major stories in the area of the delivery of justice in the area of the rule of law and yes also in the area of government operation
all of those things intertwined here on the broadcast.
When we analyze as a friend of the community, as a friend of understanding and comprehension of these major issues in our times, all of that, all of that coming up this weekend on Amicus, a lot of you, as always, you can be a part of our discussion here on our broadcast by calling in or texting in at 855-752-4842.
That number once again is 855-752-4842.
You can also be a part of our discussion by dropping to me and my producer Max a comment, a question and inquiry about the subject matters that we are going to be addressing this weekend on our broadcast.
They are many and yes indeed as always it is a lot it has been as it always seems to be these months and even these years a very busy week in the
area of rule of law issues, events, circumstances, decisions, hearings, and on and on.
Let me tell you a little bit about what we're going to attempt to cover in the next two hours here on our broadcast.
We are necessarily going to be covering at the top of our discussion this major news breaking just on Friday of this past week, having to do with deportations, an issue that we have talked about since March 15th, going back three months.
That is, the issues related to the deportations of Venezuelans and other residents, other people here in this country, deported to other places around the world, including especially that high security prison.
in El Salvador.
We're gonna be talking not only about those events, but also something that happened in a federal district court in the District of Columbia just this past week.
That is the courtroom of Judge James Bosberg.
He's the chief judge of the district court there.
We'll tell you exactly what he said as he and other judges continue not only to be frustrated, frustration doesn't begin to approach the level of dismay.
of disappointment and of condemnation that courts are now sending in the direction of the White House and in particular the Department of Justice as the constitutional crisis, which we have been in now for a long period of time, continues unabated and unresponded to by this administration.
Judge Bosberg consistently, since March 15th, asking, demanding, requiring that this government, our government, my president, my attorney general,
and yours as well.
Provide basic information about who these people are, who were deported way back on March 15th, what is their status, and most importantly what is the government going to be doing to bring them back to provide the due process that yes indeed the Supreme Court
has commanded they be afforded.
We'll talk about what Judge Bosberg did just this past week in this continuing, not just stalemate, but crisis in America, having to do with the interplay between the rule of law and people, yes indeed, among those people, my president and my attorney general, who have said that district court judges have no power
in addition to doing name calling.
We'll talk also in passing about other judges also on the precipice of finding this administration in contempt, further underscoring the
constitutional crisis.
That's Judge Paula Zinnis in Maryland.
You know well.
You know well that case.
That is the one involving.
Yes, Mr. Abrigo Garcia.
We're going to be spending a principal portion of our time in this first hour talking all about the stunning events having to do with Mr. Abrigo Garcia.
And yes, his return to the United States of America late this past week
now facing a criminal indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Tennessee.
We'll talk all about that.
We're going to delve into exactly what that indictment says.
We're going to hear from our attorney general as she describes what this is all about and takes some questions about
The motive, the reason why now, now after all of this, a period of time when the government has said that they cannot and will not abide by Judge Sinister's orders, now they have not only returned him to this country, indicating that they've got the capacity to do that all along, but also the predicates for doing so.
We'll talk about that indictment and the things that our Attorney General said that are highly troubling, not only in violation of the
press and media policies, but also once again about the attempts by this administration, by this White House, by this Department of Justice to undermine the basic respect and duties that all of us have.
to the Constitution will talk about something chilling that she said with respect to what justice means under this administration.
We necessarily need to make reference as well to a judge named Stephanie Gallagher.
She is likewise expressed outrage over the inability of this administration to return another deportee named Christian.
We'll talk once again about Judge Brian Murphy.
He is the
Massachusetts District Judge was also expressed outrage by the failure of this administration to provide some eight admittedly convicted criminals with the due process they were entitled to before shipping them off.
to places around the globe, not their places of origin, all of that, all of that in connection with this major continuing rule of law, justice delivery, justice non-delivery issue having to do with deportations in America.
It has been a busy
day or so.
In addition, it has been a busy day, not just at Maine Justice, not just in a district court in the district of Tennessee, but also right down the street on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, where your Supreme Court has been equally busy, if not even more so.
issuing not one not two not three but four major decisions just in recent days yes indeed this is that period of time this is the era every single year when the Supreme Court begins to issue
issues these major decisions in many cases that affect our lives and our livelihoods.
We'll talk about a case involving Mexico and whether it's lawsuit against the manufacturers of firearms in America can and cannot proceed.
We'll talk about an important employment discrimination case involving majority and minority populations.
How that plays in to something called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and title
seven of that, of that important law.
We'll talk about a Catholic charity right here in Wisconsin that is now going to get tax exempt status by virtue of what the Supreme Court has said in that area.
Those cases, those cases, those decisions
Perhaps not the easy ones, but nonetheless, those, the unanimous decisions, nine to zero decisions in all of those cases, which we will review.
And then there is the big one, which is going to start a review of the Supreme Court on this broadcast.
And that has to do with the Musk team.
As always, I do not refer to them as doge, notwithstanding that that is the shorthand way that the media and others have continued to refer to what Musk has done.
inside our government because this is not a department and even though there is some special employment status they have not got the status of a department inside our government nonetheless they have been given huge amount of access and indeed access to the most private and important and sensitive documents of all americans
This past week the United States Supreme Court in yet another another application another emergency application and what we have called the shadow docket once again the United States Supreme Court hands Donald Trump
And Hans Elon Musk, even as he is apparently no longer there himself, the entity called the Musk team, that's my description of it, continues to do its work, even in the midst of this more than small spat between Musk and Trump, putting that calamity and that embarrassment to one side.
The Supreme Court's decision,
basically affording access by this non-department, non-official group of people who are parading through our private documents, not only the Social Security Administration, which is the focus of this case, but also having sought access to internal revenue service documents moving from one agency to the next.
demanding access to all these materials, we will talk, we will talk about what is perhaps at least for this week, notwithstanding the seriousness and importance and gravity of those other decisions involving Mexico and employment discrimination and Catholic charities, notwithstanding the significance of those cases, we will place at the top of the list the significance, the calamity of this unsigned three paragraph order.
non-substitive, not giving reasons, but simply saying we're granting the application of this administration, of the Solicitor General, John Sauer, permitting this musk team to continue to rampage through the documents, the information, get access to social security information as they have been doing until...
Until recently, when lower district court and federal courts have said no, there's a thing called the Privacy Act.
There are structures inside the Social Security Administration put there at the time of the formation of that agency to ensure that your safety and your security, your privacy is safeguarded now, now the Supreme Court, and yet another one of these unsigned unexplained decisions has permitted Trump and Bondi
and the Musk employees to continue to get access to your social security information.
We're going to talk not only about what is not there, which is nothing from the Chief Justice or the others who supported that.
