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.
My name is Jim Santel This hour and next hour as well.
This as always is our weekly weekend review of all things justice related Government related rule of law related we take our name amicus sometimes referred to as amicus curiae a friend of the court but a friend of the community providing you with helpful information to
enable you to assess, to evaluate, to examine the world around us, including especially those topics in the areas of justice delivery and the rule of law.
This weekend's broadcast, no exception to that commission.
Delighted that you have chosen to join me and my producer Max for
Some portion of this weekend, and that includes, that includes your comments, your questions, especially your inquiries, your quizzical matters that you want to bring to my attention.
You can do that in a couple of different ways.
You can always call in at 855-752-4842.
That number once again is 855-752-4842.
Max always reminds me as well that you can be in touch with us by dropping a comment, your question into
our chat box, and we encourage you to do just that.
Be a part of our discussion, especially this weekend, as we have a lot, a great variety of cornucopia, if you will, of rule of law issues to discuss lots of things going on, some of them related to matters that we have talked about in recent weeks and months, some of them brand new.
some of them brand new from all places on the face of the planet, including, including right here in the state of Wisconsin.
What are we going to be talking about this edition of Amicus Law Review?
We are going to start our discussion right here in the state of Wisconsin talking about a latest important decision by our Supreme Court.
Sounds wonky, I know, sounds lawyer-ish, I know, and that's because it is both of those things.
But it is also much more.
It's also about administrative rulemaking, and yes, indeed, the balance of power authorities between the legislative branch and the executive branch, the assembly and senate, and our governor's office.
Specifically, talking about a major decision of our Supreme Court, once again, split about who has responsibility for issuing, making, maintaining,
forcing rules, rules in the state of Wisconsin.
How is it that you can establish those rules and how can you overturn rules that are presently in place?
We'll talk about that.
It also has as its core a significant LGBTQIA issue.
And that is the roundly rejected notion of conversion therapy.
That's at the core of that issue.
And we'll talk all about what the Supreme Court did in both of those areas in just a few moments.
We also have some other important news coming out of litigation here in the state of Wisconsin, a new lawsuit.
another lawsuit, this one challenging, once again, the line drawing for our congressional districts, those folks we sent to Washington DC to serve in our House of Representatives, not, not the assembly here in the state of Wisconsin or the Senate.
This is about congressional elections and line drawing for those, a new lawsuit.
Taking on a different strategy, taking on a slightly different theory, it is fascinating.
It is interesting.
And it also reaffirms, from my perspective, this notion that yes, indeed, it is good to develop a record on these cases.
And by that, I mean starting in the trial court.
where you can have a hearing and you can have evidence and you can present information to a judge or a jury about the merits of the case that can be appealed then to an appeals court ultimately getting to the Supreme Court but not beginning in the first instance at the highest court we see that a lot or at least attempts to do that here in Wisconsin we see it a lot with breakneck speed in these recent months and years
in the federal government as well as our United States Supreme Court takes on with greater rapidity, this great number of emergency applications coming right to the Supreme Court to stop what's going on at lower courts before those lower courts have had the chance to do what?
to develop the record I'm talking about.
So we've got some interesting things happening here in the state of Wisconsin, new litigation, new Supreme Court decision.
That's all right here in the state of Wisconsin.
There are also things going on in other places of our nation and that includes in Central California.
We'll talk about a major decision by a federal district court judge just on Friday of this past week telling the federal government that they cannot in fact engage in racial profiling
Telling law enforcement generally cannot engage in arresting citizens, residents of Los Angeles based upon racial
perceptions and instead need to have the reasonable suspicion that must undermine, must pride a predicate for every single non-warrant-based arrest in America.
We'll talk about the reason why that's important, especially in Los Angeles.
Yes, once again, we'll talk about why that particular judge entered the order, the injunction that she did with respect to law enforcement.
We'll talk about another injunction.
This one grabbing major headlines as well.
Early in the week, this one also from a federal judge, he is in New Hampshire and he has, yes, once again taken on this birthright citizenship issue and whether or not a single federal judge can enjoin, can stop, to stop the president's executive order of way back on the first day that he was in the first day in office of this present term, whether a federal judge can
enter a national injunction.
We know that the Supreme Court has said, you can't do that.
Amy Coney Barrett wrote in that massive order of a couple of weeks ago.
And this judge in New Hampshire, taking that on and saying, I understand the directive, I'm going to find a class, a class of
residents, and yes, as he says, citizens, newborns, newborns across the country who are subject to this executive order.
And I'm going to stop the executive order as to them.
And I'm going to do that by finding that they form a class.
A class action is what was brought in front of him.
He embraced that, he seized upon that, and he entered his order.
Certainly not the last word there.
Certainly not the last word when it comes to this overall issue of national injunctions, universal stoppings of things going on.
and in particular, birthright citizenship.
We'll talk about that.
Then we're also going to talk about another major Supreme Court case.
I know, I know, you thought the Supreme Court was done with all of its major rulings, and indeed, it has issued 67, 67 different major decisions since the term which continues began last October.
In fact, they continue to issue emergency orders.
Upon emergency applications by the administration, this one, this one again from earlier just this past week, permitting the president to go ahead with one of his major, his major landmark executive orders, instructing
19 different federal agencies, 11 of them cabinet level to begin to downsize.
And you might think, gee, isn't this what the Musk team was doing?
In part, sure, absolutely.
This was an executive order telling all these agencies across the board to reduce the federal workforce dramatically.
The Supreme Court just this past week by a very interesting, very curious eight to one split.
Only Katanji Brown Jackson.
only Katanji Brown Jackson objecting to this.
The Supreme Court saying, go ahead, Mr. President, you can do just that.
And sure enough, sure enough, within days of that order being issued, we've got reporting coming out of the United States Department of State.
confirmed by our Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, of thousands of people now being fired, terminated in the State Department, both there on C Street in Washington, D.C.
and around the world, probably no fewer than about 3,000, yes, three followed by three zeroes, 3,000 employees of the State Department alone, probably
in the next days and weeks, maybe months, going to be terminated from their jobs.
We'll talk about what the consequences of that major Supreme Court emergency ruling once again, without explanation, without description of the reason what that contemplates for America, for the federal agencies going forward, why it is once again a major victory for the administration
Attempting, depending upon how you interpret this, either to change government dramatically, downsize it, attack some of these programs that are out there, and in that connection, we'll chat in particular about my own perspective about what happens when you minimize and reduce dramatically the workforce of the United States Department of State.
I will recall some of the experiences that I had for about two years when I was in Iraq at the embassy in Baghdad, other places around the Republic of Iraq, with
those State Department folks.
I'll talk with you about why their presence there understaffed dramatically.
I know that sounds controversial.
Understaffed, however, dramatically in trying to establish the Republic, the democracy.
that in fact in the end still exists today in the republic of iraq they've got a parliament they've got a president they've got a prime minister they've got a legislature they've got people engage in voting and elective politics there in major part because of things that the state department and its political entities and its democracy entities and yes i will immodestly say also the department of justice and our rule of law initiatives there also
did a lot to promote.
We'll talk about what the consequences are when you minimize and slash dramatically the role of the State Department, not just in Iraq, around the nation and indeed in Washington, D.C., all of that coming out of the federal government.
just this past week.
And then finally, we're going to spend some time talking about another favorite topic here on Amicus Law Review.
