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 law review, your weekly weekend review of all things related to justice and the rule of law and government in these United States of America.
My name is Jim Santel.
I am your host this hour and also next hour here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
As always, my terrific producer Greg and I are delighted, honored that you have chosen to spend some of your time on this weekend, this important weekend in the history of our nation, in conversation, in discussion with us about these important issues that do affect our lives and our livelihoods every single day.
here in this nation.
Once again, we have got as always an ambitious but achievable agenda here on Amicus, a lot of you.
Let me tell you a bit about that before launching into it and inviting as always your questions, your inquiries, your comments, your observations about the subject matters on our extensive syllabus.
We are necessarily going to be talking once again about a recurring feature, a recurring segment that we have here on Amicus called
injunction function.
It is not simply a linguistic flourish.
It is also a representation, a reflection.
of what our federal district and appellate courts are doing on a regular basis in connection with what are approaching about 200 different challenges to the executive orders of your president.
My president, his name is Donald Trump.
Once again, in this broadcast, we are going to talk about two major entries of injunctions, issuances of temporary restraining orders by federal district court judges.
They are the trial judges in America in the federal courts.
We're gonna talk about one judge who is in the Northern District of California.
His name is Charles Breyer.
We're gonna talk about what he did in connection with, yes, that major event, those series of events going on right now in Los Angeles, including the president's calling up.
of the National Guard to address what is not, in fact, an insurrection, what is not, in fact, a rebellion, which, in fact, does not require that kind of remedial response.
We're gonna talk with you about what Charles Breyer, US District Court Judge, Northern California did just a couple of days ago in response to what our president attempted to do there as well, will necessarily tell you what the Ninth Circuit Court of
appeals has done even in the past several hours related to that particular order.
We'll talk about the consequences of what Judge Breyer has done, what that means today as rallies of various kinds take place, not only in Washington DC, but also in places, 50 states and territories throughout this union.
We'll talk about the consequences for what Judge Charles Breyer has done in
connection with this question about whether or not, yes, once again.
Our president has the authority to do what he has tried to do and accomplished at least up to this point.
What Charles Breyer has said to the president and more importantly to all of us about the rule of law in America, we'll talk about that at great length.
And as we have done in other instances, going to dive deep into the wonderful transcendent language used by this judge to reaffirm the rule of law in America and all things right and decent.
under justice, we should hear all of that and we will this broadcast in this hour.
We will necessarily talk again inside our segment on the functions of the federal courts, the district courts, the appellate courts in imposing and issuing these injunctions.
Another one, having to do with this other executive order among the nearly 200 that this president has issued, this one requiring proof of citizenship.
Proof of citizenship nationwide in voting.
There is a federal district court judge.
Her name is Denise Casper, and she is sitting in the district of Massachusetts.
And yes, just this past week, late this past week, Judge Casper, another of these judges entering an order saying no.
You can't do this, Mr. President.
It is unconstitutional.
It's contrary to the express language of our Constitution.
that people like James Madison and George Mason wrote into our Constitution many, many, many years ago.
She's also going to tell us, through her words, the things that she said in her order of just days ago, why it is that the president cannot, in fact, have an influence, have a direction with respect to elections nationwide.
You might think that's counterintuitive.
It is not.
She, in fact, is invoking the basic language of our Constitution that says that the trappings of elections are handled where?
They're handled not from the White House, but from the states who are responsible for administering
elections, the processes of voting, the franchise in America, the times, the circumstances of voting, regulated, decided, and implemented by local authorities, as you all well know.
We'll talk with you about those two major decisions of just days ago, having to do with injunctions issued by our federal district courts.
here in the United States of America.
It has also been a busy, another busy week for the United States Supreme Court.
And we've got more of that coming up certainly in the next week.
We look forward to the Supreme Court's next two weeks, including especially this coming Wednesday, the 18th, and then the following week, Thursday, the 26th additional days in which the Supreme Court is going to be issuing something approaching 25, 26, 27, 28 more.
opinions, decisions, some big ticket items coming up in just the next couple of weeks.
Of course, here on Amicus and other broadcasts of civic media, lots of attention being paid to those because they are big ticket items.
They do affect dramatically the way that you live your life, that we engage with one another here in the United States of America will be talking in the wake of those days, the Wednesday, the 18th, Thursday, the 26th, days in which the Supreme Court once again is going to
us what the law is in America and in that connection we are going to be spending some time in this broadcast talking about what the Supreme Court said just this past week.
a number of different rulings, six altogether, four of them, four of them unanimous.
That's right.
Nine members of our Supreme Court agreeing, imagine that, agreeing on the results in four different cases, four out of the six.
We're gonna be talking about a couple of those.
There's a major suit.
involving the victims of a botched, a mistaken raid by law enforcement on a house, got the wrong house when entered the wrong, entered the wrong place, whether or not the family victimized by that misconduct.
of law enforcement, can they sue?
The answer is yes.
And that comes out of the Supreme Court justice past week, something having to do the federal tort claims act.
You're going to hear a little bit about that today, understanding more as we often do here about what law school is all about and what torts are.
We're also going to hear about another case involving disability rights and the capacity of a teenager to sue her school.
for failing to abide by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
That's right.
Filling to provide her with basic routine accommodations to ensure that she can get.
an academic education in the way that every other student at her school gets that.
We're talking about disability rights again, a major case coming out of the Supreme Court.
We'll mention those others as well.
And we're also going to talk about other things coming up.
The Supreme Court right now in these days, even as it is finishing up this present term, the 2024-25,
term.
It's also looking forward to that first Monday in October later this year, when it begins the 2025-2026 term, and it's beginning to populate its docket even now.
Just this past week, the Supreme Court made some decisions about some of the litigants who are seeking review in the next term coming up in this fall and into the next calendar year, seeking review of the cases from courts below.
We're gonna hear about the decision by a group of Supreme Court justices that are going to be hearing a challenge to an Illinois mail-in ballot initiative Yes, that's right voting rights once again going to be on the agenda on the syllabus of our United States Supreme Court They agreed just this past week to hear that case months from now
We're not going to get a decision on that until a year from now.
Already, however, populating, putting on its docket, those things that's going to be entertaining in the coming year, they're also going to be deciding cases and not deciding cases.
We're going to be hearing about a decision to decline to hear about a ban on semi-automatic weapons.
a decision again that's going to be important not only for the lower court but also the Supreme Court deciding not to weigh in at least not yet in the coming term with respect to the all important critical sometimes life destructive life compromising issue of firearms in America we've talked about those cases of the past including that Bruin case that requires now that
You pass muster with respect to guns in America, only if you look back to the history and find some predicate, some precedent for imposing restrictions, that's the Bruin case.
Supreme Court last major issue on in that area.
And also another case last term, you may recall it well, involving whether or not someone involved in domestic violence can carry a weapon, can use a weapon, can possess a weapon.
The Supreme Court apparently reluctant now to weigh in again on guns, at least so far in the coming term, declining, declining to hear a ban on semi automatic weapons coming out of a lower court.