We'll talk about what the three other justices dissenting vigorously
from this decision have said I'm going to provide you with some specific language that underscores not only the significance of this decision but the outrage not only that the Supreme Court justices articulate but that you should likewise feel in the resulting from the Supreme Court decision again a decision that is in place now even while the underlying litigation the underlying challenges to this goes on it is not yet resolved and we'll talk about
the notion of irreparable harm and what the justices dissenting from this decision saying they're violently disagreeing with it what they have said in words that we can all should all be able to embrace regardless of partisan
perspective, regardless of political viewpoint, this is a decision, a latest decision from the Supreme Court of not only great import, but should be a profound concern to all Americans whose information is now accessible by virtue of the law coming out of the Supreme Court, giving these government representatives
who do not have the expertise, who do not have not had the access previously to this information, all of that now by virtue of what the Supreme Court did just this past week.
Time permitting and we want to make certain that you've got an opportunity to weigh in.
We'll also talk about some other things in lower court decisions.
Another judge reinstating the president's ban on AmeriCorps.
This is a part of our continuing segment called injunction function of the federal
records, and yes, another judge once again blocking Donald Trump's attempt to ban foreign students' enrollment at Harvard.
That injunction function continues to move apace here in the United States.
We'll talk about all of that and more as Amicus Hilaravu goes forward here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
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.
My name is Jim Santel.
Thank you for joining me and my producer here on our weekend broadcast talking about all things rule of law related.
You can be a part of our communications, our discussion about these major issues in the rule of law, the delivery of justice and government operations by calling in.
to our studio at 855-752-4842 or drop us a line, drop us a question, a comment, an inquiry to participate in this continuing important discussion about the role of our government in a time of crisis in America.
Let's get right to it.
You know well from our previous discussions and your own consumption of the news that since mid-March issues related to the deportation of various people,
do not have to be citizens of the United States of America to get the protections of our Constitution, including due process, the deportations of people from this country arrested.
transported by plane to other nations, other countries, absent the due process that they are entitled to get, as the Supreme Court and lower court judges have consistently said.
Among those judges who have told the government repeatedly, you need to provide these people with due process before you do this, are Judge James Bosberg of the District Court in the District of Columbia, Judge Paula Zinnis of the District Court in the District of
of Maryland.
She is the one who has specifically been presiding over this very famous case involving Kilmer, Armando, Abrego Garcia, more on that coming up.
Another judge, Stephanie Gallagher, she is also in Maryland.
She is likewise had her hair on fire appropriately so angry at the Department of Justice as our judge, judges Bosberg and Zinnis because they're not complying with the directives.
They're not providing the basic information that a judge
can properly demand of litigants in front of her or him.
They are in contempt.
of what the courts are directing, and the judges have come to the edge of saying just that.
And have in fact found probable cause to believe, as Judge Bozburg has, that indeed the government is purposely thwarting, not responding to, not obeying the rules and directives of a federal judge.
That is the reason why, among others, that we are undeniably in a crisis of constitutional dimension.
Added to that, Judge Brian Murphy also,
Also, hair on fire, equally saying to the litigants in front of him, and yes, their attorney's representing your department of justice, refusing to tell the judge where those deportees, their aid in particular, where they are in the face of the planet, and why it is that they were transported presumably to places not of their country of origin without even providing them with the notice that the law
passed by the Congress requires all of that, all of that in the summary history of an awful lot of litigation history in recent weeks, coming back now to Judge Bosberg.
A lot of history preceding this, this past week, Judge Bosberg in his latest hearing, full of patience, full of giving the Department of Justice your government a huge amount of latitude for three months now.
in failing to provide him what he wants.
He finally says this past Wednesday that he has had enough.
It's undeniably a bombshell ruling because of what he has found with respect to the conduct of your government, of your Attorney General, of your Department of Justice.
He holds that the Trump administration, in his words, plainly deprived immigrants, migrants of their constitutional rights by sending them to that prison in El Salvador.
without due process under the Alien Enemies Act.
What specifically does Judge Bozerg now say?
In his latest hearing of just this past week, he is at the end of his rope and he's letting the government know about it while he is even giving them more of an opportunity to remedy this.
Here's what he says.
He says, as is now clear, the prison members, he's making reference to this CCOT class of prisoners now in El Salvador.
We're entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removability Pursuant to the proclamation he goes on to say this in a 69 page order This is not this is not the kind of thing that we're getting out of the Supreme Court these days, which is nothing This is a district court judge who is
completely, completely transparent, telling us exactly the reason why he's doing what he's doing.
Judge Bosford goes on to say that process, which was improperly withheld, must now be afforded to them.
If you've not been clear in the past government, be clear now.
Bosford gave the administration one week, one more week, to tell the court how it planned to facilitate the migrant's ability to contest their summary.
absent due process removals under the Alien Enemies Act, making him the first federal judge among all of these, all of these, to rule on the fate of these men since they were deported on March 15th in defiance of his court orders of that day and since that time.
Judge Bozier goes on to say this, that while his prescribed remedy may implicate sensitive diplomatic or national security concerns, which is what the government has said in response to much
of Judge Bosberg's directive to them to comply.
Such issues, he says, fail to surmount the executive branch's constitutional duty to do what?
To make good the wrong done.
To make good the wrong done by depriving these migrants, these Venezuelans of their rights.
He's borrowing from a phrase in a very famous 1946 Supreme Court case called Bell versus Hood, making
good on what was previously wrong.
Regarding those issues, the judge directed the administration, your attorney general, to submit proposals detailing how she, they, the Department of Justice, plans to provide these men with the means to challenge their incarceration.
What are you going to do, Pam Bondi, to abide by the law?
It goes on to say, mindful of national security and foreign policy concerns, the court will not, at least yet.
order the government to take any specific steps, once again, giving them a whole lot of latitude after three months of a great deal of latitude.
Judge goes on to say it will instead allow defendants to submit proposals regarding the appropriate actions that would allow plaintiffs, those are the migrants, those are the people in that prison, to actually seek habeas relief.
In short, he says the government must facilitate the habeas corpus relief to contest the removal under the act
and must do that promptly.
When we come back, I'll tell you more about that decision of the judge.
We'll get to the Abrego Garcia indictment and what your attorney general said about that piece of this rule of law issue when Amicus, a law review, continues.
This is amicus a lot of you my name Jim Santel here on the broadcast stations of civic media talking necessarily about the major stories of this past week including perhaps at the top of the list although it is often difficult to rank order them given what has happened this past week
Talking specifically once again about deportees, those 250 or so deported on March 15th without due process, sent to El Salvador, incurring by virtue of the non-responsiveness and contemptuous behavior of the U.S.
Department of Justice, the ire and the anger of Judge James Bosberg, who is frustrated beyond words.
with what the government has not done this past week, saying that he is now going to craft at least a way forward, telling the government that the...