And that is what's going on inside the Department of Justice.
We'll begin with the announcement by our Attorney General.
Her name is Pamela Bondi of a major lawsuit.
The Department of Justice, your Department of Justice, yes, that's right, is suing an entire federal district court, the District Court of Maryland, maintaining that its recent actions with respect to the deportations in a temporary state.
on deportations while the judges there have an opportunity to review petitions challenging deportations your United States Department of Justice suing the entire district court all the judges there by name saying you're in violation of the Constitution you cannot do this we'll talk about what that significant piece of litigation
brought in the Maryland court now transferred of course to another district because the very defendants in that case are the judges in that Maryland court.
We'll talk about that if you're scratching your head.
So am I. We'll talk about what that means.
We'll also talk internal to the Department of Justice about many of the things that are also part of the rule of law news of just past week.
We see that the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Attorney General Pam Bondi this week beginning
fire.
more January 6th prosecutors.
We know in the past that they have let go.
Many of those who are on a probationary non-primitive status now, now we see for the first time the termination of long-standing criminal prosecutors who have had the capacity before to engage in this kind of prosecution work.
They have been fired this past week.
We'll talk about what that means.
We'll talk also about these reports about tumult generally inside the Department of Justice having to
do with polygraph tests administered arguably to law enforcement supervisors, FBI supervisors around the country.
Even more significantly, this apparent battle among the deputy attorney general, the attorney general, maybe the deputy director, the director of the FBI involving
All sorts of things, including, including what happened, what happened inside the Department of Justice at the time of a major suicide.
You recall that one well that has animated much of our news.
We'll talk about all that.
We'll talk about some disclosures related to declarations and positions taken at the time of the president's decision to suspend the law.
Remember this way back when on TikTok, that legislation to prohibit their continued involvement in American life.
We'll talk about some things revealed inside the Department of Justice.
And more and more, all of that coming up on this edition of Amicus Solar Review.
Stay with us for that important 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 the Law Review, my name's Jim Santel, your host this hour and next hour as well on a discussion of all things rule of law related.
We are going to begin jumping right into our discussion this weekend talking about things happening right here in the state of Wisconsin, not federal matters, although they're connected to them tangentially and directly in some ways.
But we're going to spend most of our time in this next segment talking about two major things that happened right inside our state, both of them rule of law related.
of them about predicate issues, but actually having instruction for all of us with respect to larger topics.
about how we litigate, how we understand justice, how we administer that through the courts.
Let's get right into that as well.
You may recall well that we and other broadcasts talked a lot about this major decision of a couple of weeks ago, right before the 4th of July, the Supreme Court finding that this state abortion ban that was enacted way back in 1849, no longer in effect, the Supreme Court saying, even though it's been dormant for five decades, all sorts of things have happened in the interim to make it clear that the legislature no longer
that particular ban as being in effect.
And because of that, all the subsequent litigation, all the subsequent orders about how abortion can, in fact, be effectuated and accomplished in the state of Wisconsin means that that 1849 law never in effect, at least not in the wake of the 2022 decision coming out of our federal Supreme Court.
that overruled Roe versus Wade places in effect to the Dobbs decision, which says there is no federal federal.
privacy right, no constitutional right to abortion.
Now our Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago, our state Supreme Court saying that here in Wisconsin, that old 1849 law not resurrected, not revived abortion legal in the state of Wisconsin because of all of the legislative actions by our assembly, by our Senate in that period of time that make it clear that the law was not in effect.
Now we've got another, another major case coming out of our Wisconsin Supreme Court.
that also has a lot to tell us about the rule of law, how we stand in America.
This one having to do underlying the decision is all about a thing called conversion therapy.
We'll get back to that in just a moment.
It is significant as a core issue and what that means once again in the state of Wisconsin.
But we're also gonna talk about what the larger implications of this Supreme Court decision are.
Wisconsin Supreme Court just this past week, clearing approving this past week, the decision by our governor, Tony Evers, to go ahead with a rule that bans conversion therapy, and that's the core of the decision, but it's actually more interesting and more complicated than that in both regards, both the substance of it and the procedural, basically saying that
that the committee, a state committee, a joint committee, cannot effectively rule make.
The best within the governor's purview can't do that without, without the full consent of both houses of our state legislature.
Supreme Court clearing the way.
for the state to permanently enact a ban, again on conversion therapy, and a ruling, this ruling that at the same time gives our governor a whole lot more power over how state rules and procedures and practices are enacted.
The court specifically ruled, again, right down so-called partisan lines, that a Republican-controlled legislative committee's rejection, its decision not to go ahead, not to approve the governor, the administration's rule on conversion therapy, that would effectively ban that
practice here in the state of Wisconsin was unconstitutional.
Again, that ruling has major implications for conversion therapy, which again, now continue to be banned in the state of Wisconsin, but also brought impact, brought impact on how it is that power is delegated and relegated between the two very branches of government, the legislature and the governor as well.
The legislature cannot block the enactment by
by rules announced by the governor that carry the force of law.
Basically, let's go back to the core.
What is conversion therapy?
Where does this begin?
Well, it is known again as conversion therapy.
It's been out there regrettably for much too long a period of time.
It is scientifically discredited, virtually every, and probably I can eliminate the word virtually from that sentence, every single legitimate medical authority is discredited to this notion, this practice of using some therapies to convert
somehow, LGBTQIA people to heterosexuality or traditional gender expectations, whatever those might be.
The practice has been banned because of its medical inadequacy, the fraudulent nature of that practice in about 23 states in the District of Columbia.
And there are an awful lot of folks out there that say that not only is it ineffective, but it's actually affirmatively harmful.
Again, medical authorities saying this is not something that any forward-looking and a significant entity, including states and municipalities, other units of government should in any way embrace.
advocates seeking to ban that practice wanted to forbid this mental health practice and prohibiting professionals from pursuing it across the country.
And they've been successful in doing that.
Interestingly, as a side note, just in March of this year, the United States Supreme Court, indicating that this remains, believe it or not, yet another issue that they're taking up, agreed to hear a Colorado case that challenges whether the state and local governments there can
enforced laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQIA children in that state.
So this issue isn't going away anytime soon.
But at least now in Wisconsin, by virtue of what the Supreme Court has done, that is to uphold the rulemaking authority of the governor and the administration to ban this kind of discredited therapy.
Now, now it is banned in the state of Wisconsin as well.
Interestingly, both in 2019 and 2020, the Wisconsin Professional Licensing Board recognizing the inadequacy, the fallacy of this particular treatment had with the involvement of therapists and counselors and social workers and medical providers proposed this rule that listed conversion therapy as unprofessional conduct, right?
But the legislature's very powerful, very powerful committee called the Committee for Review of Administrative Rules had blocked the proposed rule twice, most recently in 2023.
The rule was effectively in order in 2022, took effect again in 2024, when the legislature adjourned without permanently suspending it.
And that leads up to what the Supreme Court had in front of it this past week.
We'll tell you what they did with that procedural history.
as Amica Solar Review continues.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a lot of you on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
We are talking about a lot of things on this weekend's broadcast, including issues right here in the state of Wisconsin, specifically this major decision by the Supreme Court that
does in fact permit the governor to go ahead with his ban on conversion therapy here in the state of Wisconsin, but also has larger implications for other issues as well in rebalancing, re-delegating, if you will, re-establishing the proper rules of a legislature and the executive branch when it comes to who's in charge about setting rules and specifically how those are decided upon.
