Transcript
International & National Legal Headlines to Round Out July
Amicus: A Law Review · Sat Jul 26, 2025
You're listening to Civic Media.
You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.
Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.
I am your host on this broadcast from the stations of civic media throughout the state of Wisconsin.
and beyond, delighted and honored that you have chosen to spend some portion of this weekend in discussion, in conversation, in review with me of the mission, the purpose of our broadcast, which is, as always, the examination, the reporting, the analysis of the major stories in the areas of rule of law and justice and government, no exception to that ambitious,
but achievable agenda this weekend.
That includes, as always, your engagement with me and with my producer Max in our discussion of those various issues on our syllabus this weekend.
You can be a part of our discussion.
Send a question.
pose an inquiry.
Make a comment to me and to Max about the subjects on our syllabus.
You can call in at 855-752-4842.
That number once again is 855-752-4842.
Max always reminds me as well that you can be a part of our discussion, a part of our broadcast by sending Max and me a note, a question, an inquiry, whatever is on your mind.
in the civic media dropbox be a part of our discussion this weekend as always our agenda this weekend as in the past focuses upon those major rule of law issues that have been percolating up for days sometimes weeks sometimes months and that indeed animates all of the topics
that are on our agenda this weekend.
Let me tell you a bit about where we're going in this hour of our broadcast and then also in the second hour of our broadcast.
Again, always inviting your participation in our discussion.
We're going to begin.
We're going to begin by talking about the environment and climate change and two significant things that happened just this past week, one overseas and one right here in the United States of America.
We're going to talk about something that the World Court did.
They're located at The Hague.
We're going to talk about a unanimous decision by the World Court commenting upon the obligation of responsible nations across the planet.
to address and respond reasonably, rationally, and effectively to the great challenge that climate change presents to all of us in this early portion of the 21st century.
We'll talk about the extraordinary language used by the World Court in imposing obligations upon the spirit, the focus,
the industry of governments throughout the world to address this issue.
We'll talk about the connection between the World Court's order and what they described as human rights, civil rights, the basic dignity of all people that live on the planet with certainty about the future and certainty about their present status in a time of great climate change.
And then coming back, coming back to the United States at the other extreme of that issue, we'll talk about what the
our mental protection agency appears to be underway what they're doing right now and that is revising, revising dramatically their greenhouse gas emission policy.
We'll talk about how that's been in place for a long period of time, the expertise that produced that and what is probably going to be happening with respect to the rescission, the removal, the withdrawal of some major, not just the language of
the policies inside the EPA, but also, rescission of policies would have promoted a greater production of electric vehicles in the future.
Tail gas emissions.
We'll talk about those two cases in the area of the environment.
We necessarily then stay in the United States to talk about, as we always do, the important decisions of federal district court judges.
We've got at least two, if not three of them, just this past week.
Very interestingly, fascinating.
on the docket, not only of our discussion, but that of the United States population generally.
Yes, two of them focusing again on Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man, improperly, administratively, and erroneously deported, as the government has said, to El Salvador, that high security, brutal prison there, returned.
just last month upon a return of an indictment against him in the middle district of Tennessee, where he remains to this day, facing charges by a grand jury there in middle Tennessee.
We will talk about what happened this past week.
from the pen of a district court judge who's presiding over that criminal case in middle Tennessee, and then also virtually simultaneously within 90 minutes or so in order that that judge issued with respect to the release, the custodial status of a Braco Garcia in the custody, not in the custody, in the custody of the government, and the decision then made almost within minutes after that,
by another judge, and we've talked a lot about her.
She's in Maryland.
She is presiding over the much-related but separate and discreet case.
It's a civil case addressing Mr. Abrego Garcia's actual deportation, his immigration status there.
She has been working on this case ever since it was filed shortly after his, again, according to the government, erroneous deportation.
to El Salvador.
Fascinating sequence of events and fascinating sequence of orders issued by judges that are going to affect the status of Mr. Abrego Garcia.
Is he in prison?
Is he detained pre-trial?
Is he going to be released?
What are the circumstances of that?
And what are the conditions under which that may happen?
Will, as the attorney general has promised to us, as she has said brazenly, outrageously, that if somehow
Mr. Abraigo Garcia is released from custody upon a judicial order while that criminal case is pending, she will direct and the folks from Homeland Security will direct that he be reapprehended and deported again out of this country to another nation.
She has promised that.
and we'll talk about the consequences of all of those actions.
Yes, Mr. Kilmar, Abrego Garcia's case, very much back in the news, affecting the rule of law in America, not just for him, that of course is at the top of the list, but also for all of us who are concerned about due process, the role of federal district court judges, and the responses of this government, and this Attorney General, and this Department of Justice.
to directives from federal judges, both at the trial court level and also the appellate court level.