Petitioners, the plaintiffs here in this case, the deportees, do in fact have a right to habeas corpus relief and saying this, in light of the well-established law of remedies in the example, that has already been set by all three levels of the federal judiciary.
He's talking about the fact that the Supreme Court, the appeals court, the district court have all said unanimously, due process, due process, due process, defendants, and that is your government.
That is, those are the secretaries sitting around the cabinet table, have to facilitate the plane of stability to proceed through habeas corpus proceedings, challenging their detention, and ensure that their cases are handled as they would have been if the government, here we go, had not provided constitutionally inadequate process, the judge writes.
The court determines that such a remedy balances the defendant's distinct role in conducting foreign affairs with the grave need.
to right their legal wrongs.
Absent that relief, Judge Bosberg says the government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action.
Those are strong words.
Those are strong words coming from any federal district court judge, those of just days ago.
Needless to say, the government
your administration, the White House responds, as they have done before, a deputy press secretary named Abigail Jackson, stunningly refused the Constitution by saying this.
Judge Bosberg has no authority to intervene with immigration or national security, authority that rests squarely with the President Trump and the executive branch, his current and previous attempts to prevent President Trump from deporting criminal illegal aliens poses a direct threat to the safety of the American people.
Fortunately for the.
American people, Judge Bosberg does not have the last word, but that's the only thing she said that is true, because indeed all of this will once again be subject to appeal, probably going back to the Supreme Court at some point down the road, but in all of these cases, including the case involving Judge, before Judge Zinnis, involving a Brego Garcia, the case in front of Judge Gallagher, Judge Murphy, all of them are coming back.
one day to the Supreme Court for further enforcement.
The fundamental takeaway with respect to what the White House has said is that it is simply wrong.
Regardless of your view about international matters, whether deportations are right or wrong in particular instances, that's what the point is.
That's due process.
And she is simply wrong in saying, as has our Attorney General, that a federal district court judge has no power to act.
That is contrary to what James Madison wrote in our Constitution, and the White House should know better.
Maybe they need some civic straining.
Our Attorney General plainly does, but they continue not only to say those things in violation of the law, regardless of your political persuasion, your partisan viewpoint.
We must all agree that judges have a role to play.
The fact that as late as this past week, the White House continues to
Promote this notion that the Constitution gives the president unbridled authority to do things simply wrong.
What has happened in connection with the Abrago Garcia case?
Perhaps one of the biggest rule of law stories in this past week.
You know well, we're going to review right now the indictment.
The federal grand jury indictment issued out of the middle district of Tennessee will get to the reason why it comes from that district in just a moment or so.
The middle district of Tennessee, the national division, United States, America versus Kilmer, Armando, Abrego, Garcia and indictment under four.
different sections of Title VIII of the United States Code and indictment returned by a federal grand jury, as we've talked before.
These are somewhere approaching, if not at 23 people who determine whether or not there's probable cause to believe that crimes have been committed.
A proper indictment returned by a grand jury coming out of that district
just this past week announced by our Attorney General.
And before this hour is out, we're going to hear expressly from our Attorney General, important to hear from her because of the things that she says, the way that she describes this indictment, the things that she does not say.
about the presumption of innocence that still attends Mr. Abrego Garcia in the wake of this indictment.
The things that she does say that are not in this indictment, additional allegations now in the public domain to sully the very
movement forward of this case?
What does the indictment say?
What are the four corners of this 10-page indictment?
It is structured somewhat oddly, candidly, but nonetheless, in broad strokes and in some specifics, it describes it from 2016 to about 2025.
As late as this year, Kilmar Armando, Arbrego Garcia, and others known to the grand jury, many other co-conspirators identified just by names, by letters, and by numbers.
not by specific names in this indictment, conspired to bring undocumented aliens to the United States from countries like Guatemala and El Salvador and Honduras, Ecuador and elsewhere.
Ultimately passing through Mexico before crossing into Texas, and the indictment alleges that they did all this with these undocumented aliens without authorization to enter the United States of America.
A lot about this illegal transportation accomplished by, allegedly, by Abrego Garcia and these co-conspirators identified as CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, and CC5.
They note, they note that Abrego Garcia and
all these others were citizens of El Salvador.
Interestingly, surplusage in this indictment, that they were not United States citizens.
Perhaps once again the...
author of this indictment on behalf of the grand jury, once again, missing the point that whether you're a citizen or not, you're entitled to due process.
But nonetheless, that's in paragraph four early on in this indictment, alleging as well, oh, by the way, something that has been out there for a while now in an indictment that Mr. Abraigo Garcia was in fact a part of a transnational criminal organization known as MS-13.
This criminal enterprise engages again in a law
list of things like murder and extortion, narcotics trafficking, firearms trafficking, aliens smuggling, money laundering, all kinds of things in this indictment.
Goes on to say in count one, which is under section 1324 of title eight called conspiracy to transport aliens.
Coming out once again of the middle district of Tennessee.
Hold on to that for just a moment.
that all of these folks, the conspirators, along with Mr. Abrego Garcia, acted illegally, enabling these folks to cross into the United States, into Texas without inspection.
CC6, one of these co-conspirators, was the primary sources of supply of undocumented aliens for the conspiracy.
Lots of things about other co-conspirators, in addition.
in addition to Armando Garcia, talks a lot about these undocumented aliens, once again, coming from Texas to other parts of the United States of America, and that all of these co-conspirators, of course, acted together.
Noting, for example, that CC-1 was released from prison and deported.
CC-1 illegally re-entered the United States.
Some information about these other co-conspirators.
We hear as well about the transportation of firearms illegally purchased in Texas for distribution and resale in where?
In Maryland.
We talk again about these undocumented aliens being transported
with the firearms, also along with narcotics purchased in Texas for distribution in other places.
Interesting conversation in this indictment, sort of a talking indictment about the use of cash for facilitating the transport through the United States of these various people improperly here, transported generally
And throughout the United States, interestingly, reporting that some of the co-conspirators refused to pay for the transportation services, but the gang members and the associates of Mr. Abrego Garcia transported, generally treated many of these folks with respect and also paid for his transportation services.
An interesting reference to the relationship.
among them, again indicating that the MS-13 members and associates
of Albrego Garcia, transported generally, treated Albrego Garcia with respect, suggesting of course that he may have been at the head of this conspiracy.
Additional language related again to the thousands of dollars of criminal proceeds derived rather from this conspiracy, making some life references to wire fraud perhaps along the way to obscure the recipient's money.
also talking perhaps about money laundering itself as this cash and other sources of income are distributed talking about the fact that the group took the undocumented aliens cellular telephones from them when they transported them throughout the united states providing them back to the undocumented aliens at the end of the trip saying they did this to ensure that the aliens could not and would not contact anyone else during the trip they describe the fact that much of this transportation
was done in an unsafe manner.