Again, this major committee, the Committee for Review of Administrative Review, it's a
a joint committee of the state legislature had tried to block, and in fact did block for a while, the governor's rule, that rule coming out of the Wisconsin professional licensing board saying that conversion therapy discredited, not effective, harmful should not be a part of our healthcare here in the state of Wisconsin.
Those who supported the committee said that this is not about the policy, but rather about the capacity of the legislature to decide what the law should be.
and what the rules in the state of Wisconsin should be.
The Supreme Court said no.
The Supreme Court said that the legislative committee has overreached, has overdrawn when it comes to its authority by blocking a variety of state regulations during this administration, including most recently conversion therapy.
It means the legislature in this area and others will not be able to block this policy and others.
The specific decision
are issued by the majority of the Supreme Court.
Again, four to three, write down partisan lines.
It is too bad that we continue to talk about any court, including our state Supreme Court, our federal Supreme Court, any justices and judges out there by virtue of their political affiliations.
Regrettably, that is sometimes the world in which we live.
This one, four to three decision authored by Chief Justice Jill Karofsky.
She says that the law, this rule,
that was the subject of the committee's attempt to block it.
A small minority of lawmakers, she said, should not be basically able to veto a rule-making proposal of the executive branch, that's within the executive authority.
She said that what they had done violated two fundamental concepts, and here's your rule of law, here's your law school instruction for the weekend.
She said it violated bicameralism, that is this requirement, as you well recall from your own civics classes, to go before
multiple chambers you have to go to the assembly and the senate and get them both to approve to vote on things that's bicameralism and then also presentment there's another word that from comes from your past civic civics education that's the requirement that once past once both of the houses of the legislature passed on the legislation
Bill has to go to the governor to sign.
And in this case, no such thing happened.
Stayed at the committee level, they expressed their disapproval of the rule.
Not enough, says Jill Karofsky and the majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
And for that reason, that reason, the legislative committee fails in its attempt to overturn this particular rule of the executive branch.
Tony Evers calls it incredibly important again.
principally because of the LGBTQIA issue that is at its core, but also he said it prevents again this kind of thing prevents holding rules hostage he said without explanation or of action or causing gridlock across the government and of course there were equal
cries of inappropriate decision-making by the Supreme Court on the other side as well.
Significantly, once again, why is this a rule of law issue?
The conversion ban therapy, plainly one of several rules that have been blocked by legislative committee.
Now that the Supreme Court has said, no, you can't do it this way.
You've got to vote.
You've got to get the governor's signature.
Other...
policies, other practices, other issues out there include things like environmental regulations, vaccine requirements, public health protections.
So the full impact of this ruling, yes, with respect to conversion therapy, but also far beyond that, in many other ways, environmentalists, those involved with health and concerned about our general medical status in the state of Wisconsin and beyond, public health protections, all those kinds of things and more.
Now it's clear
once again, it was before and now it's equally clear by virtue of what the Wisconsin Supreme Court has said just this past week.
When it comes to rulemaking, the governor has the authority.
Here's the important footnote.
Of course, of course, the legislature can overrule that.
They can, in effect, pass the very legislation that Jill Karofsky was bemoaning, didn't happen here.
They can do that by passing an override of the rules.
by the governor can get that legislation to the governor's desk.
He may well veto it, but you can do those kinds of things.
It doesn't strip the authority of the legislature to act.
on any of these kinds of things, including things like public health care and environmental issues, you just have to do it right.
And that's what the Supreme Court has said this past week, four to three ruling coming out of our Wisconsin Supreme Court.
And then we've got this other piece of litigation, not legislation, litigation, also percolating up from the state of Wisconsin just this past week, also with some very important rule of law messages and mischief,
for all of us to consider.
A new lawsuit, another lawsuit here in Wisconsin, seeking to redraw Wisconsin's congressional, our congressional, the folks we send to the House of Representatives, congressional district boundaries, that lawsuit filed on Tuesday.
And you're gonna think, well gee, haven't we heard this before?
We have certainly seen what happened with respect to the
parallel the companion lawsuit many years in litigation, ultimately resulting in new maps of Wisconsin's assembly and state.
line drawing those districts that has been remedied at least in part addressing some of the great concerns about gerrymandering for state elective offices this one goes to our congressional offices the folks we send to washington dc every two years including november of 2026 a new lawsuit now challenging those lines as being
unconstitutional, but under a new theory, under a new theory which we will get to.
This, of course, happens, the filing of this lawsuit.
You may recall just about two weeks ago, the state Supreme Court declined to hear some other cases, two of them in particular, that also sought redistricting before the 2026 election.
The latest lawsuit is different from those in two substantive ways, at least from my assessment it is, maybe even three in particular.
Here's the first one.
The lawsuit is brought by a bipartisan coalition of business leaders.
And the reason why that is significant, of course, as we have talked before, what is the connection between business and the rule of law?
Why do you want to have business leaders involved in government, including the courts, but also in the legislature?
Well,
We know that the rule of law and the administration of justice, whether it's legislative, executive, or in the courts, the rule of law is important to sustaining business, right?
And if in fact you can rely, whether it's in the state of Wisconsin or other places, on the enforcement of contracts, maybe specifically in
courtroom settings, but also by the legislature, passing laws that are not necessarily favorable to business, but ensure that their interests are heard and supported.
If in fact the governor, the executive does the same kind of thing.
If the government basically, I don't want to say is pro-business, but instead of that is of a view that business is a good thing and commerce, commerce is something to be embraced for the livelihood or economic livelihood of our nation and of our
Then you've got encouragement for business to act to move to be present here all those good things So you've got a coalition by by the way a bipartisan coalition a subset of this first important point It's Republicans and Democrats businessmen coming forward and saying it is good business for us to have good representation from Wisconsin in the House of Representatives an interesting theory right that business supports that on a bipartisan
nature.
The second thing that's important is unlike these other lawsuits that seek to hopscotch over the lower courts, the district court, the circuit court, the appellate court, this particular lawsuit does it right.
And instead of seeking immediate review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, maybe ultimately by the United States Supreme Court, instead of going as directly to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on an original jurisdiction theory, it's out there, but again the Supreme Court saying
And those other lawsuits go back, go back and develop a record at the lower courts, have a trial, have evidence, have people come in and testify as experts, as lay witnesses, tell us what this is all about.
That's the way our judicial system works.
Have a judgment entered by a lower court that can then be reviewed by an appeals court.
typically appeals courts.
The state of Wisconsin and other places are viewed as error correcting courts.
They will look at lower courts and say, gee, you got this wrong.
You got this right.
And we will make a review of the lower court decision based upon the analysis of that lower record.
And then ultimately comes to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not those lower court rulings are accurate or not.
That's the way it should.
be pursued.
And that's effectively, as I read it, what the Supreme Court has been saying.
Go back to not square one, but the way that we have always done this in developing those records below.
And sure enough, taking that instruction, this bipartisan coalition of business leaders
file their case where?
Not immediately in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, not seeking immediate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because it is such an important issue.
It may well be and it certainly is, but they file it where in Dane County.
in the circuit court there, rather than directly with the Supreme Court as those rejected cases saw in the witnessing of the resolution of those.
It is significant that this lawsuit will therefore take a more lengthy journey through the courts.