We're also going to less necessarily hear about some matters involving Donald Trump himself.
He is going to be pursuing his claim before the United States Supreme Court to dismantle, to take apart the department.
of education, you know that well.
We'll talk about what he has petitioned the court to do.
And then in his own private docket, you know that our president continues to be a evicted felon.
You know he's got a lot of litigation pending out there in his private capacity.
And we'll talk about a couple of those cases.
We'll talk about what happened just this past week.
In an appellate court in which Donald Trump is seeking to challenge his conviction Coming out of that New York state court you recall that well 34 counts of violations of New York law having to do with an attempt not to disclose to the American public in the 2016 election
his affair with stormy daniels will talk about what happened justice past week in the second circuit court of appeals as donald trump attempts to remove believe it or not even after being sentenced remove that case from the state court to send it into federal court maintaining that none of that should ever have happened will talk about what the appeals court the federal appeals court is doing and i'll also talk about what another appeals court has done
to shut down Donald Trump's again personal personal pursuit of this matter involving E. Jean Carroll you recall her well she is the one who has been successful in proving that not only Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in the 1990s but also defamed her in a number of judgments entered by the federal courts the matter back in the court again on an appellate
Petition of Justice last week will tell you about the success that E. Jean Carroll and her attorney have had in pushing back on Donald Trump's latest attempts, latest attempts to push back on the judgment, the civil judgment entered against him.
It is a lot.
We say that a lot on this broadcast and it is a lot.
Many, many things going on in America these days and around the world will touch on some of that as well.
All of that coming up here on this broadcast of Amicus Law Review.
you as always soliciting and taking your phone calls.
My producer Greg and I are that phone number as you know, 855-752-4842.
855-752-4842.
Join us in our discussion.
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 amicus a law review my name Jim Santel your host this hour and Next hour as well thanking you for being a part of our broadcast this weekend There is a lot on our docket an important day also in American history These are the kinds of things that our children our grandchildren our great-grandchildren will be reading about and learning about in years to come today today We're also going to be examining the things of the recent past
including decisions of federal district court judges, as you have heard me say repeatedly on this and other broadcasts of...
the broadcast stations of civic media it is the federal district court judges in our country those individual yes they're they're appointed by a president they're confirmed by the senate for life because of that they have the independence regardless of where they come from regardless of the president who appoints them and we're seeing that throughout our nation today to do what is right
to exact justice in their courts and issue opinions that are premised not upon politics and not upon partisan viewpoints, but rather upon what the law is, applying the facts to the law and making certain that their articulations of their decisions are clear and unambiguous.
It is in that connection that we talk now about a major extraordinary decision issued by a federal district court judge.
His name is Charles Breyer.
the Northern District of California.
The Northern District has a number of different courthouses in places like Eureka and San Jose and Oakland and indeed San Francisco, the Northern District of California.
It is one of the 93 districts in our nation and in our territories.
And that includes the work of Charles Breyer, there, a district court judge who has issued what can only be regarded as an extraordinary piece of jurisprudence, 36 pages.
It is long.
And yes, indeed, as I always do, I'm going to assign that to you to read even over this weekend because it is an important document in our nation's history, important to understand what is going on and what is not going on in connection with the president's decision.
to invoke the National Guard in California, particularly in Los Angeles, the judge, the judge on Thursday of this last week, temporarily blocking the federal government's mobilization of the California National Guard to protect immigration agents from protesters in Los Angeles.
At least that's the way in which this is being described.
The judge ruled that the Trump administration, the White House, has illegally taken control
of the state's troops and ordered them to return to taking orders from the governor.
His name, as you know, Gavin Newsom.
Again, amazing 36-page ruling, Charles Breyer severing Donald Trump's control of about 4,000 National Guard troops, hundreds of whom
already deployed at the time of this decision of Thursday of this past week into the streets of Los Angeles on his orders.
The judge among many other things saying that the administration's seizure of them taking control from the governor of the National Guard violated various procedural requirements in the federal statute that contemplates that.
Specifically, he goes on to say that President Trump's actions, these are his words, not my summary of them, were illegal, both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating, yes, here it is once again, the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Judge Breyer writing as well, we must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the governor of the state of California, forthwith.
That's what he did on Thursday.
Now it's important to note,
that this order directing that control be returned to the governor was intended to take effect in Friday.
a noontime on Friday, the Trump administration as it always does, and as it has a right to do, immediately filed a notice of appeal, where to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that's the appellate court that includes California, a huge amount of geography in our nation, and the United States Court of Appeals agreed to stay to suspend that ruling while it reviews the case, only temporarily blocking it from taking effect.
It is not in effect today.
And it is also noteworthy that when the president said that the Ninth Circuit came in and reversed the lower court, that is not accurate.
That is not what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did.
Courts of Appeals routinely issues stays of this sort.
So they've got the time to take a look at the merits of this.
It is extensive as Judge Breyer has indicated in his massive, his opus on the authorities of presidents to invoke these principles.
and to apply the National Guard in circumstances of dubious foundation.
Justice Breyer's ruling on the National Guard went beyond what California had asked for, believe it or not.
The state's lawsuit contended initially that the president's mobilization of the National Guard was illegal, but a specific notion was for a temporary restraining order.
Again, as we've talked, these mechanisms for putting things in place presently to prohibit things from going forward
Ordering limiting and military forces under federal control only guarding federal buildings in the city and no other law enforcement tasks.
Well, Judge Breyer got ahold of this and he said, nope, I'm going to go beyond that.
So the Donald Trump you are blocked from using California's National Guard at all He also ever rejected a request by the state and by the governor again His name is Newsom as you know To restrain a separate group you've heard about these folks as well of active-duty Marines there which the administration has also mobilized to counter the protests Judge Judge Brier said it would be inappropriate to issue any other order restricting the Marines actions when they have not done anything yet
anyway, that would violate something called the Posse Comitatus Act.
There's a lot going on here, is there not?
You probably know, you may know from your history, from your civics course, that that's the law that very generally makes it illegal to use federal troops for law enforcement on domestic soil.
He said that the state would need to return within a week to turn his temporary restraining order into a longer-lasting injunction, and that will almost certainly happen going ahead.
Let us, however, spend some time talking
about the language, the language that the judge has used in imposing his order now stayed for a while, but nonetheless a compelling piece of litigation history going forward here.
We're going to talk more about exactly what the judge has said in connection with process and also substance about what a rebellion is when Amicus, a law review, continues.
This is amicus all over of you.
My name Jim Santel I'm your host this hour and next hour as well as always my producer Greg and I are soliciting encouraging your Questions your inquiries your comments your observations about all these many things on our syllabus This day this weekend
here on amicus a lot of you talking right now about this major decision this major injunctive decision issued by federal district court judge charles bryer northern california telling the president that he does not have the authorities not done this properly to nationalize to bring in the national guard over over the objection of the governor there in los angeles and other places
The opinion as always is readable.
It is accessible.