They talk about a repeated reference to aftermarket unattached seating rows in some of the vehicles transporting children on the floorboards of vehicles in order to maximize profits here.
This references to luggage that were being used just crossing the border, false cover stories being maintained about a construction job that was in fact, according to the allegations in the indictment, not real.
references to one of the co-conspirators, C.C.
Sick, Sick's, his criminal activities involving the transportation of more than 150 migrants that ended when the tractor trailer carrying them overturned in Mexico, resulting in the deaths of 50 of them.
That attributed to this particular co-conspirator, and by virtue of the conspiracy law in America, if indeed Mr. Abrego Garcia is as alleged a part of this conspiracy, that too can be
imputed to him.
Other occasions throughout this, making reference to, interestingly, the abuse of Mr. Abrego Garcia of some of the female undocumented aliens.
Knowing that this was bad for business, one of the co-conspirators reported these allegations of abuse and Abrego Garcia apparently stopped.
Again, according to the allegations, reference to a hundred trips
between Texas and Maryland.
And finally, this reference to Tennessee, a stop that happens on November 30th of 2022, a state trooper stopping along the Texas highway there, I-40 in Putnam County, Tennessee.
At the time, the traffic stop captured on video, Brego Garcia is the driver of a suburban, according to the allegations, nine additional passengers there along the way.
According to the indictment, knowingly and falsely telling that state trooper that all these folks were coming from St.
Louis.
falsely stating that they had been there for two weeks doing some construction work, some representations that in fact that is not true.
There's once again a reference to an aftermarket third row of seats placed where a cargo area should have been occupied by undocumented passengers.
All of that in this indictment along with forfeiture allegations.
When we come back in our final segment, what did our Attorney General say about all this?
What did she say?
What did she not say?
And why is that hugely important as this case proceeds as we continue to talk here on Amicus, a
law review?
My name's Jim Santel.
For the remainder of this hour and also next hour as we talk about the rule of law in America, and yes indeed the things that the Chief Federal Law Enforcement Officer for the United States says and does not say about this major indictment against Kilmar Amando, Abrego Garcia, returned by a federal grand jury, establishing probable cause to believe that he committed many, many crimes, including conspiracy, that of course, to be the sub...
of what?
A trial, where that will be determined by a jury.
A jury in a federal district court, presumably in the middle district of Tennessee by virtue of this stop, this patrol stop that happened, also described in this indictment.
Let's listen to what our attorney general said about this indictment.
The return of Abrego Garcia to this country to face that charges.
And as you listen to this, ask yourself,
Where is the statement about his presumption of innocent as we say about every single other defendant who is charged in a federal court?
Ask yourself whether she is remaining within the four corners of this indictment.
Ask yourself what she says and what she does not say about what is indeed charged against Mr. Albrego Garcia.
This on Friday, from the Department of Justice, Maine Justice in Washington, D.C., my attorney general, your attorney general, Pam Bondi, announcing what justice means in America under this administration.
Pamela Bondi.
We're here today to announce a major update in an important case.
A Brega Garcia has landed in the United States to face justice.
On May 21st, a grand jury in the Middle District of Tennessee returned a sealed indictment charging a Brega Garcia with alien smuggling and conspiracy to commit alien smuggling in violation of Title 8 USC 1324.
We want to thank President Bukele for agreeing to return Ebrego Garcia to the United States.
Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant, and they agreed to return him to our country.
We're grateful to President Bukele for agreeing to return him to our country to face these very serious charges.
This is what American justice looks like.
Upon completion of his sentence, we anticipate he will be returned to his home country of El Salvador.
The grand jury found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring.
They found this was his full-time job, not a contractor.
He was a smuggler of humans and children and women.
He made over a hundred trips the grand jury found Smuggling people throughout our country MS 13 members violent gang terrorist organization members throughout our country Thousands of illegal aliens were smuggled This is especially disturbing because
Abrego Garcia is also alleged with transporting minor children.
The defendant traded the innocence of minor children for profit.
There are even more disturbing facts that the grand jury uncovered.
It is alleged this defendant is part of the same smuggling ring responsible for the death of more than 50 migrants in 2021 after the tractor trailer overturned in Mexico.
This is part of that same ring.
The defendant abused undocumented alien females according to co-conspirators who were under his control while transporting them throughout our country.
This defendant trafficked firearms and narcotics throughout our country on multiple occasions.
They were using vehicles, SUVs, with added seats in the back, floors that had been ripped out, guns, narcotics, children, women, MS-13 members.
That is what the grand jury found.
A co-conspirator alleged that the defendant solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor.
A co-conspirator also alleges the defendant played a role in the murder of a rival gang member's mother.
These facts demonstrate Ebrego Garcia is a danger to our community.
We want to thank the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, our state and local partners, our acting U.S.
Attorney Robert McGuire, and prosecutors from the Joint Task Force, Vulcan.
Questions?
The traffic stop that we've seen video of from Tennessee where Alberto Garcia was first identified by the local authorities at the time.
The Homeland Security Department declined to take custody of him.
What has happened in between that time and in between the time that the government has been arguing that he was not returnable from El Salvador?
What has happened since in this investigation that brought you here?
Yes, the question was, in 2021, there was the traffic stop.
And what has changed since then?
What has changed is Donald Trump is now president of the United States, and our borders are, again, secure.
thanks to the bright light that has been shined on Abrego Garcia.
This investigation continued with actually amazing police work.
And we were able to track this case and stop this international smuggling ring from continuing.
But these were recently found facts,
right?
Yes,
recently found facts.
To that point, can you just explain when this investigation was opened?
The investigation in Tennessee, can you say when that investigation was opened?
Well, the grand jury indicted on May 21st.
This investigation has been ongoing.
There is so very much to unpack in connection with those statements made by my attorney general, your attorney general.
all about the things that she did not say, no statement about a presumption of innocence, and representations not in the indictment, also stated by my Attorney General.
In the top of our second hour, we'll take those apart, we'll talk about those.
As our discussion here continues of rule of law things related to deportations and also the United States Supreme Court, here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
My name is Jim Santel, coming to you from Racine and Radio Park here, broadcast stations of Civic Media.
But as always, inviting your questions, your comments, your inquiries, your observations into our discussion in this second hour of our weekend broadcast, that phone number, 855-752-4842, 855-752-4842.
Max, my producer and I, delighted and honored you are spending some time with us in this weekend broadcast, talking all about the rule of law, specifically the latest.
bombshell blockbuster developments when it comes to deportations and due process in America, highlighted this past week by the announcement late this past week by the attorney general that, yes, indeed, as you heard at the end of our first hour on this broadcast, that as she described him, Abrego Garcia is back in America.