Again, the Trial Court, the Dane County Circuit Court, will schedule proceedings, pretrial proceedings, trial proceedings, presumably whatever the court decides on the merits of this, and we'll get to that in just a moment, that will ultimately go to the
that error correcting court, the appeals court, to determine whether or not the lower court's decision was right, and maybe then, maybe then,
could be well into next year, maybe even beyond, then the Supreme Court takes a look at all this to determine what will happen.
Now, I know what you're saying.
You're saying, well, gee, Jim, that will mean that there's no way that all of this can be resolved by 2026, which is when the next congressional election is for these very representatives from those congressional districts in the state of Wisconsin.
And yes, that's right.
And that is in part the reason why those other lawsuits were brought immediately to the Supreme Court.
that expedited action from the Supreme Court.
Here, I would advocate that they're doing this correctly.
Regardless of what you think about whether or not these lines for congressional districts should be drawn, redrawn, how they should be crafted, it is good to develop for the interests of justice and the rule of law, good government, as we did in those other cases.
It is good to develop this kind of record and have evidence and have people engaged, if you will, the adversarial process to get
to a result that may not be perfect, may not be exactly what you want, what I want, what all of us want, but nonetheless is a product of this judicial system.
The Wisconsin business leaders for democracy argue in their new lawsuit, again, in Dane County, beginning with a trial court, not at the Supreme Court.
The Wisconsin's congressional maps, sending those folks to Washington, D.C., are unconstitutional not because of racial gerrymandering, not because of
political gerrymandering, but because of a cousin to those theories, if you will, because they are anti-competitive.
They're anti-competitive.
They're not promoting competition among the candidates for those positions.
And therefore they accomplish an anti-competitive gerrymander, not surprising coming from business people, right?
Who are concerned about competition, things like the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act in our nation's history to ensure that competition is encouraged.
Those laws supposed to be enforced by our Department of Justice and indeed in the state of Wisconsin, we also have.
a Department of Justice that ensures those competitiveness among businesses.
That's the theory that these businessmen adopt and approach in their new lawsuit.
And when we come back, we'll tell you more about a statistic that animates the lawsuit and what this is all about for the future of Wisconsin.
We'll continue that discussion right here on Amicus, a law review.
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.
My name's Jim Santel.
We are spending this first hour talking all about rule of law issues right here in the state of Wisconsin, including this major decision coming out of our Supreme Court having to do with administrative rulemaking and the vesting of responsibility in the executive branch to do that absent clear judicial oversight and action by the legislature, including judicial oversight eventually, but a legislative response to those rules.
Also now talking about this major new challenge to congressional districts here in the state of Wisconsin brought by a bipartisan group of business people, interesting plaintiffs, and also bringing the lawsuit not immediately in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
but going back to the foundation, which is the trial courts and filing this lawsuit in the Dane County Circuit Court, saying in connection with their lawsuit, a couple of interesting things, that anti-competitive, that is, gerrymanders that are every bit they say as antithetical to democracy and to law as partisan gerrymanders and racial gerrymanders, anti-competitive gerrymanders, where in fact you've got so much of the population
described within a particular district that they're no longer competitive, that the possibility of new candidates coming forward cannot be promoted.
And for that reason they say this is because electoral competition is vital to democracy and it's as vital as partisan fairness, absent competition for those positions by lots of candidates.
Incumbents in those positions and new candidates, you don't get a constitutional representation.
It is an interesting theory.
Now before the Wisconsin Circuit Court in Dane County, they know it along the way.
that the median margin of victory for candidates in the eight congressional districts in Wisconsin since the masks were enacted years ago is close to 30 percentage points.
That's the median.
That's the median margin of victory for candidates that they point to and say there's no competitive nature anymore in many of these districts.
And for that reason, that reason, the courts should redraw those lines plainly will not happen by the 2026 election, but it goes back.
and embraces fundamental notions of bipartisanship.
We should all be interested in ensuring accurate and meaningful representation in our Congress as we anticipate that in our statehouse as well.
We should be doing this, doing this by developing a trial record.
We should be doing it with, yes, sometimes the slow but deliberative process of judicial.
review and oversight and decision-making.
All of that, all that coming out of the state of Wisconsin.
We have callers on our line and we're delighted to have them with us this morning.
First, let's begin with Dick in Madison.
Dick, thanks so much for joining me this weekend.
Thanks for taking my call.
Jim, I have a theory and I had a little debate with a friend about William Barr.
I bring him up because now we have another attorney general who's basically just his personal attorney.
in my opinion.
But to bar, my thing is, had he not been his attorney general, we wouldn't need to be talking about Donald Trump.
And I say that because the way he skewed the Mueller report, I think he would have been a slam dunk.
He would have been impeached.
I mean, he took that thing and made it into something it totally wasn't, you know, how much of it did he retract or whatever the word I'm looking for.
By the time he got done with it, it was a big nothing burger.
And he saved them again after the insurrection.
And either one of those two times without William Barr.
We don't even talk about Donald Trump any further.
I agree with you that people make decisions, right?
And it's not just institutions of the office.
It's important to understand who are occupying those offices.
You've got, I could not agree with you more with respect to not only William Barr's assessment of the Mueller report.
That was a report that basically was setting forth in lurid detail
identifying exactly who would say what at a trial, whether it's an impeachment, a conviction trial in the United States Senate, or in another setting, another setting in a federal district court.
That, that Mueller report set forth arguably 10 different instances of instruction of justice early on.
Our attorney general at the time, Dick, you get it just right.
He misinterprets, misreads.
probably intentionally and describes in a way that's actually just plain not right and not accurate and not true and again the Mueller report the full Mueller report is out there you can read it and you can come to the conclusion that indeed there was a basis to go ahead to impeach this president way back in the early portion of his first term for the things that he had done obstructing justice certainly certainly the insurrection that happens afterwards of course that's that's January 6th just at the end
of Donald Trump's term.
There, there, we were beginning to build again, as Jack Smith did, this case against Donald Trump.
Basically ran out of time and the next administration determined that they could not go ahead.
For reasons that are also troubling to me and anticipating the arrival of the Trump administration dismissed that case too.
Lots of things based upon history.
And again, we think about those different timelines, Dick, that could have been changing
the very nature of our democracy today.
If our elected officials are appointed officials in the case of an attorney general, whether it's Bill Barr or Merrick Garland, if they had made different decisions, our world would be different today.
Appreciate that comment so very much, Dick.
Also hearing from Jack and Merrimack, Jack, your comment or question.
Yeah, I'm looking at, I can only assume it's a press release from Republican Senator Tomczyk.
Um, it says for immediate release
one of the statements on his, his, uh, this, this is about the, uh, um, Wisconsin Supreme court, um, ruling on the legislative oversight.
Yes.
And he says, quote, this, uh, ruling is, and this is a quote, a danger, a dangerous overreach that undermines the fundamental checks and balances.
in our state government.
You talk about a flat out lie.
What we have here is legislative action that's established agencies, those agencies then hire people who are experts in the field.
And I know because I've taken some of those civil services exams that have been offered.
a couple of times a job, and it takes, you have to know what you're doing.
And as Tom, Jack, to your very good point, it is not, it is not a legislative overreach, as Mr. Tom Cech says.
It's just the opposite.
It's a reaffirmation of the rule of law here in the state of Wisconsin.