This is a judge.
doing his job as we have seen with other federal district court judges and appeals court judges as well.
The order stayed for now by the Ninth Circuit, the slightly higher court, but only for the purpose of giving that court a chance to review the merits and demerits of the positions that are articulated by the federal district court judge.
What does this judge tell us?
Some excerpts.
It is important to understand.
It is important to digest
what it is that the court has said, and not just read the headlines in these important matters.
He spends a lot of time, he reviews the history, all of that much in the news, that is with respect to the activities, the protests going on in California, other places around the country to be sure, but specifically there, he talks about the communications, the lack of communication between the federal government and the governor about what needs to happen here, the statements.
made by the governor and yes indeed the mayor of Los Angeles indicating that local law enforcement can in fact as they have been trained to do and have done in the past can handle all of this that the National Guard does not need to be mobilized upon a presidential order in large part because there's no rebellion there there is no insurrection there we'll get to that along the way a lot of things that the judge teaches us
teaches me, teaches you about the law in America.
He begins by noting exactly what it is that the president has done.
He says that the president intervened in this matter, these matters involving protests, again, principally related, again, to immigration issues and deportations.
The judge notes that along the way.
That's the subject matter.
It's gone far beyond that, of course.
But notes that the president, President Trump,
intervene in response to these protests in the evening of June 7th and specifically, specifically issuing some memorandums to his Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security and finding, finding that numerous incidents of violence and disorder have recently occurred and threatened to continue in response to the enforcement of federal law by ICE and other United States government personnel.
That's his finding.
by the president to support what he said next.
He said, to the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, no evidence for that, but he goes on to say, they constitute, here we go, a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.
And that's the predicate.
That's the reason why this has proceeded.
The memo explains that due to these incidents and credible threats of continued violence, president calling into
federal service members and units of the National Guard under a statute, and here is the number you're going to be hearing a lot about.
It's 10 United States Code.
Here is the number, 12406.
12406, perhaps it's going to become a chant of some kind because it is the statute that proscribes the ways in which the president cannot do these kinds of things.
It establishes the mechanisms for his doing it under appropriate circumstances.
It prescribes some of those, and the judge says that you have not followed 12406, even though you have invoked it here in this situation.
The judge notes the defendants, of course, being the president and the other members of the cabinet, did not notify.
did not notify Governor Newsom of their intent to federalize the California National Guard prior to the issuance of that memorandum.
And that's a huge issue because one of the findings of the district court judge, we're not going to spend a lot of time on it, is a violation of procedure.
In order to do this, in order to invoke the notion there is a rebellion, you need to notify the governor of the state that you're going to do it, basically to solicit the opinion of that governor to determine if there are less intrusive
and invasive mechanisms for doing this.
That's what the law contemplates.
That's what my president, your president, failed to do.
And that's the reason why, among other things, the judge in his extensive order says, you failed to follow the law, the rules, how this is done.
If you had done it properly, maybe there could have been a different result here.
But you didn't do that.
The Administrative Procedures Act, Mr. President, prescribes this, and you didn't do it.
And because of that,
Your actions fail the court order the from a district court judge Charles Breyer goes on describing the procedural history Noting that this particular challenge is not only under those those administrative procedures Act provisions, but also a little additional civics here violation of the 10th amendment once again We've talked about that in another setting having to do with the Reservation to the states to the states of those things not expressly set forth in the cons
You know that because you're students of the Constitution.
And here's another new word for you.
You've got a number for you today, and we also have a new phrase for you today.
or ultra virus depending upon how you want to pronounce the latin ultra virus it's an allegation that the defendant the target of your lawsuit has engaged in conduct beyond their authority ultra virus and the people bring in this lawsuit basically the governor of this state of
of California, Gavin Newsom, and the lawyers there are alleging that the president is acting ultra-viries, V-I-R-E-S, because he's failing to stay in his lane, basically doing something that he has no authority to do, and oh, by the way, also violating the 10th Amendment in intruding into the state area, also proscribed by the Constitution, and violating the Administrative Procedures Act.
What is some of the language?
What is some of the language that the judges use to justify finding
under all of that that indeed there is something going very wrong here he says again that under one two four zero six that's the number once again a president can call into federal service the National Guard but only if the United States or its Commonwealth is invaded
or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation, whether there is a rebellion or a danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government, or the president is somehow unable to invoke his powers with regular forces to execute the laws
of the United States.
He goes into great detail in the following 20 pages or so to explain how none of those is satisfied here.
There has not been an invasion.
There has not been a rebellion.
And indeed, the president does have many authorities that he can exercise, not including this.
Talks about a thing called the political question doctrine and notes that this is not a political issue.
This is not one of those things, even though, yes, it is much in the political discussion of
of our nation this weekend and beyond.
This is not the kind of thing that courts...
can walk away from.
The political question doctrine does not prohibit courts from entering into all of this.
And because of that, he then goes into the core of his decision.
And that is all about this concept that somehow we have a foot in the United States of America, a rebellion, a rebellion.
And indeed, pages 17 and 18 and 19 and 20 of his order, he goes where he goes to where all of us would go.
He goes to a dictionary, right?
He goes to black
law dictionary and says that rebellion from the current edition of its an open organized armed resistance to an established government or ruler an organized attempt to change the government or leader of a country through violence open resistance opposition to authority or tradition
and goes on.
Rebellion under Black's law dictionary, deliberate organized resistance by force and arms to the laws and operation of the government committed by a subject.
This goes on.
The Cyclopedia dictionary of law also describing rebellion.
The American dictionary of the English language describing rebellion in the same ways and finding in the end that rebellion is defined.
in our language and also legally.
He says that in order for there to be a rebellion first, it must not only be violent, but also be armed.
Second, it has to be organized.
And third, a rebellion must be open and avowed.
Fourth, a rebellion must be against the government as a whole, often with an aim of overthrowing the government rather than an opposition to a single law or issue.
And that's the key.
That's the key, right?
The protests in Los Angeles, he goes on to find false art, false fall, far short, a rebellion.
Defendants, again, in these cases, in this matter, that's the president and the other members of the cabinet, talk about violent rioters and mobs.
And so the court pauses to state, he says, that there can be no debate, that most protesters here have demonstrated peacefully.
It goes on to say that even accepting the questionable premise that people armed with fireworks and rocks and concrete and chairs and bottles of liquid are armed,
The court, this is the judge speaking and talking, is aware of no evidence in the record of actual firearms.
Nothing in the record before him to this time.
Some presumably engage violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight.
While many others threw items under cover of darkness, he finds, protected by a crowd and identities concealed.
He says all of that.
has happened that's in the record certainly the peaceful protesters he says we're indeed organized to some degree and that people knew generally what they were doing and the subject matter that they're going to participate in that is these deportations that's the single law or issue goes on to say but there is no evidence of organized as apart from sporadic or impromptu violence nor is there evidence that any of the violent protesters were attempting to overthrow the government as a whole and that's the key
That's the key to all of this.