A number of observations, not only about that, but about the manner in which this was conducted, that is the public.
media announcement of what has happened.
We know that he was brought back.
He is here apparently in Tennessee.
He is in custody.
He is presumably going to be the subject of future proceedings there in front of magistrate judges and district court judges to whom this case is now presented because he is now a defendant in a federal court having been on the receiving end of a federal indictment by a grand jury.
That's our process.
And that is the due process.
He has the entitlement now to defend against that by filing the motions that Amy seek to file, by pursuing all of the mechanisms afforded to defendants, just as the prosecution under our system likewise afforded the mechanisms for going ahead to accurately, comprehensively, and yes indeed, aggressively prosecute this case.
The comments I make are not, are not about the merits or demerits of the specific allegations.
It is a laundry list.
It is a laundry list of all kinds of things, almost, almost superficially, seemingly responsive to many of the things that have been said about Albrego Garcia in recent weeks.
They're all there.
They're all there.
Question whether or not the content of this really does indeed focus exclusively on the
the conspiracy again to bring these undocumented aliens into the United States.
But that, once again, the subject of another determination to be made by a grand jury after this is presented to a trial jury, to a trial jury in a federal district court there in Tennessee.
Why is that important as a factual matter?
And the answer is, of course, because the very fact that our attorney general has effectuated,
As accomplished, yes, yes, lose the word, facilitated the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia to this nation means that for the past three months,
in direct defiance to Judge Bosberg and others, the government could have done it all along.
That's what Judge Bosberg was demanding just on Wednesday of this past week and for the previous weeks.
That's what judges Gallagher and Zinnis and Murphy have been asking for, specifically Judge Zinnis.
She is the one who's been presiding over this case, pending there in the district of Maryland.
She is the one who's been commanding the...
that the body in the words of the habeas corpus language be returned and getting no response and it turns out of course that the government could do it all along and that affirms the contempt
the misbehavior, the misconduct of our government, even now as Mr. Abrego Garcia is back here.
It reveals, it reveals the lack of integrity and the lack of transparency, the lack of rightness by our government.
And now doing this, seemingly an attempt, if you will, to justify
their administrative error in the first place, which is exactly what the Department of Justice, the representatives before Judge Zinnis have previously said.
This was an error and Judge Zinnis said correct that error, never done until now, and the basis of this indictment.
That is a serious issue.
that will probably be the subject of further proceedings in front of Judge Zinnis, even as the criminal case proceeds in front of another judge in the Middle District of Tennessee.
For now, the more important issue related to the things that my Attorney General failed to say, in any case, whether there is a defendant named Donald Trump,
Hunter Biden or Eric Adams or Luigi Mangione all those people previously been charged with federal offenses What do the the prosecutors always say?
They always say to warn to advise the public that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty that is a fundamental proposition of every single Prop prosecution every single case that is presented
to the American population and also to a trial jury.
It was missing, was it not, from the statement made by my attorney general.
It arguably, arguably undermines the entire statement.
You can even make representations, if you will, about the tone by which he described all of this and almost the self-justifying purpose for this indictment.
Again, not in any way today commenting upon the merits.
It may well be
It may well be, as Judge Wilkinson has said in the Fourth Circuit, as we read on this broadcast previously, it may well be that Mr. Abrego Garcia has done all of these things.
He said, perhaps, perhaps not.
That's what a trial is all about.
That's what a proceeding in front of a deportation judge, now a federal judge, is all about finally, apparently,
the Department of Justice understood what Judge Wilkinson was saying many weeks ago in affirming what Judge Zinnis had done.
Perhaps, but perhaps not, the point is get this man back here and give him some due process.
Now we get him back here, pursuant to the Supreme Court directed to facilitate his return in a mechanism that frankly, few of us, if any of us, anticipated a federal grand jury indictment that again raises the issue.
of what is the motive for doing this.
That too can be the subject of a defensive motion alleging not only improper prosecutorial motive, but also, also based upon the representations made and not made in front of Judge Zinnis and arguably in front of Judge Bosberg as well, a misrepresentation that, that inheres in and is all about prosecutorial misconduct.
Let's talk even more significantly about what Pam Bondi did, did say.
encapsulated, as did I, a lot of what is in this indictment.
And that's the rule when it comes to announcing these kinds of things to the American public.
You stay within the four corners of the document.
That is legitimate.
That is a statement that advises the public, the American population, what this is all about.
You can go online and you can read the indictment.
And I would say that most of the things that she said, even with her tone and even with the way in which she described
them, there is foundation for them in the allegations in the indictment.
It is significantly that during the course of her statement, she also said some things about Mr. Abrego-Carcia that are not in the indictment.
that are unmistakably intended merely to inflame.
What did she say?
She also said nowhere in the indictment does this appear that Mr. Braco Garcia also solicited nude photographs of minor children.
That's child pornography.
That does not appear in the indictment.
She also went on to say that somehow he was involved in the murder of the mother of one of his co-gang members, one of the co-conspirators, also not in the indictment.
There was an allegation of murder and all
sorts of other things, but those kinds of very serious charges.
The Attorney General of the United States of America decides to say these things out loud for one purpose, and that is to inflame the American population.
The indictment speaks for itself.
The government speaks through the statements made in court based upon the representations of fact, based upon evidence presented, the things put in pleadings.
Those are the ways that the government through integrity presents these cases to the American population.
I would offer to you for your consideration.
regardless of what your political views and partisan perspectives may be, this is not any of that.
This is an attorney general who failed to embrace as she has failed to embrace in other situations.
The fundamental notion that people charged with crimes are presumed innocent.
Nothing about my statements indicate any belief, any conclusion.
I know nothing more than you do about the content, the substance, the evidence to support those allegations.
That's what a jury will find.
All the more reason why my attorney general needed to reaffirm that notion and not add on these other.
very, very incendiary representations about child pornography and murder of a mother of a co-conspirator.
As always, we appreciate your phone calls, your texts, your comments.
We've got lots of folks coming in.
Appreciate so much and value all of that.
Dale calling in from Wausau this morning.
Dale, glad to have you on the program this weekend.
Yes, thank you, Jim and Max.
In this latest Supreme Court ruling, what I would like to know is, why do six of the nine justices on the US Supreme Court feel that the people of the US have no right to privacy from this administration, Musk and his gang of 20-some-year-old kids in their forays into people's private information in the Social Security Administration, IRS, immigration?
and probably various other U.S.
departments.
Your thoughts, Jim.
Always on the syllabus here.
This is this major decision issued by the Supreme Court late this Friday, just this past week, indicating indeed this so-called Musk team can in fact have access to sensitive records, millions of Americans held by the Social Security Administration,
shadow docket emergency application.