Appreciate very much that observation as well.
When we come back, we'll go to the United States Supreme Court and other things in Washington, D.C.
This is amicus the second hour of amicus here on our weekend review of all things Justice related rule of law related government related.
My name is Jim Santel your host for this remaining time together here on the broadcast stations of civic media We spent the first hour talking about Wisconsin related rule of law issues in particular this major decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court Reestablishing if you will reaffirming the balance of powers between the legislature specifically a committee and the government
Governor, when it comes to rulemaking, has great impacts, not only on the underlying issue there, having to do with conversion therapy, but many other areas of our common interest, many things on debate in the legislature, in our state as well.
I appreciate very much the comment from Jack, bringing to our attention that one of our legislators already condemning that decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court is a dangerous overreach, rather than simply reaffecting and
and reestablishing the balance of powers, a fascinating review of exactly what the Supreme Court is and is not doing.
I appreciate very much that reporting, Tom, and also Dick calling in, underscoring a common theme here as well, that all of these decisions made in the end by human beings, underscoring the importance of voting because it's through a voting that people end up in our legislature and end up in the state house, the governor's house, and up in the White House.
and yes, indeed, on the courts, whether elected or appointed, all of that ultimately comes through voting.
The importance of Dick's comment, which is not with respect only to attorneys general like William Barr, but all of our elected and appointed people, whoever we send to Madison, to Washington, to our local school boards, to our county boards of directors, boards of commissioners, those kinds of things, whoever we send there, they are human beings,
And for that reason, our democracy is dependent upon the quality, the integrity of the people we send there.
That may seem very obvious, but it deserves reaffirmation at a time when we are looking a lot at what our nation is all about.
We are defined, yes, by the institutions, by the structures that are in place, but from generation to generation, we're defined by the people who occupy those positions, who take those seats.
And if we make decisions to put people
in those positions who are not reliable, do not have integrity, do not have the competence, the credibility, the mission to support and defend our safety and security, then we are all in trouble.
Appreciate very much that observation, Dick.
about our former attorney general, but much beyond that as well.
Appreciate well, well, the comments and the inquiries and the observations made by those of you who are texting into our show as well.
Mark from Prairie du Sac noting, very much anticipating the subject matter of this or a second hour.
He says, I'm not surprised that among the other cabinet appointees, Tom Homan, who is the boarder czar, has violated his oath to the Constitution and said in effect that we don't need probable cause.
Let alone warrants, we can simply seize persons because of how they look.
kind of thing, Mark notes, that the founders specifically prohibited in the Constitution opposing what King George was doing.
Appreciate that comment, Mark.
And making reference again, Tom Homan, maybe not a formal member of the cabinet, but again, the borders are, he's a plainly a very significant senior official who has said in the past, although he walked it back a little bit, that federal judges do not have to be followed in their directives, their orders.
And now again,
saying it's okay, as Mark has identified, that we can simply arrest people based upon how they look.
And indeed, that gets us to our first issue of this hour.
And before we do even that, I want to also comment that Matt from Matt Middleton, a slightly different take on all this, the authority of the states and the federal government to act in certain areas.
Matt notes, why can't state and local law enforcement block and stand up to...
federal law enforcement, even a militia.
If it is the state's police responsibility to protect its citizens, citizens, Matt says, and follow the law, then why do they ignore the law enforcement that are breaking the law?
I wanna see that controversy resolved in the future.
Matt, appreciate all of that.
Again, the comments from Mark, from Prairie du Sac, and from Matt from Middleton, both of those lead into our next major rule of law story,
just on Friday, Friday night of this past week.
And again, it goes to those issues of state and local and federal versus federal law enforcement.
It is unfortunate even have to be describing it that way.
But once again, we see that a federal district court judge engaging in, yes, let's say the word together, an injunction.
And again, you may say, well, didn't we prohibit those?
The Supreme Court did not prohibit.
federal district courts from enjoining, from stopping the bad things, the unconstitutional things from happening in our nation.
What the Supreme Court said is federal district court judges cannot make their orders nationwide.
They cannot have effect presumably beyond the particular district, the particular parties even, that are before a federal district court judge.
And that particular rule, again, cutting out of that CASA case, Trump versus CASA,
coming out of the Supreme Court of a couple of weeks ago, not violated by what happened in California.
A federal judge on Friday, her name is Maim Frimpong.
She is in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
That's basically Los Angeles and playing an awful lot of territory to the North and the South of Los Angeles as well.
That's the specific district, the federal district in which Judge Frimpong serves and presides over
She says that she is blocking this administration from making indiscriminate immigration arrests in the Los Angeles area and from denying those detainees the right to counsel with their lawyers.
Both of those fundamental constitutional rights goes to Mark's point about this notion of protecting people on the streets, protecting our citizens, our residents.
You have to have more than just a sense that somebody might be
It might be a bad person because of the way they look, maybe inclined to do something because of the way they may present.
That is not the reasonable suspicion.
That's the standard, the reasonable suspicion that law enforcement has to have before detaining, arresting somebody on the street.
two two separate restraining orders again a form of injunctive relief issued by the judge again representing a very strong rebuke of tactics that these federal agents again commented on by both mark and matt in our chat line
They're a part of our recent history.
They're in Los Angeles, deployed by our president.
They are in and around Los Angeles during these periods of immigration raids, and also, of course, the protests, which are also protected under our First Amendment.
Again, Judge Frimpong directing agents to stop racial profiling.
in the course of seeking out immigrants and otherwise doing what may be their legitimate law enforcement function, but you can't do it by racial profiling.
And she mandates, she tells the federal government as it's deploys hundreds of agents from immigration and customs enforcement, that's ICE, that's the long spelled out way of describing the ICE agents who are out there.
They've got to ensure that detainees have access to legal counsel, a fundamental
constitutional right.
She enters these two orders, these temporary restraining orders saying to the government, your federal government can't be engaged in racial profiling when you are engaging in detentions and arrests.
We shouldn't have to say that in 2025 in America, but apparently we do.
And second, and second, that if you do arrest people, you've got to enable them to have access to counsel.
Here's what the judge says in particular.
She says, what the federal government would have this court believe in the face of a mountain of evidence
presented in this case is that none of this is actually happening
Now, again, a couple of things, takeaways from that comment.
What she is reflecting on is the fact that she has had the very evidentiary hearing that we talked about, the reason why we have trial judges, lower court judges, because they can, in fact, take evidence.
They do, in fact, hear from witnesses.
And in her case, she does, in fact, look at look at photography and look at videography of what's going on out there.
Physical visual evidence of what's happening there.
She says that roving patrols her words without reason.
suspicion to arrest people, violated the Fourth Amendment rights of these individuals, and denying access to lawyers violates the Fifth Amendment.
Of course, she's right about that in terms of her constitutional references.
The ruling basically remains in effect, she says, for 10 days.
It comes in response to this lawsuit filed by some immigrant advocacy groups and led by the ACLU of Southern California and others in that area.
A fuller, fuller hearing.
Again, she puts this in place for 10 days.
That's the temporary restraining order aspect of this.
And she's going to have another hearing.
And at that time, there's going to be even more evidence based upon, again, presentations by those people who are attacking what the federal law enforcement is doing with respect to these detentions and arrests, and also giving a chance for the government, the U.S.
Department of Justice.
That's our adversarial system to present to her evidence this is not going on.