He says the evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue, the immigration raids, and while defendants, again the president and the others, have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open, and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.
The definition, he says, of a rebellion is unmet.
And for that reason, and for that reason, he goes on to speak in words that are transcended.
And here we are.
This is the language in which the judge talks about the vacuousness of the president's decision to send in the National Guard to invoke the National Guard there in California in circumstances where there is not indeed a rebellion.
He says this, it is worth consuming this.
This is Judge Charles Breyer, just days ago.
Moreover, the court is troubled by the implication inherent in the defendants.
That's the president's argument that protest against the federal government a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment can justify a finding of rebellion.
That's the judge speaking.
He said reports of history are chock full of government even when a chock full of language explaining the importance of individuals right to speak out against the government even when doing so is uncomfortable.
Even when doing so is provocative.
Even when doing so causes inconvenience.
He is articulating there the core fundamental purposes and focuses of, yes indeed, the First Amendment.
He says to many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbalist tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance, that the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony, is in this sense not a sign of weakness, but rather a sign of strength.
In our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.
Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble.
Any word spoken, he says, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance.
But our Constitution says we must take that risk.
And that is the point.
No rebellion and the First Amendment protects this conduct.
An important lesson as today in America, this weekend in America, people gather to protest as we continue more from Judge Breyer.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.
you
My name is Jim Santel.
We are talking all about this major decision issued by Federal District Court Judge Charles Breyer, Northern California, finding that in fact the President has acted illegally in violation of federal statute, in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, acting ultra vires once again beyond the scope of his assigned responsibilities in this magnum opus, 36 pages of decision from the judge.
It is worth reading.
including this language that takes special meaning this weekend and today as Americans gather around our nation, all 50 states and territories, to engage in their First Amendment rights to protest, to articulate their views.
The judge saying once again that we are a nation of laws and one of those is the Constitution, the First Amendment guaranteeing that indeed people have the right
to speak out, even if that freedom includes verbal tumult and discord and even offensive utterance, that the air may at times seemingly be filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense, not a sign of weakness but of strength.
That's from the Federal District Court Judge.
He goes on to talk about other issues related to the balancing of harms here.
It is significant to note.
that he invokes prior precedent in a case called Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company versus Sawyer, well named Justice Jackson a very long time ago, talked about the threats to this society and the community, and in the end, in the end invoking that.
Judge Breyer says this.
He says that federal agents and property may actually be well served by the demilitarization of and a concurring de-escalation of this situation.
comes in the wake of his analysis of all of these legal issues, including the merits of the petition and the balancing of harms here.
And then he goes on to say this, regardless plaintiffs and the citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city, which not only inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life,
but also deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members to do what?
To fight fires, combat the fentanyl trade, and perform other critical functions.
As discussed above, the defendant's actions also threaten to chill legitimate First Amendment expression accordingly.
the judge finds the court concludes the plaintiff and yes indeed that is the governor of the state of california and others affiliated with him have demonstrated the balance of equities tips in their favor and that an injunction restraining the president's use
of military force in Los Angeles is indeed in the public interest.
36 pages of that, that's a sampling of the language from Judge Breyer of just late this past week.
It stands as a major position statement, not only on the merits of this particular invocation, talks about what a rebellion is, talks about the alternative means, the capacity, yes indeed, of the president to engage in those things to which he is assigned.
The execution of laws to take care that the laws of our country be faithfully executed and indicating that none of those standards None of those standards supports what the president is doing here It is a very important order stayed for a while and not in effect today because of the
actions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, staying that, suspending it while they can take a look, not only at 36 pages of an order, but also the underlying predicates, the things that the judge has summarized so very well.
He is writing to the Ninth Circuit.
He plainly is envisioning that the Ninth Circuit is going to be reviewing every last dot, every last cross T. Every single statement that he makes, it is precise, it is exacting, and it is transcendent language.
More importantly, on this day,
on this weekend, he is also, also writing to America.
He is telling us what a president can and cannot do.
He is telling us in a time of tumult, what the First Amendment means, what it doesn't mean, and he's telling us when a rebellion exists and when it does not.
We are not.
We are not in rebellion.
We are presently in a time of heightened discourse.
And as the judge says, that is the beauty of our system.
We appreciate as well here on Amicus, a lot of you callers and textures.
We appreciate that tremendously because you add to the conversation.
Greg from Waukesha.
You've been waiting online for a while.
Greg, delighted to have you with me in this important discussion this weekend.
Yes, Jim, thank you.
And I always an honor to talk to you.
I'll be brief because I know you're against the top of the hour break.
But I've often wanted to teach an art class at Carroll University, my own mother on protest and what it is, because it is a right.
We do have Jim related to the First Amendment.
It is our First Amendment right.
And what I want to say is this is a total overreach by President Trump, among with all his overreaches.
To bring in the National Guard, it seems like all protests now are met with opposition.
from the police, the National Guard, you know, and we do need to respect our authorities, but we can do that in a peaceful way.
And I'm glad this judge
you know, a state this order, basically.
And love your show, Jim.
Thank you very much.
When one day you become a federal judge, Greg, you too should write those kinds of things into your orders.
They are parallel with what Judge Breyer has said about the importance of the First Amendment.
It does have limitations as we have talked before.
You can't do all kinds of things.
It would upset the normal operation of many things, but those limitations, those restrictions on it are limited in these circumstances, the right to protest and to say things that are popular and unpopular.
That's your point.
That's the judge's point as well.
That's what we exalt today, not only in this order, not only in California, but in Wisconsin and in states around our nation.
An important decision.
coming out of a district court, and also from the appeals court at some point soon.
When Amicus, a law review comes back, we're gonna talk about another decision by another judge in Massachusetts just this past week, also related to the rule of law.
Stay with us for that discussion.
My name is Jim Santel Thank you for joining me and my producer Greg coming to you from the broadcast stations of civic media here in Radio Park in Racine and Coming to you at a time in America of great concern not only for the rights that we all have in this nation But yes indeed for the threats to those rights which often come in the nature of violence
The top of this second hour, we are here on Civic Media noting as well this reporting coming out of Minnesota that a Democratic lawmaker has been killed, another wounded in Minnesota in what appear to be politically motivated attacks.
The reporting that one of those lawmakers who is a state representative, her name is Melissa Hortman, that she has died as has her husband Mark.
that confirmed by the state's governor, that of course is Tim Walls.
He said the shootings appear to be politically motivated, shootings at their homes.
It appears as well that there's another state senator, his name is John Hoffman, his wife Yvette.
both also shot in multiple times out of surgery right now cautiously optimistic governor says that they will survive again governor walls indicating this was an act of targeted political violence and saying beyond that to that while he is briefed on the situation more information forthcoming another another sobering day in america
As we think about the importance of public service, whether you are in a Minnesota legislature, in a Wisconsin legislature, a local assembly group, whether you're a mayor, a governor, in the Congress, whether you're appointed to a position of judicial authority, elected authority, wherever you are in public service, that public service is to be regarded with great reverence because of what you're doing on behalf of the people of our nation.