We're going to get to that next day and talk exactly about what you've identified, which is the fact that six members of our Supreme Court believe that there should not be the privacy that's previously attended those documents.
Thankfully, although not with compelling force in the end, three members say just the opposite.
I'm going to spend some time talking about exactly what Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan and Katanji Brown Jackson said in support of.
your appropriate outrage mind too, we'll get to that next.
Dale, thanks for the call and the inquiry about all of that.
Let's go next to Ali, Ali coming in also this weekend on our broadcast.
Thank you for your comment, your question, your observation.
Well, I just was wondering if is it normal for them to have such fine details?
Yes.
Yes.
And just, I mean, just seems to me like outrageously fine details.
If they knew all this, why didn't they talk to the judge about this?
Why wouldn't they forthcoming with all this information before?
How did it just creep up now?
And I was also wondering
If anything has been said, now that he's back in the States, if he actually has the tattoos on his... Yes.
hands that were supposedly photoshopped
About which the president spoke very notoriously not too long ago.
Ali all great questions.
Let me see if I can take them as to the tattoos.
We'll find out presumably as as we see him appear and presumably get more now that he is back in the United States admittedly through this mechanism.
We did not anticipate as to the fine detail.
Often we do get indictments that have that fine detail or sometimes called talking indictments.
This arguably is kind
of a combination of both of them.
You don't have to allege all of that, but it's not improper to do so.
My observation is that again, this is an indictment that basically alleges alien smuggling and all these other things are part of it, arguably surplusage.
And the detail is sometimes they are in indictment.
So when we come back, I'll answer Ali's third question about the big question about why it is we're finding out about this now, as opposed
to those hearings in front of Judge Zinnis.
All of that as Amicus Allah Review continues.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
My name Jim Santel.
We are talking in this segment previous segments as well of Amicus a lot of you all about the return by a grand jury in the Middle District of Tennessee of a multi-page two-count indictment against a brago Garcia alleging importantly What is the allegations the unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens?
and, and also much related to that, conspiracy to transport aliens under various subsections of Title VIII of the United States Code.
And that goes to one of the questions that Ollie just asked, which is, what about all this detail about all these other crimes there?
Well, again, it can be there if the grand jury does, in fact, make findings of all those kinds of things.
Ali referred to it appropriately as the fine detail in here.
It may be a part of a, of a so-called talking indictment question whether or not it really needs to be there.
What is the purpose of it being there?
If it doesn't directly support the principle focused allegations again of the transportation of aliens.
the conspiracy to do so.
It certainly fleshes things out again on the assumption that the allegations are true if in fact they are proven at a trial.
But I think Ali, your observation is well taken that we try typically in these circumstances to tailor an indictment
around those things that will be specifically proven.
And now, now, the Department of Justice is arguably obliged to prove all of this, all of these other things that we have identified, that the Attorney General identified, in the context of a trial about a much
equally important, but much narrower charge of undocumented alien transportation.
An important point to recognize.
And then the larger issue that Ali also identifies, which is we're finding out about this now, why before we played in part some portions of the follow up questions, the press conference went on much beyond what we have played here on our broadcast, played in part the questions that got us to that by the media, basically asking the attorney general, why is this coming out now?
When did this investigation start?
She talked about the fact that yes, his name and the notoriety.
plainly in the case involving Judge Zinnis in her court, brought some light to him, and based upon that, going back and putting this together after, unmistakably after all of this with respect to his deportation to El Salvador had begun in March, she indicated basically this started in April.
Again, as the world, as the nation, as the government was talking about who this person is, now, now put together
Perhaps, arguably, and this could well be the allegation in a motion to dismiss, a motion to challenge this prosecution.
What is the purpose of doing this other than to justify the statements you previously made without support?
Now you've got a grand jury, admittedly, who has acknowledged that these things happened.
And it does, in fact, only go back to your central point, which is, what do you say now to Judge Zinnis after all of this?
Why didn't you come forward if you had all this previous information and provide her, even in camera, even without public disclosure, the things that you had make a proffer about what you had in connection with who this person is.
in response and in complete response to getting him back here.
And that's the big point, right?
Finally, finally, the government exhibits its capacity to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to this country, something it could have done by March 20th, five days after he was transported there under arrest without due process, without the kinds of things that he's now going to be afforded very late in all of this.
Judge Zinnis, I'm sure will have a lot of questions about what was going on.
in all these months, as will Judge Boesberg, and arguably judges Gallagher and Murphy as well.
Not done with all of this, a lot more to come in that prosecution, coming out of the Middle District of Tennessee.
Much more also from my Attorney General, who again, again in this instance,
inflaming the population in a way that she does not need to do, in a way that actually is contrary to the best interest not only of justice, but even the interest of the Department of Justice in getting a prosecution here.
Because by saying these things beyond the scope of the indictment, going down these roads about things not alleged, you also tend to invite the very motion to strike, to dismiss,
to challenge all of this based upon inappropriate prosecutorial misconduct.
We'll see what happens.
But big, big news coming out of the Department of Justice, coming out of all these courts, coming out of America in connection with due process and habeas corpus and the ways that under our Constitution, we work in America.
We also work in America, as you know well.
We work in other ways with respect to the United States Supreme Court.
All of that, all of that, also much of this, also before the United States Supreme Court, we know that they have also reaffirmed on at least one, if not two occasions, the absolute obligation of the government to afford the Abraigo Garcia's of the world, the due process that they are entitled to, and continues in some ways to address these issues as they percolate up from the lower courts.
into the appellate courts, finally into the United States Supreme Court.
So from the Supreme Court as well, we will continue to hear a lot.
We're also going to hear in just a moment or so about the other cases not involving deportation that the Supreme Court issued just this past week in other major areas of our lives and livelihoods.
Before we get to that, a couple more callers.
So appreciate the discussion this weekend in our broadcast.
Gene, appreciate your being a part of our discussion, calling in from Eau Claire.
Always delighted to have you with us.
Always delighted to have you on every Saturday morning.
You haven't missed one.
Anyway, I want to see, um, now my family calls me Sherlock because I look at all the pictures and want to figure things out.
I don't know.
Okay.
So anyway, with, with the thing coming out three week or three months later.
Okay.
All of a sudden, remember.
something in the bill that was passed by the House to weaken judges in this bill.
And it just seems to me that it is like, oh, we're going to do this, and we have all this stuff on the sky.
And you know what I mean?
And try to make the judges that said, you bring them back.
this type of thing, because they kind of throw things out in the air to confuse people in
Exactly, Gene.
And we'll talk, let me take that and answer that after our next break here, because it isn't related with the legislation pending with respect to the authority of judges.
And we'll talk more about that right after this break, Gene.
Thank you for the comment, the observation, the question.