If indeed she is wrong about that, our government has a right to show that that initial conclusion of hers is inaccurate.
Los Angeles, of course,
one of the largest cities, second largest city in our nation.
And it also has about a 30% Latino population, home to the nation's largest population of undocumented people.
And so that is why it has been ground zero for much of this litigation activity and law enforcement activity as well.
During the hearing that the judge had on Thursday in this matter, she said she was skeptical of the government's assertions that it was not violating
the constitutional rights of people, and that agents were stopping immigrants and others.
on the totality of circumstances, which again is, is a legitimate standard for doing so, but you've got to do that once again based upon a situation when the totality of those circumstances result in a reasonable suspicion.
That's the on the street standard.
Doesn't have to be probable cause, certainly doesn't have to be clear and convincing, compelling evidence, certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt, but you have to have some reasonable suspicion that this person is engaging in some kind of, of activity that's violent.
of the law.
It can't simply be reliance upon how they look and certainly cannot be based upon race.
Now, once again, the government maintaining that it is not doing that will have a fuller opportunity in the formal hearing on the injunctive request as that comes forward.
The judge has suspended.
Again, she's maintained that this will be in place for 10 days.
And at that point, she will review all of this and review once again whether or not her order should stand.
Undeniably, this is going to be headed back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
That's where the district court is located.
Maybe, maybe again, back to the United States Supreme Court.
Because all of these constitutional issues, these law enforcement issues, these authority of government issues,
the executive branch, the authority of a president to intervene in states.
We've talked about that in great detail, the 10th Amendment setting forth for the states those things that are not expressly set forth in the Constitution.
All of those theories wrapped up in this kind of order entered by the judge, Judge Frimpong, just this past week.
She described the government's arguments in that case as very general, saying that they did not really engage with the high volume of evidence that the plaintiffs put in the record of these things that we've all seen and heard on the news.
That's her preliminary assessment.
Again, based upon what she's already seen, more of that to come coming out of the central district of California.
not at all prohibited by the Supreme Court's decision forbidding national injunctions.
Why?
Because she's not applying it nationally.
She's saying, in Los Angeles, if there are federal agents who are out there, ICE agents who are making these arrests, absent that reasonable suspicion, that's in violation of the Constitution.
Knock it off, she says.
Don't do that.
And also, if you do detain, if you do arrest people, you've got to afford them a right to counsel.
That's fundamental.
When we come back, we're also going to talk about another
judge.
This one on the other side of the country in New Hampshire entering another injunction.
This one a whole lot more broad as amicus a lot of you continues.
My name is Jim Santel as always so appreciating the comments who drop into our studio chat line from good folks like Mark and Matt in the past hour also callers like Dick and Jack who call in with their questions their inquiries the times they're scratching their heads or not simply make an observation.
About the topics on our syllabus and those continue now as we talk about yet another federal judge
Also entering an injunction, we thought we were done with these injunctive stories.
We are plainly not in America, nor should we be done with them because that's what federal district court judges in the context of executing the duties under their oath of office.
That's what they do.
They do many other things, of course, in civil areas, criminal areas, adjudicating all kinds of cases, but along the way, civilly, if in fact there are those situations where something has to be stopped,
as unconstitutional or dangerous or contrary to the safety and security of the community they can in fact and do have the statutory and even constitutional authority to say stop doing that and directing the parties before them to do just that to abide by those rulings that another issue about the extent to which this government the administration this Department of Justice when told when told to stop doing something or to do something that's also another form of injunctive relief
this administration on a regular basis saying we don't have to follow what federal district court judges do and that included included not only people like Tom Homan as Mark has identified but also our attorney general who has commented about the lack of power in our district court judges to do the very things that our constitution contemplates.
We've got another federal district court judge.
This one no less interesting than what the judge in central California has done with respect to an injunction
of federal law enforcement there in Los Angeles.
This one, however, coming directly from that recent major decision.
Again, probably the most significant decision coming out of the Supreme Court this past trim that said no more national injunctions.
From the pen of Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett saying federal.
National injunctions no more, cannot be universal.
You can enjoin people and parties from doing things, but cannot make it effective beyond your district, cannot make it effective beyond the lawsuit, arguably, in which you are resolving some claims.
Federal District Court judge, his name is Joseph LaPlante, L-A-P-L-A-N-T.
He's in the U.S.
District Court for New Hampshire, the New Hampshire District Court there, the state and also the federal court in New Hampshire.
Blocking, blocking the administration from enforcing.
It's very contentious executive order regarding birthright citizenship.
And I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking, wait, wait, didn't we resolve this?
And the answer, of course, is no.
The United States Supreme Court, in that same decision from Amy Coney Barrett and five others in the Supreme Court, did not expressly resolve the issue of whether or not the 14th Amendment contemplates that if you're born here, you get citizenship.
As the Supreme Court has said for well over 100 years, as has been our understanding about the interpretation
of the 14th Amendment for that interior period of time, all of that, all of that.
Now back in the news after the Supreme Court's decision, this particular judge, his name is Joseph Plant, U.S.
District of New Hampshire, he stops the order and he does it in this very interesting and legally focused way.
He recalls as well, he notes that in Amy Coney Barrett's major opus on establishing this new prohibition on federal courts, that while they can't enter national injunctions, they can entertain and identify and certify what are called
class actions.
That is, a group of people could be a smaller group, could be thousands, could be hundreds of thousands of people, could be millions of people, arguably, who suffer the same kind of consequence, called commonality.
If they've got commonality in the things that they have suffered, their underlying claims are the same or roughly the same.
If the legal premises for their challenges against what's going wrong or the reasons why they're bringing their lawsuit, if those are similar, it's called commonality, the judge can then do what's called a certain
certify, certify the class, and then move on to the underlying claims against them.
Basically saying, here is the group of plaintiffs.
Here are all the people who are going to be able to challenge whatever the defendants in a particular case are saying.
So what does this judge do using that very language of the Supreme Court that's specifically, expressly enabled?
parties to pursue still class actions.
What he does is he certifies a lawsuit as a class action.
It's brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of some clients there in New Hampshire.
And he basically says, I am certifying a class of all of the babies who've been born basically since February, which is when the executive order took effect.
All of the babies who've been aggrieved, been compromised, if you will, whose
whose citizenship, as a result of this executive order, have been called into question.
That is the class I am certifying.
It happens to be a class certification nationwide, he says.
But because of that, that commonality prompts him to certify the class, the children of undocumented parents and those born to academics in the United States on student visas.
That is the two categories that fall under the administration's executive order.
those born on or after February 20th of this year.
So we're talking about babies, right?
Babies who are weeks in a couple of, a few cases, months old or so.
That's the class.
Children of undocumented parents, people are illegally here, and those born to people who are here on student visas.
And he has certified the class and said, as to all of you in that class,
nationwide, I am enjoining the enforcement of that executive order.
The lawsuit again brought by the ACLU filed, filed among many other lawsuits within hours after the Supreme Court's decision of a couple of weeks ago that limited the capacity of federal judges, yes, including Judge LaPlante, to issue nationwide injunctions.
And this case appears to test the limits of
that approval for class actions in that very same Supreme Court decision, and plainly will be the subject of more review.
The judge, again, entering this order just this past week, and basically protecting, protecting all of the people in this particular category.
They are infants.
They're babies born since this executive order took place.