And today in our nation, we have folks who are looking at public service in ways that we have seen in the past, but now with increased senses of violence.
We don't know anything about the shooter in Minnesota yet.
We will certainly find out about that.
But the initial indications, as Governor Walz has said, is that these are politically motivated.
These are horrific violence under any circumstances, but it underscores once again what
our president.
My president should be doing in these times and all times, not only today, not only today when we have rallies happening around our nation and every state, what he should be doing is
articulating with joy and with exuberance the notion that we are able to be an assemble in a country where we can articulate differing views and we can say things that may be offensive to each other.
That's what freedom of speech is all about.
That should be heralded today.
And my president, again, not just in the wake of these horrific shootings now in Minnesota, but in other circumstances, should also be condemning at the highest levels.
And perhaps, perhaps he's
still will at some point today, condemning not only this political violence, but any violence visited upon anyone in America, especially in the context of handgun violence, which we have seen in America all too frequently.
But the threats and the notions that we've got, public officials, judges, others, who are somehow acting in public service, contrary to the best interests of America,
Those kinds of threats, they lead to this kind of thing.
And today we have deaths in Minnesota of public servants.
plainly targeted probably because of their positions on important issues of public concern.
And notice, debating presumably in Minnesota, other places around our nation, they should not be losing their lives for that.
They should be exalted for the debate that they engage in, presumably with others with whom they disagree.
That's what it's all about today.
We've got another sobering reminder, reminder that we need to do not just better,
We need to address this and my president and all governors need to say with absolute clarity that this is not, this is not America, perhaps they will, some of them will, all of them including the president of the United States of America need to pause today even in the midst of that parade going on in Washington DC and highlight the horror.
the disaster, the catastrophe of the loss of public servants regardless of their political views and their animation.
This is another tragedy in the history of America, a weekend of history in America.
We bemoan and we mourn the lives of those lost and we hope for the recoveries of those who were injured today in that shooting in Minnesota, plainly here on
on this broadcast and others of civic media, additional information as that comes forward in our national attention.
in that national attention just this past week, we have more judges who are issuing orders as a part of the things that public servants support.
As a part of the things that people who go into public service, get elected, get appointed positions, are all about, that includes federal district court judges who, yes, indeed, themselves have been, have been not only murdered in this nation, have been threatened,
and continue to do so in this climate of violence and threats that is all too common.
We have a district court judge, a district court judge who just this past week, her name Denise Casper, she is in the federal district court for the district of Massachusetts, district of Massachusetts, and she this past week, just days ago.
decided with a coalition of states that brought a lawsuit into her courtroom and she has said that they're right in asking that the court
stop a stringent new voting ID requirement that President Trump attempted attempted to set forth in an executive order in March the ruling the ruling actually again in the context of what these judges are doing going beyond what the specific request was for the injunction again asking him asking the judge here Denise Casper to stop what he the president has put in place but it goes beyond just stopping voting ID requirements proof of citizenship
to vote, but also saying that there are key aspects of the Donald Trump's order that would overhaul election procedures
beyond just ID requirements, in addition to indefinitely blocking those provisions that would allow the federal government to require proof of citizenship for new voters.
Judge Casper also goes on to say that the directive to the attorney general, the United States of America, that's Pam Bondi, as you know, to take action against states that continue to count balance beyond election day, that's gotta stop too.
She said among the states, among the states that are appearing in front of her, including 13, that do in fact, under their own laws, permit the counting of absentee, mail-in ballots after the official day of voting.
They have to be received, of course.
They have to be balloted.
Voting has to take place by the election day itself.
But if they're not counted by midnight on that night, those particular states permit
the officials, permit the volunteers, permit those people in those county clerk positions, those local city clerk positions to permit the counting to go ahead, to ensure that all of the ballots are counted.
As a part of the executive order entered by the president back in March, he would prohibit any counting of those mail-in ballots that is not completed.
not completely finished by those serving in polling capacities on that day.
The District Court Judge, Denise Casper, District of Massachusetts, in her opinion, says that the states are likely to succeed in showing that the order in all of its aspects entered by the president back in March
exceeded the president's authority under the Constitution and beyond that it risks disenfranchising some of the electorate.
The ruling blocked the order from taking effect until the resolution of the case.
Certainly it's going to be appealed as are all of these, but it's important to understand the significance of all of that as we go ahead here.
In her ruling Judge Casper cites a number of examples.
the states had raised that she said generated real concern about this disenfranchised possibility that she's identified that is by requiring people to prove that they are citizens
basically some ID in that connection that could create chaos and confusion that could result in voters losing trust in the election process.
And once again, here in the state of Wisconsin and in polling places around the state of Wisconsin, we've got ID laws.
We plainly require that people come forward to be registered to establish that they are indeed residents of the area in which they're voting.
You've got to establish residents.
You've got to establish a number of other things, including residents for a certain period of time that you're not.
not a felon and so forth, that you are in fact a citizen of the United States as a part of registration.
Beyond that requires some identification when you actually show up to vote.
That's a part of our law in the state of Wisconsin.
Many other states have other requirements greater and larger than that.
But all of them, all of them embedded in all of that is the notion that people can indeed vote and should not be disenfranchised by the processes put in place by states.
The judge, Judge Casper, again, notes that that will happen if indeed what the president has commanded happen, which is the requirement that voters show up with some kind of proof that they are citizens, even after their voting, even after they're registered, will cause problems.
She said the problems include those coastal regions in Maine, where some residents are citizens but have Canadian birth certificates and no passports.
That's a problem.
New Mexico, where Native American Pueblo tribe members living in remote areas may have little documentation about their actual citizenship.
She also pointed to situations involving individuals who change their names, that kind of thing being problematic.
Others that involve older or homeless voters, she said citizenship documents are also expensive.
This all part of her order entered prohibiting the president from going ahead with his executive order.
She said, for example, in Rhode Island,
It can cost up to $165 to obtain a passport.
City of Providence, she said, $22 to obtain a birth certificate.
She concluded that the burden created by the executive order appears likely
to disproportionately disenfranchise black and poor americans at the key at the foundation of all that she said is not only the burdens presented by this but also the lack of constitutional authority the president as she goes on to say in her order is the one person who does not have authority in this area the constitution as we know well does indeed give the president the obligation the oath
to ensure that the laws of our nation are faithfully executed, but it does not prescribe, does not give to him any specific authority when it comes to elections.
He is the one person who is not involved in this process, as we have said in other contexts.
Instead, what did James Madison say?
He said, this is a matter for the states to decide indeed.
Here in Wisconsin and in states throughout the United States, the states decide, the legislatures decide about all kinds of things related to
how voting takes place, the timing, the circumstances, the trappings of that as the Constitution provides the president
Judge Casper says has no authority in this area.