We'll continue right after this on Amicus Allah Review.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is amicus a law review your weekly weekend review of all things rule of law related justice related government related right before the break Chatting with Ali who called in to inquire very broadly very appropriately about this
movement on Capitol Hill to prevent federal district court judges, presumably like judges Bosberg and Zinnis and Gallagher and Murphy and others in many other areas from doing their jobs, trying to restrict their jurisdiction through a couple of different mechanisms involving the contempt authorities of federal judges, bond requirements, all those kinds of things.
Indeed, that's still out there.
That is still very much out there.
This is the interplay between the rule of law and legislation.
Congress, an entity we have not spoken a lot about, but also involved in the rule of law.
To Ali's good point, we know that just this past week, federal district court judge named Deborah Boardman, she's in Maryland.
She temporarily blocked the Trump administration's wholesale dismantling of AmeriCorps.
That's that independent federal agency that, what does it do?
It facilitates public community service opportunities and reversing the determination of...
Frankly, many, many grants, volunteer network capabilities across 24 different states.
That just happened on Thursday of this past week.
And once again, another district court judge, we've heard from her before, named as Ellison Burroughs.
He was district court Massachusetts once again, blocking Donald Trump and the administration in his efforts to prevent Harvard University from enrolling international students.
And that, of course, a part of the ongoing dispute, the fight, the battle.
between the administration and Harvard, all of that and many other cases involving federal district courts and the exercise of their authority.
That again, tying this all together, my attorney general, your department of justice has said,
Federal judges have no capacity to do it in violation of the clear language, the clear meaning, the import of the Constitution of the United States of America.
All of that going on in America.
All of that, again, appreciating your comments, your questions.
Let's go to Mark next.
Mark, you've been on the line for a while.
Your comment, your question, your inquiry this morning.
A couple of things.
I'm concerned about what happens, what course of action citizens will have if their information is misused.
and this doge take over our information, whether the presidential immunity or governmental immunity would apply if our information is stolen as a result of these guys having such access to it.
Additionally, I find it somewhat amusing, Pam Bondi's high dungeon over this man, Alberto Garcia, accusing him of sexual exploitation of women.
and with you know it you know i must lay this revelation that uh... alleging that donald trump is in the act in the obscene files in a pam body because she's likely seen that information if she's aware of anything if donald trump is in those files and if he has this evidence in those files that he did exploit or abuse you know women especially young women in those files does she have any obligation to
To reveal that information or will she is she actually going to suppress that information because if if.
That information is exonerating of Donald Trump, it should actually be released and if not, I mean that we should.
we should know all the skeletons that are in those closets.
And Mark Wright, your points go to transparency once again, whether it's in the connection with a federal criminal action, a civil action, basically disclosures.
The Department of Justice has an awful lot of obligation again to provide the population with information that is relevant to ensure its safety and security, just information to know about what government is and is not.
doing all those things especially appreciate mark just as you have followed up in the comments by dale previously this focus upon the supreme court case of justice past week involving the musk team and the decision by the supreme court to give them the leave that they've been seeking
Notwithstanding what lower courts have said to get access to your social security information, let's go to that right now.
Again, the Supreme Court issuing what can only be considered a blockbuster ruling.
Once again, the problems with it, it comes out of a decision that is not explained.
It is about a three or four page statement by the majority, a six to three majority, basically saying, we conclude that under the present circumstances, the Social Security Administration may proceed to afford members of the, I'm gonna call it the Musk team, access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.
That is the most description we get from this Supreme Court about the reason why on this emergency application,
the shadow docket application reversing the lower courts now now as of late this past week the musk team the vestiges of it which continue to do work there in washington dc they can show up on monday morning at the social security administration with the imprimatur of your supreme court now why is that important well you know why that's important and indeed it is important as articulated by the dissenters notwithstanding what the majority has said without
explanation.
The dissenters have chosen to be quite clear and from the writings of Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson and Justice Sotomayor, we get
and earful about why this decision is improper, following up not only upon the security issues that Mark and Dale and others, I suspect many of you would articulate, here's what, here's what Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, with whom the others concur say about this.
She says, today the court grants emergency relief that allows the Social Security Administration to handle the staffers from Musk, the highly sensitive data of millions of Americans
The government states that it wants to give this entity unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now.
Right now.
Before the courts have had time to assess whether that access is lawful.
So...
She says the government asked the court to stay a lower court's decision to place temporary and qualified limits on this data access while litigation challenging this authority to the access is pending.
And that's the point, right?
Again, the underlying litigation is pending.
We do not have resolutions of it.
And Justice Jackson, as do the others say, what is the rush?
Why are we now exposing all of this information?
What is the immediacy of this petition?
And she goes on to say the government fails to substantiate its stay request.
This petition from the Department of Justice by showing that it or the public will suffer.
Irreparable harm, absent this court's immediate intervention, in essence the urgency, and she puts that in quotes, underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.
Importantly, Justice Jackson and the others, take the opportunity.
as if it's not out there already.
And it's important to note that while this has not become the law of the case, it is a part of the official records of the Supreme Court.
She says the Social Security Administration and the sensitive data it collects are well known to Americans who entrust their information to that government agency.
Social security numbers, birth dates, addresses, bank account numbers, medical records, all of that and more is in the mix.
Every person
The Justice says, who has received a Social Security number appears in this data.
And beyond the identification numbers and retirement benefits that bear the agency's name, the administration also administers a host of other programs, such as the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, which collects detailed
medical history, describing, for example, prescriptions, mental health treatments, and testing results for sensitive health conditions like HIV, all of that from applicants and beneficiaries.
She talks at great length about the import of the
Privacy Act to protect the privacy of individuals identified in information systems maintained by federal agencies, and says this, to protect against the significant privacy ricks that the government's handling of Americans sensitive information creates, the Privacy Act regulates federal agencies collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of that data.
She goes on to say in compelling language that every American should know even though this is the losing decision This is the losing side of this proposition.
She goes on to say it should come as no surprise then the Social Security Administration has long followed a policy of restricting access to personal records the agency maintains consistent with the Privacy Act and similar laws.
This is what the Social Security Administration has been doing since the time of its creation
Record evidence reflects that this Musk team received far broader data access from Social Security, customarily affording others.
based upon fraud, waste, and abuse reviews.
In other words, going well beyond what the Social Security Administration already had to give to these folks, a former acting chief of staff at the SSA, according to the writing of the members of the Supreme Court, recounted that similar investigations typically, in his words, start with access to high level, anonymized data based on the least amount of data the analyst or auditor would need to know.
And then only if suspicious entries appear would the reviewer then gain access to more granular, non-anomaniased data limited to just that subset of files.
This is a particularized explanation inside this dissent by the three justices to explain how the limitation of the Trump of the Musk and Trump team was not complete.
but was graded and graded based upon the history of how this is done in the past.