We'll talk about all of that.
We will necessarily then talk, as we always seem to talk, about the United States Supreme Court.
We have plainly spent a lot of time on this broadcast in broadcast pass talking about many, not all of those 67 major decisions that the Supreme Court issued in a variety of different areas just this past term.
The term continues to this day.
Those major so-called merits cases, that is the cases that have been properly appealed, they've been discussed, they've been briefed, they've been the subject for oral argument and review.
A process has gone forward to produce those opinions, which we've spent a lot of time talking about, including, yes, indeed, that case involving nationwide injunctions, that case involving religious claims by parents.
to prevent their students from hearing about various stories and storybooks in Maryland, a variety of other things having to do with the Affordable Care Act, having to do with guns and American ghost guns, and Mexico's attempt to try to hold gun manufacturers liable, a great variety of things before the Supreme Court on their merit stock it.
And yet, even in the wake of their issuing those major cases pretty much concluded at the end of June, they continue to work, prompting an awful lot of people to ask you, me, others.
I thought the Supreme Court now was going on vacation for a while, and they plainly are not.
They do not go away during the summer, and they typically do issue from time to time decisions about the cases that they will take up.
in the next term and they're doing that and they also still continue historically and certainly in this term as in the prior term of Donald Trump they continue to issue these emergency docket orders.
This is the so-called shadow docket about which we've complained an awful lot on this broadcast by my count about 20 of them just in the last six months or so.
We'll give you some more statistics about the significance of the change in the number of emergency orders
issued by the Supreme Court.
Between the time of the 16 years of the time of the Bush administration, the Obama administration, about eight of them altogether, four of them granted, we have now had 20 of these applications just in the first six months of this term of the Trump administration alone.
And we will talk about what that means, again, the consequences of that, why that's important.
And yes, the focus once again, just this past week, two very significant emergency orders entered by your Supreme Court.
Same kind of process.
No review, no oral argument on this.
Yes, there's some briefing done, some petitions made, issuing orders, that is the Supreme Court issuing orders without that process going ahead.
one sentence, two sentence orders, resolving the applications for emergency appeal, one of these from the government, another one of them, interestingly, very interestingly, coming from some Native American Indian tribes in the 8th Circuit, asking that a major case, which will percolate up again in the coming term involving the Voting Rights Act, asking that the United States Supreme Court
intervene and stop the application of an 8th Circuit decision with respect to the applicability, the use, the invocation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in both of these cases, both emergency appeals in very different kinds of situations in both of them.
The Supreme Court granting granting the applications ones for the government related to the Consumer Product Safety Commission will talk about that the other one related to the Voting Rights Act in the 8th Circuit completely different issues completely different focuses down the road and Both of them important not only in their own right will talk about the significance of these decisions coming out of the Supreme Court now and in the future as well
And we're also going to chat about another thing that happened just late this past week, having to do with sanctuary cities and a judge making a major determination about a lawsuit brought by the administration.
This is the reverse.
This is the Trump administration filing a lawsuit against the municipality just to the south of us here in Wisconsin, in Chicago, alleging that the conduct of municipal authorities in Illinois, in Chicago,
under mind the safety and security of our nation.
We'll talk about that.
We'll tell you what a federal district court judge there did just this past week in shutting down that.
lawsuit by the federal government and then in our second hour in our second hour after all of that and that is a lot we are then going to turn necessarily back once again to the Jeffrey Epstein matter and we'll take your phone calls about all of that the Jeffrey Epstein matters in our second hour but in the first hour all of these things related to the rule of law and government due process and justice in America stay with us for all of that and more
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.
I am your host on Amicus, a lot of you this hour and next hour as well.
Again, so very pleased that you are spending some time with Max, my producer and me this weekend talking about these major issues in the area of law and government and the aspiration for justice in our nation and around the planet.
And that is where we begin another programming note.
And that is we are, yes, going to be addressing what seems to have occupied this in Broglio.
called the Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell matter in Washington, D.C.
We're gonna talk about that in our second hour this morning, going to give you some perspectives of what we know and what we don't know, what the truth is and what we are speculating about.
And by me, we, I do not mean you and me, I mean the folks in Washington, D.C.
who have turned this into a parlor game.
We'll talk about a thing called Occam's razor.
Occam's razor, which many of you know well, this notion that the simplest explanation about things in life is almost always the right one.
We'll talk about why that is so applicable in this situation and all the conspiracies within conspiracies that unfortunately are animating this thing in Washington, diverting attention from more important issues like education and healthcare and agriculture and labor and commerce and international relations and yes indeed environmental issues.
why all of that needs to be put in context and also some commentary about our United States Department of Justice.