And so she invalidates, she invalidates, she evokes everything that the president has done in this order, not only with respect to proving citizenship, but also this very peculiar and very oppressive statement that indeed, if there are jurisdictions out there that are counting ballots beyond election day, he says, I want my attorney general to go after them and take action against those states that continue counting ballots if in fact they are not completely done by election day.
Now,
Now effective effective this weekend by virtue of what judge Casper has done that order among the many others is No longer in effect by virtue of her order will it be reviewed?
Absolutely district of Massachusetts also a part of the first circuit going up there certainly for review upon an appeal by this president and maybe ultimately like all of these other things heading to the Supreme Court
And when we come back here on Amicus, we'll talk more about the Supreme Court, what the Supreme Court did just past week in some major cases, also decisions about what it is not going to review in the coming term, all of that here on Amicus, a law review.
This is Amicus, a lover of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
Thank you for joining my producer Greg and me as we continue to address those many things on the docket of America on this important weekend, an historic weekend in American history.
Let's talk about what the Supreme Court has done just this past week in deciding
Six cases six cases released just this past week by the Supreme Court Many more to comment in the weeks ahead We know that on Wednesday the 18th is another day for them to release opinions Thursday the 26th at the end of the month another day that they have scheduled for the release of opinions in our National docket those things appearing before the Supreme Court on a regular basis about 65 cases altogether as we've reported before pending
before the Supreme Court this term, they decided something in excess of 45, 46 cases, depending upon how you count some opinions that were decided without oral argument.
It is significantly that among that 40 or so cases that the Supreme Court has released to this time on its docket for the 2024, 2025 term here, some statistics for your information.
None of them, none of them to this date has been,
a six to three split.
Interesting.
That will almost certainly change in the next several weeks, but right as of now, half of the opinions.
Half of them have been nine to zero, unanimous opinions.
We've got four of those just this past week.
Interesting, where all of the justices agree with each other.
There's one eight to zero, unanimous opinion as well.
We had one recusal there.
And there have been four eight to one decisions.
A significant number of divided opinions, including eight decisions decided seven to two.
One decision decided five to three.
Seven decisions, five to four.
So all kinds of interesting statistics there almost certainly we're going to get more divided opinions in the coming weeks as some of these major topics including things like birthright citizenship and the capacity of parents to regulate what is going on in their the schools and the classrooms of their children with respect to
Storybooks that include stories and tales about the LGBT community will talk more as we will about the decision coming out from the Supreme Court about whether or not states can limit transgender healthcare for youth.
That's also pending.
Many of the things on the docket of the Supreme Court still waiting for a decision almost certainly to be divided panels.
But again, this past week on June 12th, the court issues six different opinions on various things, four of them unanimously.
Four of them unanimously.
Let's talk about two of those among the six, and they are important.
One of them under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
always a significant civil rights law to be abided by and it's an affirmation as it turns out by the Supreme Court of the importance and the applicability of the ADA and also then something under the federal tort claims act which again a bit more obscure for most Americans but something that I dealt with on a regular basis when I was a civil division chief in both the eastern district of Wisconsin and western district of
Michigan on a regular basis, a civil law.
Let's talk about that one to begin with.
It has to do with a raid by the FBI that was botched, that was mistaken.
What happened?
Just on Thursday of this past week, Supreme Court rules that a family whose home, their residence, mistakenly raided by agents who set off a flashbang grenade
enter the home with their guns drawn, that the lawsuit that the family brought against them for the improper, the misguided entry into their home, this mistaken, this error-filled entry into their home, they should in fact be allowed to proceed on those claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which in many ways prohibits, prohibits claims
for tortuous conduct by the federal government.
Unanimous decision.
Everybody agrees.
The court ruled that the family should be given a fresh opportunity to try to persuade lower courts.
Again, they're not saying by the Supreme Court decision here this past week that the family wins, but just that their claims are not barred at the outset.
They should have their day in court, whether it's on motions, on a trial, that the lower courts should hear this case.
and the federal government is not immune from a lawsuit over the harm that the agents who botched this entry into their home caused when they mistakenly entered this home.
It happened to be in suburban Atlanta.
The case is Martin versus United States.
It arose from a raid very early on in fall morning, 2017.
Yes, FBI agents used a battering ram to knock down the front door of the home of the couple.
Their names are Hilliard, Toy, Cleot, C-L-I-A-T-T.
and Christina Martin, M-A-R-T-I-N.
With their guns drawn, according to all the litigation reports, the agents set off a flash bang grenade and charged inside.
A couple barricaded themselves in a closet, not knowing what's going on.
The agents dragged Mr. Clea out at gunpoint, handcuffed him.
They told Ms.
Martin to keep her hands up as she pleaded to see her seven year old son who was asleep in another room.
This is calamitous, right?
They questioned Mr. Cleot.
He gave his address.
He provided other information.
It was different from the one for the suspected gang hideout that the agents had a warrant to enter.
They had another warrant.
They were mistakenly at this place.
One of the agents, whose name is Lawrence Guerra, who gives his name to this lawsuit, had earlier identified the correct house, which he said looked similar and was nearby on a different street.
But on the morning of the raid, when all this happened, he said he went to the wrong house because he had been misdirected by his GPS device.
That could not be confirmed, just as Neil Gorsuch writing for the court.
Mr. Guerra threw the device away not long after the raid.
Justice Gorsuch, again writing for unanimous Supreme Court, added that the agents had overlooked plenty of indications that they were in the wrong place.
Yes, indeed.
A street sign, a house number, and a different car parked in the driveway.
The case turned again on the Federal Tort Claims Act.
And that is a law that sometimes allows suits against the government for money, notwithstanding the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
ordinarily bare barrings those kinds of suits unless the government consents couple suing here for false arrest false imprisonment assault battery other claims losing in the lower courts because of the purported bar the federal tort claims act supreme court reviving that saying nope they've got a right to go ahead probably in large measure because of the horrific nature of this entry this but going into the their home with a battering ram and the grenade
And it's an important case, not only for this family plainly, but for vindication of rights for law enforcement and under the Federal Tort Claims Act as that litigation proceeds.
When we come back, we'll talk about another lawsuit under the ADA and other things that the Supreme Court has done just this past week here on Amicus, a law review.
This is Amica Solaro.
My name is Jim Santel.
I'm your host for the remaining segments of this hour here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
We are talking
about some of the major decisions issued by the Supreme Court just this past week, six of them altogether, four of them unanimous, anticipating more opinions next week and the following week, we will of course cover all of that here on this broadcast, as will my colleagues on other broadcasts of civic media throughout the week.
This is the busy time in America when the Supreme Court again, typically June of every year, not really finishing its term, but deciding to issue these opinions typically before the
Fourth of July holiday in the summertime among the cases issued just by the Supreme Court this just this past week a unanimous opinion another one Supreme Court again on Thursday of this last week siding with a teenage girl she has epilepsy and her parents sued a Minnesota school district
Claiming that her school, the officials there, the teachers, others there had refused to help her receive as much instruction as her peers.