Just as Katangi Brown Jackson goes on to say, just last week, I wrote about the requirements for granting stay applications, and in particular, how this court's emergency docket practices were decoupling from the traditional harm reduction justification for equitable stays.
She is complaining there once again about the fact that with great frequency, with great feverish speed,
What are we seeing every single week?
The United States Supreme Court issuing these major decisions that change the geography of our lives and our livelihoods based upon virtually nothing, at least not in the public domain, not getting the benefit of oral argument, not getting the benefit of...
presentations made to the Supreme Court, writings by lawyers.
She goes on to say, with today's decision, it seems as if the court has truly lost its moorings.
Let me repeat that.
She says with today's decision, it seems as if the court has truly lost its moorings.
It interferes with the lower courts, informed and equitable assessment of how the administration's data is best accessed during the course of this.
Pending litigation and it does so without any showing any showing by the government.
That's your department of justice That's the attorneys.
That's the solicitor general in front of the Supreme Court to the extent he was arguing about this at all and he was That it does so without any showing by the government that it will actually suffer consequences
concrete, irreparable harm from having to comply with the lower court orders.
Why?
Why does the Musk team need immediate, unfettered, and unprecedented access to highly sensitive, non-anonymized data to accomplish its objectives?
That's not me talking.
That's the three members of the Supreme Court.
The government answers were imprecise
contradictory and insufficient, and when the court requested further clarification, the government passed.
All of that in the dissent.
Despite the government's poor showing, Katanji Brown Jackson goes on to tell us, as Americans, the district court still structured its injunction in a minimally burdensome manner from the government standpoint, and goes on to describe that.
The injunction permits the Social Security Administration to grant Musk and his team staffers access to discreet
particularized and non-anomaniased data.
If the group there gives the agency a written explanation of its specific need for the records, in the end, the district court's order, which is now effectively vacated, at least while the litigation goes ahead, the district court order, the dissenters say, amounts to a short-term pause on giving Musk and his team unfettered and uniquely unprotected access to millions of Americans.
sensitive, non-anomaniased data paired with reasonable conditions on data access in the interim and goes on to say again.
This is our final segment of this tour broadcast this weekend of Amicus Allora View noting
With great concern, what three members of the Supreme Court have noted justice past week in their dissenting opinions in this Social Security access case, Khadangi Brown Jackson writing in the end that the court today opts to relieve the government.
That's your government.
That's the U.S.
Department of Justice.
That is the White House.
That is the officials responsible for this relieves the government of the standard obligation, jettison.
getting rid of careful judicial decision-making and creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans in the process.
That coming out of the Supreme Court just this past week, three other cases, unlike that one.
which is decided, again, in a split decision, six to three.
Three other unanimous decisions, nine to zero.
Let's talk about those relatively quickly.
We know that the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the Mexican government cannot sue U.S.
gun manufacturers, holding them responsible, at least trying to do so, for violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
A unanimous decision, this one authored by Judge Justice Elena Kagan, holding that under the law,
The court cannot in fact maintain a lawsuit that the Mexican government was and finding the Mexican government is barred barred by US legislation Established by Congress that insulates gun makers from liability Mexico Justice Kagan wrote had not plausibly argued that American gun manufacturers had aided and abetted in London all unlawful gun sales to Mexican drug traffickers Mexico out of luck
in attempting to pursue its federal action here in the courts of America to seek redress for the things that American gun manufacturers have allegedly causally done with respect to violence, cartel-related violence in Mexico, a second case.
This one very important in terms of employment discrimination.
Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously, once again, nine to zero.
In this case, written by Katangi Brown Jackson, ruling in favor of a straight woman who had twice lost positions to gay workers, saying that an appeals court, a lower court, had been wrong.
To require her that is the petitioner here to meet sort of heightened burden in seeking to prove workplace discrimination Because she was a member of a majority group There's a lot to unpack there and we know that the upshot of the decision written by Katanji Brown Jackson again for unanimous court is that under the federal civil rights laws Title 7 in which you can bring lawsuits based upon the terms and conditions of your employment.
She said the burdens
do not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.
In some lower courts, the courts had required that plaintiffs from majority groups prove an additional element as a part of their discrimination lawsuits if they lacked direct evidence of discrimination, particular background circumstances that support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.
That's a lot to
basically the Supreme Court saying that that background circumstances additional burden imposed upon majority petitioners does not in fact mandate that that level of proof be met and in fact everybody majority or minority populations who are bringing lawsuits alleging discrimination straight gay otherwise immutable characteristics in this system do not do not have a heightened burden of proof everybody everybody
as Catangy Brown Jackson wrote, for a unanimous court is obliged to follow the same basic standards of proof in our trial courts.
And finally, a case coming out of Wisconsin self, the Supreme Court unanimously, once again, ruling that a Catholic charity in our home state here in Wisconsin is entitled, is entitled to a tax exemption that was denied by the Wisconsin circuit court on the ground that its activities were not primarily religious.
In this case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor
said that the state court had engaged in what she described as forbidden denominational discrimination.
And again, the lower court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, had ruled that the activities, again, of Catholic charities were primarily charitable and secular and did not attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith.
The Supreme Court had said that the group employed and served people of all religions that meant necessarily that they should be denied the tax exemption even as it accepted the Charity's contention that its services were based upon some biblical values and the principles of Catholic teaching.
So there's a lot once again to unpack there.
The Supreme Court saying no, no, the Catholic Charities here is sufficiently religious and faith
based in nature to qualify for the tax exemption overturning the Wisconsin Supreme Court and finding that indeed the tax exemption should apply to them as well.
Among the many cases, again, pending in front of the Supreme Court, involving the interplay between religion and government, we know that there's another.
case pending even at this very time about whether parents in Maryland have a religious right to withdraw their children from classes when books, storybooks with gay and transgender themes are discussed.
That will be decided in upcoming cases.
We spoke in previous weeks also about this deadlock, that four to four deadlock in that case involving that Catholic Charter School in Oklahoma that passed constitutional muster in Oklahoma but did not survive
the Supreme Court because of the fact that it deadlocked, meaning that the lower court there in Oklahoma, its decision that the charter school could not in fact get federal funds, could not get state funds, could not get tax dollars, that the state court ruling against that school
would in fact stand and therefore setting no precedent by virtue of the four to four split but nonetheless an important additional additional religious case in the future other cases coming up we've got medical treatment for transgender minors age verification rules for adult access to to sites and also birthright citizenship all those things coming up in the next two to three to four weeks as amicus a law review continues we will take
those cases up, we'll analyze them for you.
We invite you to the discussion here on the broadcast stations of civic media as the work of the Supreme Court and all other branches of government continues in these United States of America.
Have a good weekend,
everybody.
The national news cycle never stops, but it can be hard to find news about your local community.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.