When we come back, I'll tell you more about the impact of that, why it's important, and then we'll also talk about
Something else the Supreme Court did just this past week here on Amicus, a lot of you.
This is Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Santel, talking once again about this recurring feature on our broadcast called Injunction Function, the function of federal district court judges among their many other responsibilities to enjoin.
bad things from happening, whether those are in violation of statutes, violations of laws of various kinds.
And indeed that continues.
This is past week.
We've got a federal district court judge in central California basically telling law enforcement, federal law enforcement, they cannot arrest people on the streets based upon how they look.
cannot do racial profiling, have to have a reasonable suspicion for doing that.
That's the law.
It is unfortunate that we have to have federal judges taking their time and their attention, reaffirming what the law is in America.
But apparently we need to do that, at least for our federal law enforcement, at least some component of it.
And then we've got this federal district court judge.
His name is Joseph LaPlante.
He is in New Hampshire, who has taken up the invitation of the United States Supreme Court in that case called Trump vs.
Casa, C-A-S-A, and has said, I'm gonna certify a class.
And I'm gonna certify a class of all those children of undocumented parents that has people who have been here illegally, and the children of those born to people here in student visas, academics.
In the United States, honor after February 20th, which was the effective date of President Trump's executive order, finding, affirming from the White House that those groups of people are not citizens.
the judge this past week saying no they are and identifying them by virtue of the commonality of their class wherever they may be beyond New Hampshire and finding that the executive order cannot be implemented as to them.
Undeniably this will be appealed certainly already
probably the pleadings on their way to the first Circuit Court of Appeals.
Maybe there will be, again, another one of these emergency petitions to the United States Supreme Court, which I now bemoan on a regular basis because of, again, loop-frogging over the proper and usual course of events when there is no emergent, urgent need to do so.
This case will certainly not go away anytime soon.
Maybe coming back to the Supreme Court for further interpretation of whether a class action can provide the predicate for a national injunction of the sort that Judge Lapland has entered just this past week.
It is fascinating.
As a legal matter, it is critically important as a law enforcement matter.
Yes, indeed, as a jurisprudential issue.
Most importantly, the top of the list, important.
to the people of this country, constitutional right to citizenship when you are born here, period.
That's the way it's been interpreted.
That is what the Supreme Court could and should have done instead of creating the administrative complexity that they now have.
Tom Homan, referenced by Mark earlier, who is the border czar for this White House, in response to what Judge LaPlante has done.
mimicking what he has said in the past about the lack of authority of federal judges to do their job declined to say exactly how the administration respond but following again this well-known this pattern of his he lit into the judge he said it's another example of radical judges not paying attention to the supreme court ruling these radical judges aren't going to stop he said they want to stop the trump agenda and what they need to understand is the american people vote
for this agenda.
A lot to unpack there and I will let you do that in determining whether Tom Homan is right.
I would offer he is completely wrong about the authority of federal district court judges.
He has the absolute right to articulate that view.
What he doesn't have the right to do is to take the next step.
and advocate for any sort, incite any kind of violence, threats against judges, and that of course is what we have seen with increasing frequency in recent times.
The entire threat issue whenever judges and other officials of the federal and state and even local government engage in conduct with which one or more persons may have some objection, not appropriate, never appropriate.
in violation of the criminal law to threaten and certainly to act on those threats.
And we have had prosecutions of those people.
The statements themselves in opposition to what judges do, yes, that is permissible under the First Amendment.
It is not permissible to go to the next step.
We will see how this plays out from the district of New Hampshire, coming from the desk of Joseph LaPlante.
and seeing what the administration and others around the country do now that we arguably have another injunction based upon a class status of these young people.
basically newborns.
The executive order, according to the Supreme Court on June 27th, stayed for 30 days.
So we've got until July 27th for these lawsuits and other things to play out in America, including in New Hampshire, including other places, arguably, including Wisconsin as well.
And additionally, we've got yet more federal action.
Let's talk about our Supreme Court in particular, all these cases deriving from recent Supreme Court decisions.
Let's get back to what the Supreme Court itself did just this past week on Tuesday.
You might think, gee, once again, aren't we done with these decisions coming out of the Supreme Court, the 67 or so that they've issued since the early October of last year?
And the answer is yes.
On those big cases that have gotten the proper review, there have been appeals, there have been
oral arguments, there have been memorandums of law, briefs written by lawyers, presented to the government, presented to the defense in exchange of differing views, and then presented, of course, to the Supreme Court itself for its review.
All of that is the process that we contemplate at the federal level and, yes, at the state level as well.
We don't, as I've been advocating during the course of this broadcast.
don't need to go right away to the highest court in the land if in fact the matter is not truly an emergency and that is the case most often when the status quo status quo does not need to be changed while we're litigating the underlying events emergency applications when the house is on fire when the flood is happening of the sort we're seeing horrifically right now in Texas that kind of thing we need to have a court jump in immediately to preserve life
an emergency application even in the context of death penalty litigation where you want a court to take one last look to determine if there's been any mistake at lower court levels before you pursue the death penalty in a particular state.
All those kinds of things, urgent, immediate, life compromising potentially, if in fact the courts do not act.
Question whether or not all of these emergency applications are falling into that category.
Here's another one.
That comes from yet another of the president's executive orders.
This comes again fairly early in the president's
current term he announced announced early on in his term that he would like all of the major agencies frankly all the federal agencies 19 of them 11 of them cabinet level offices and cabinet level agencies begin he said all of them directing all the officials in those agencies to assemble plans and protocols for large-scale cuts to the federal workforce a slash
many, many of members of the federal workforce and directs them all to undercake those initiatives.
And now I know you're saying, well, gee, isn't that the Musk team doing all that?
And yes, indeed, plainly that was the authority in part given to them to do all these firings in all of these different areas, including shutting down institutions like USCID and yes, going after the Department of Education, many others out there.
And as a result of this executive order, again, a challenge to it brought again in federal courts.
And just this past week, this particular...
Executive Order lands in front of the Supreme Court once again on an emergency application.
How does this come into the Supreme Court?
Why is this an emergency application to stop these large-scale cuts from happening?
Well, on May 9th, there's another federal district court judge.
Her name is Susan Ilston.
She's in Northern California, another district in California.
She pauses the administration's Donald Trump's plans for these massive layoffs and program closures and the things that will send federal
workforce out into the streets.
She prevents about two dozen agencies from moving forward with the president's directed plans to shrink the federal workforce.
Judge Ilston initially issued a tweak pause.
Later that month, she extended that and eventually it comes to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
That is the appellate court.
That's how the process works once again.
And the appellate court by us divided three judge panel supports what Judge Ilston has done on May 30th.
The Trump administration then files an emergency application rather than having this reviewed in the due course.
Emergency application asking for immediate capacity
of the administration to follow up on this executive order to lay off tens of thousands of employees and agencies like Housing and Urban Development and State Department and Treasury.
And what happens just this past week, again, the Trump administration, guess what it wants in front of the Supreme Court?
typical of these emergency applications, what happens, you get no explanation, no description, as you do in those 67 other cases of this past term, and of other 60 numbered cases of previous terms, sometimes even 70 cases, you don't get the explanation, the large 30 and 40 and 50 page orders explaining why it is they're doing what they're doing, instead you get a one line order.