Sort of an equal protection argument there, but it's beyond that.
brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is an attempt to ensure that people who have disabilities in America are afforded the same kinds of protections in all kinds of things, education and healthcare and housing, the basic trappings of life in America, that even though our legal system and the ways in which we respond to these great challenges are almost certainly imperfect and incomplete, we do the very best we can to ensure that every American, including those,
with immutable characteristics, including those with disabilities have access to life.
Anonymous decision.
And the decision hinged on the standard of proof required to show discrimination by public schools in education-related disability lawsuits.
This has been an issue that's been around for a while.
It's written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
John Roberts, the court holding the student and her family needed to show only
not a higher burden, nothing higher than just the regular burden, only that the school system had acted with deliberate indifference.
deliberately indifferent to her position, to her educational needs when they sued.
Saying that the same standard applies when people sue other institutions for discrimination based on disability.
We talked last week about another case, again, in which a unanimous Supreme Court in the context of employment rights said, no, the same standard applies across the board to everyone, regardless of whether you are part of a majority or minority group.
Again, we've got that same kind of principle
being articulated by the Supreme Court here.
The school district had argued that a higher standard, a stringent requirement, a very high standard that the institution acted with bad faith, gross misjudgment.
You had to establish something at that high level should apply.
And had that standard hold sway here, the new standard might have applied broadly to all kinds of disability rights cases, not just those involving this young woman.
As a result of the ruling, again, the student will now be
to press her case in the lower courts.
She hasn't won necessarily.
This again, like the other case involving the FBI raid and the family, the question is whether or not they should be able to proceed at all.
The Chief Justice writing that although the decision is narrow, critically important for children with disabilities and their parents.
Indeed, that's right, Mr. Chief Justice.
He said this.
He said, together they faced daunting challenges on a daily basis, adding that the court decision meant that those challenges do not include having to satisfy
A more stringent standard of proof than other people who bring court challenges under federal disabilities rights law.
The case is AJT.
Those are initials.
We do that because we're protecting the actual identity in courts, federal courts, state courts of the actual name of the minor.
AJT versus Osio Area Schools stems from this dispute over whether district near Minneapolis had provided reasonable accommodations for this young woman whose severe epilepsy made it hard for her to come to school and participate during regular hours.
Ava's family advocating on her behalf and the Supreme Court unanimously just this past week saying yes indeed you can pursue that
in the lower courts, including the 8th Circuit.
If in fact you are unsuccessful there, you can go back to the 8th Circuit and you can get further review, arguably maybe coming back to the Supreme Court.
Case not over, evidence not yet presented, but a real affirmation once again by the Supreme Court unanimously, thankfully sending the message that people who have disabilities not only have access and should have access under the law, but also to all the trappings of life.
in our nation.
A couple of the things that the Supreme Court has done just this past week also worthy of note.
One of them of course involving voting.
The Supreme Court has agreed announcing early this last week that it would hear a case brought by a congressman who had challenged an Illinois election law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted up to 14 days after an election.
All right, already you're thinking, gee, didn't we just talk about this?
Isn't exactly what Denise Casper has written about in her very good opinion saying the president has no capacity to tell the attorney general to go after those states that are counting ballots after Election Day.
Indeed, this is all related.
This is all the same kind of thing, attempts by our president and attempts now by this particular congressman to obstruct and to challenge and to stop
and Illinois law among the states that does indeed permit the counting of ballots after Election Day.
How does this work once again?
Those of you who do this regularly, who serve as polling officials,
polling representatives in your local areas know well, that when those absentee ballots, the mail-in ballots come in under Wisconsin law, we can't begin to count them until the day of election.
That too, perhaps, should be addressed by our legislature, but those are the rules.
Those are the rules in the state of Wisconsin.
And because of that, the counting begins when the polls open, and if the ballots are so numerous that they cannot be counted, you continue to count them until, plainly, you finish with all
of them to ensure that everybody who has exercised the franchise be sending in an absentee ballot, a mail-in ballot, including those coming in from overseas and our military bases.
Everybody gets their right to have their vote counted.
That's fundamental.
And again, Illinois establishes a law.
The state acting under the federal constitution to establish the laws of the state says, here in Illinois, if you don't get done with counting all those absentee
mail-in ballots by the close of midnight on Election Day, you can continue to count them because we want to make certain that everybody's vote is counted.
And we have a congressman.
His name is Mike Bost, B-O-S-T.
He represents a district in downstate Illinois.
And along with two federal electors, he sues the Illinois State Board of Elections in 2022.
And they're arguing that this good state law in Illinois, permitting counting to go on beyond midnight on the Election Day,
that somehow it violates federal statutes establishing an election day.
They maintain this because it allows absentee ballots to be received and counted after the election that the election day in and of itself the number on the calendar means something and again part of many many attempts by members of
of our elected representatives and others, private citizens, in this case, two federal electors challenging access to the polls.
And again, the matter comes before the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court, just this past Monday, says it's going to hear that case.
It's going to hear this case about whether or not the Illinois law that permits county go ahead should, in fact, it will be heard and we heard in the coming term whether that law is in fact in violation of the Constitution, in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
The election dispute, as we know, is one of four new cases.
The justices have agreed on money to add to their docket.
Many other things going on just this past week.
Others include a case about whether immigrant detainees can sue a private
detention company that they accuse of forcing them to perform labor.
Supreme Court said, we'll take a look at that case as well.
There's a Montana case.
But whether law enforcement officers may enter a home, once again, that story going on without a search warrant if they believe an emergency is underway.
It's called exigent circumstances.
That case, the Supreme Court has green-lighted for review in the coming term.
A dispute about whether a U.S.
soldier
injured by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan can sue the government contractor who had employed the bomber.
All those things coming up on the next docket of the Supreme Court also agreed previously to hear another high-profile dispute during the upcoming term, a First Amendment challenge to a Colorado law that prohibits conversion therapy.
That was intended to change a minor's gender identity or sexual orientation.
Justices likely to add more cases again.
going forward all of that now on the docket of the Supreme Court coming up in the next term going to be decided probably in June of next year just about this time next year significant that among those cases we now have the Supreme Court a majority of the Supreme Court or at least four members of the Supreme Court saying that we will in fact take a look at the legitimacy of this Illinois law that permits counting of votes
It is concerning again another polling case coming before the Supreme Court in the next term.
Significantly, significantly, the Supreme Court also says from time to time that it's not going to be taking cases, right?
That's called deciding not to grant the writ of certiorari.
That's also a part of our civics instruction here on our weekend broadcast.
When the Supreme Court grants a writ, that means send that lower case up here.
We'll take a look at it when they say, no, we're denying the writ.
We're telling you that we are not going to review the case.
And in fact, the lower court, whatever the lower courts,
have done that will stand as the law of this case.
It is significant.
It is significant that the Supreme Court again on Monday.
announced that it is not it is not going to be entertaining argument on a major second amendment case which we are thoughtful about again this weekend today as we hear this horrific news about the shootings in minnesota involving the deaths of a legislator and her husband the wounding of another and his spouse presumably according to the governor there
initiated, prompted by some political animus.
We'll talk more about that, of course, at the end of our broadcast.
Just this past Monday, the Supreme Court said it's not going to hear a major second-minute challenge and attack upon a Maryland law, a Maryland law that bans semi-automatic weapons like AR-15s.
And is the court's practice, again, being followed here?
Yes, they gave no reasons for that.
but the move over the objections of three conservative justices permits the ban in that state in Maryland, the ban, the prohibition on semi-automatic weapons to stand.
And it reflects kind of the court's intermittent engagement with gun rights.
We know Bruin and Heller of those cases of the past talking about the circumstances under which you can justify restrictions on Second Amendment rights.
We've had Rahimi last term where the Supreme Court said that, yes, indeed, if you are a person engaged in domestic violence, you do not have a right.
You do not have a right under the Second Amendment.
Again, affirming this notion that there is no right under the Constitution that's unconditional
including the Second Amendment right, is significant.
The Maryland law enacted in 2013 in response to what?
In response to the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut the previous year.
Banned many SAMA automatic weapons imposed a 10 year round, I'm sorry, a 10 round limit on gun magazines.
That's the law that will now stand.
And here's the other important part of this.
We have Supreme Court justices who wanted to take this case.
In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should have considered the question, which the justices again repeatedly other justices have said no.
Here's what he says in connection with the decision not to take up the challenge to let the Maryland ban stay in place.
He says, I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America.
He says that question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners
throughout the country.
We've avoided deciding it for much too long, he goes on to say.
He adds that the court's commitment to the Second Amendment is inadequate.
He says, I doubt we would sit by idly.
If lower courts were to so subvert our precedents involving any other constitutional right until we are vigilant in enforcing it, the right to bear arms will remain a second-class right.
That's Clarence Thomas, just this past week, telling us that he would have taken this case, wanted to presumably overturn
ban on semi-automatic weapons.
This is Amicus.
Hello, everybody.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is the final segment of our broadcast in this important weekend in the history of the United States of America.
Let me spend some time talking about what my president, your president, our president is doing.
in connection with litigation and then also in connection with the breaking news of this day, this horrific story, reporting the news coming out of Minnesota.
Let's talk first about some things in the courts.
Donald Trump just this past week asking the Supreme Court to allow him to move forward with plans to dismantle the Department of Education by lifting that lower court order that we've talked about in previous broadcasts that prevented the Department of Workers from being fired.
The request comes again on let's all say it together an emergency application
which is the latest in this flurry of things that the Solicitor General is doing on behalf of the President since the start of the second Trump term.
You recall well, President Trump signed an executive order on March 20th.
The instructed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin shutting down that agency, firing employees, a move that requires actions by Congress.
And once again, not permitted by the Constitution, not permitted by legislation, only the Congress can do that.
And that's what the lower court ruled.
have said no authority Mr. President and my president now pursuing that to the Supreme Court on an emergency application because it is so very important that the Department of Education from his perspective be shut down immediately and these fired employees kept away from the important work of the Department of Education that happening just this past week in his personal capacity the
president is also fighting to overturn his criminal conviction.
It was returned, as you well recall, in that Manhattan district court many, many months ago, finding that he is in fact guilty of 34 different felonies related to his attempts, recall this well, to cover up some sex scandals during the 2016 run for the White House.
His lawyers have argued repeatedly, and this has been before the courts before, that the case brought then by the DA, the district attorney, his name is Alvin
in the state court there.
Judge Juan Marchand, you recall, presided over this week's long trial that resulted in our president being found guilty.
He was sentenced.
He remains to this day a convicted felon, 34 felonies in violation of New York law.
Lawyers arguing that it should never been there, that somehow this action was federal in nature, that even though the president was doing all these things at the time, that he was a private citizen, it's for some reason it is a federal matter should have been brought in federal court.
rather than the New York State Court and that the evidence in the case involved actions that were in his first presidency.
And again, the appeals court, the federal appeals court, entertaining that as they are obliged to do.
Prosecutors working for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office have countered that instead of, of course, that this is involving state violations, attempts to disguise reimbursements from a hush money scheme to the porn star.
They have nothing to do with the presidency and that Donald Trump was acting as a private citizen at the time.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals has looked at this and is continuing to look
at it again leading to arguments just this past week in front of the appeals court once again to decide whether or not Donald Trump is right and all the lower courts are wrong and this matter should always been in a federal court that also
being pursued by the president in his personal capacity, although he might well say that this is a public official capacity thing that he's doing.
Also significant to note that way back, way back in 2023, you recall that several juries found that Donald Trump not only had sexually attacked a woman named Eugene Carroll in that Bergdorf Goodman store in Manhattan way back in the 1990s, but significantly had defamed her in failing to acknowledge that and calling her a liar.
telling the world that she is making all this up.
We had several trials.
We had several juries that came back and said, yes, indeed, Donald Trump, you have defamed Eugene Carroll.
And Donald Trump, again, seeking a hearing before the full U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, once again, different case after a three-judge panel declined to overturn the judgment.
Divided court left intact the decision upholding the jury's damages award.
Appellate court denial of an en banc hearing came without an explanation.
That is, we're not gonna
have the entire Second Circuit reviewing all of this.
And again, that in the President's, Donald Trump's pursuit of his various personal actions.
We return again, of course, to what has happened and happening, breaking story in Minnesota in our final minutes here on Amicus Law Review.
We know well about what the governor has told us.
That is that there is one lawmaker dead.
Her spouse also killed another lawmaker injured seriously.
His spouse also injured seriously.
We know that the law enforcement authorities right now are looking for the suspect.
Apparently latest reporting that he may have been impersonating a law enforcement officer on this day of history in America.
As I indicated earlier, I call upon my president to say something and indeed he has.
He said, our Attorney General Pam Bondi and the FBI are investigating the situation and they will be prosecuting anyone involved to the fullest extent of the law.
Such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America.
Then goes on to say, God bless the great people of Minnesota, a truly great place.
It comes close.
It is not bad.
But I ask for you, Mr. President, to say even more, let us condemn all of these kinds of acts of violence.
Let's stop the threats which you yourself have made with respect to officials on the judiciary and in other places of government, local, state and federal.
Let's spend the time today at the start of the parade that's going on in Washington, D.C.
by announcing how horrific this is for all Americans by describing the fact that this is not America and say it.
with full-throated vigor to all of us.
You begin the process today by describing just how horrified you are.
about what has happened here, and you condemn this in the strongest words possible.
And even as we celebrate the right of everyone to pursue the First Amendment and articulate their views openly, even views that are not popular in all directions, we also recognize that that cannot be done in the midst of violence today and at any time.
That's what we need to hear from you, Mr. President, as we go forward today on these protests in states around the nation and in Washington D.
We'll continue to cover that story and other rule of law matters.
Here on Amicus Law Review, I thank you for your attention, your focus, your engagement today, and I offer to all of you a safe and secure weekend.
Take care, 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.