And we got that again this past week with the Supreme Court, interestingly, an eight to one majority of the Supreme Court saying that the president can, in fact, go ahead overturning what the Ninth Circuit and what Judge Ilston had done, and saying, go ahead, administration, begin to pursue your plans, they already have, plainly, to fire great numbers of people, typical, again, of an emergency application, no explanation, no exposition, but do it right away.
And they're finding plain that this is an emergency.
And for that reason, the president given permission just this past week to go ahead with all of these firings.
Interestingly, there is one dissenting voice.
Only one this time.
We don't hear from Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan.
We hear from Katanji Brown Jackson.
She wrote a public dissent, 15 pages.
And she is sharply criticizing the court's decision.
She calls it not only truly unfortunate, but also hubristic.
invoking the notion of hubris and senseless, she says.
She argues that it undercuts the authority of trial court judges, which is also what she said in connection with that CASA case.
She said, you know, we've got to be able to, as federal judges, tell other
branches of government when they're engaging in violations of the Constitution.
She goes on to say, it is not this court's role to swoop in and second guess a lower court's factual findings.
She said that no one seriously disputes.
The president's executive order would lead to enormous real world consequences, including, she says, the dismantling of much of the government as Congress has created it.
Going back to this notion that's Congress who can restock
federal agencies.
The majority plainly does not agree with her.
Here's what she says in conclusion.
She says what one person or one president might call bureaucratic bloat, B-L-O-A-T, is a farmer's prospect for a healthy crop.
a coal miner's chance to breathe free from black lung or preschools opportunity to learn in a safe environment.
That's Katangi Brown Jackson in opposition to what the Supreme Court has done, permitting this administration to go ahead with executive order and fire, show the door to literally tens of thousands of workers by virtue of the executive order entered by this president.
We know in effect that that has its direct effect.
We have seen that just late this past week at the United States Department of State.
We know that our Secretary of State has already announced previously his decisions to downsize the State Department.
talking about the bloat in the agency for which he is now responsible.
And we know that as a result of that, the Trump administration, not just by virtue of what the Supreme Court now is permitted to do, but these plans were already underway, downsizing the federal government, firing more than 1,000 State Department employees on Friday of this past week alone.
You saw these pictures of people carrying boxes outside of the State Department on C Street, just a few blocks from, frankly, the White House and the
Justice Department.
And that's underway now.
When we come back, we'll tell you more about the impact of that State Department action to fire all these individuals and then do some rule of law snapshots.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus the Law Review.
Already our final segment of this weekend show talking about what the Supreme Court did just this past week, permitting the president, the administration, and all the agencies over which the White House has responsibility to go ahead with workforce slashings, that is reductions in force across the board, arguably 19 different agencies, 11 of them cabinet level, and we've seen that already.
probably underway at the State Department and many other agencies.
Just this past Friday, about a thousand people told that they should not come back on Monday.
1,400 layoffs announced on Friday, a thousand of them already accomplished.
The number apparently at the Department of State, probably approaching about 3,000 altogether.
our Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing that this is a part of his ongoing plan to make the State Department more sleek and more effective and more efficient in terms of its overall operation and making a change dramatically in our America's global engagement.
We will see how this impacts our role in the
world stage generally.
I can say that from the two years that I spent again many years ago during the latest Iraq war 2006 to 2008 when I was at the U.S.
Embassy in other places in Iraq but in Baghdad had an up close and very very direct engagement with State Department people.
Largest embassy at that time physically located in Saddam's old palace.
Largest embassy in on the face of the planet because plainly of our focus upon trying
to establish some peace, some security in the wake of the war that undeniably, undeniably, we had sparked by virtue of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
The purpose of the State Department, and yes, of me and others at the Justice Department there, to try to establish a republic in the wake of that war, in the midst of that war in 2006 and 2008, not at all an easy prospect.
But today, of course, regardless of what one may think about the genesis of that war,
was indeed premised upon some not just faulty but inaccurate and outright false information about Saddam's capacity to have weapons of mass destruction.
Today there is a republic in Iraq at great cost.
Tens of thousands of people, not just Iraqis, plainly at the top of the list, but also coalition forces, gave their lives, many injured.
There is a republic there today, and there is a prime minister and a president.
And there is a notion of voting and republic, republic notions, democracy is afoot there.
It is imperfect as it is in our nation.
And I tell you all that because that is in large measure, not so much of me.
And as the head of the Rule of Law initiative there, the Justice Adachai, although we had a small group there working throughout the country to those same ends to establish courts and prisons and police in ways that are consistent with basic principles of human rights and civil rights, but also those State Department people.
the ambassadors for whom I work, Khalilzad and Crocker and others there, responsible in way too few numbers for ensuring that things like the development of the country happen economically, socially, politically, commercially, culturally, putting together that parliament, ensuring that there is advocacy and assistance to the emerging Iraqi Republic.
All of that, all of that by virtue of state department officials
State Department employees overseas in the middle of that war and certainly beyond we are still there again still the largest embassy on the face of the planet right there in the border of the Tigris River all of that
being effectuated, being accomplished by civil servants, not political appointees, civil servants, who are there to ensure that America's place on the planet is secure, but most importantly, that the world order is promoted and secured in places like Iraq and in virtually every other place where we have diplomatic relations, including those places
where there is tumult.
That's what the State Department does.
That's what you lose when you begin to show thousands of people the door.
whether the State Department is there in Washington D.C.
on C Street, where these employees are around the country at embassies and at missions at various countries around the planet.
You compromise the capacity, as many former ambassadors are now saying, in the capacity of the government of the United States to be a player in world peace and world order.
And you also open the door when you minimize our presence there to others, including China.
and other places, other countries around the world who will take up the absence of us and have an influence that is not in our best national interests.
That's the compromise.
When you begin to minimize, yes, the federal workforce generally, but also right there at the State Department.
Down the street down Pennsylvania Avenue Constitution and independence You've got the Department of Justice not too far away from the State Department It's on 9th and Pennsylvania and there again Pambadi also engaging in her workforce reduction firing just this past week more of the prosecutors who responsible for investigating and then prosecuting
Those hundreds of people who attempted to overthrow our government on January 6th, this past week, at least three federal prosecutors are fired.
They are shown the door.
They were given dismissal slips.
And they were given those by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General of the United States.
His name is Todd Blanche.
They notified the recipients that they were moved from federal service effective immediately.
No reason for the removal was stated in the letters.
One of those fired employees now based overseas told, come back home, you no longer have a job.
At least three of them now at the Department of Justice, you know it well, that previously there have been other employees also involved in those prosecutions in the U.S.
Attorney's Office at Maine Justice who are
previously fired, how are they different?
Those were probationary attorneys.
These now are attorneys who are their long tenured.
These are people who had the experience in the background that we value.
in prosecution, whether it's for January 6th or other kinds of cases.
We also know as well that there is great tumult, generally, inside the Department of Justice.
We're still trying to figure out what's going on with respect to the Attorney General and Todd Blanche and the FBI, and Don Bonjuno, who is the Deputy Director of the FBI, Cash Patel, the Director of the FBI, rumors about their departures, all of that, arguably, arguably going to be resolved in the near future.
Not a good situation, right?
right now at the U.S.
Department of Justice.
We'll talk more about that and justice generally and the rule of law generally and government generally next weekend.
Once again, join us next weekend here on Amicus, a lot of you.
Have a good weekend,
everybody.
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.