But before we get to that, let us talk about the environment, perhaps as many people, including now a major tribunal, have referred to it as an existential threat.
Let's talk first about what happened overseas.
Justice passed.
We can something called the International Court of Justice.
It is the United States, United Nations highest court.
And although the United States follows what the UN court, the International Court of Justice says and does, sometimes called the world court, the reality is, is we do not subject ourselves to the jurisdiction of it, have not done that under administrations present and past, but watch it carefully and thoughtfully and regarded as a legitimate court, even though
not exercising jurisdiction over us and our government here in the United States of America.
Even so, it is a significant thing.
The Justice past week, for the first time in its history, at the request of the United Nations itself, of which we are a part, as you know well, the UN court weighing in on what it called the urgent and existential threat of climate change.
Describing it as this major, major issue,
that implicates the actions, the conduct of governments and peoples throughout the world.
It was the first time that the court, again, United Nations highest judicial body has weighed in on climate change.
A unanimous opinion, a unanimous opinion from the members of the
Court of Justice saying this, saying that the failure of nations across the planet to take action to protect the climate system on our planet can constitute, this is their language, an internationally wrongful act, coming in awfully close to talking about criminality, an internationally wrongful act.
The court also finding that protection of the environment, in their words, a precondition.
a precondition for ensuring what?
For ensuring human rights.
And they cited government support of fossil fuel production as a potential violation of those principles.
It is an internationally wrongful act.
to fail to protect our climate.
And it's a precondition to human rights, to basic fundamental human dignity across the planet, every nation.
I would offer including ours as well, even though we are not subject to the jurisdiction of the UN court.
It is a precondition to human rights, fundamental dignity, fundamental notions about the way that we live and quite literally breathe in America.
Judge Yuji, who's the president of the court, said this.
He said, the environment is the foundation for human life upon which the health and well-being of both present and future generations depend.
Now, significantly, I know what you're asking, the International Court of Justice, yes, no mechanism to enforce this opinion.
It is therefore advisory.
It's not...
binding, it's not compelling on nations, but it's an important statement about legal principles on the findings that the court makes could have and should have, right?
Should have far-reaching influence on litigation in the courts around the world, including our courts right here, should have an impact upon international negotiations, the Paris Accords, the treaties, those kinds of things on climate policy and funding.
The United Nations General Assembly, of which we are a part.
We're also part of the Security Council, of course, among the major leaders of the UN, requested this opinion after what can only be described as a very animated, a spirited, years-long campaign organized by law students from around the world.
It led to a two-week hearing in December.
And at that time, about 100 countries and various organizations and experts address the court hoping to influence the opinion.
And so we get.
From the 15 judges answers to the questions they were posed that was posed to them including what countries are obliged to do under the existing international laws and treaties Protect our system to protect our climate the environment for future and for the future in particular greenhouse gases Keep that in mind.
We'll get back to that and what the legal consequences are if any by the axiom missions as lawyers and judges like to describe them
If in fact, if in fact they cause significant harm and failure and fail to do anything the powerful fossil fuel producers including the United States and Saudi Arabia argued before the court that the 2015 Paris Accord which nearly all countries agreed to limit greenhouse gases was sufficient to address climate change and so Arguing no further statements are necessary plainly
That was not adopted by the court's 15 judges and we have instead this statement by them.
calling global warming an urgent and existential threat at this decision.
This ruling, these proceedings in the Hague, closely watched around the world and should be closely watched by every American, every citizen concerned about the future of our nation, the future of the globe.
We are all partners in this.
When we come back, we'll do the juxtaposition at the other extreme on what our EPA, our Environmental Protection Agency, did, appears to be doing right now.
Completely contrary to what the Hague court said just this past week, we'll do that as Amicus, a law review, continues on the broadcast stations of civic media.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a law review on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
As always, encouraging you to be part of our broadcast.
Call me.
Call Max at 855-752-4842.
Be a part of our online studio chat.
Send me especially your questions.
There are a lot of things to discuss.
A lot of things that are head-scratchers to all of us.
be a part of our discussion here on amicus a lot of you our discussion this weekend beginning in this first hour of our broadcast talking about the environment the subject of a lot of litigation in america at the supreme court at appeals courts at district courts state courts federal courts it is a significant issue it is as the world court has said
an urgent and existential matter that needs to be addressed and while the world court tells nations and their leaders around the face of the planet what it is they're obliged to do talks about their failure to act as being internationally wrongful
and obliges them to do something as a precondition to human rights.
That's the way they spoke about the significance of this case, even while that is happening this past week at the Hague overseas.
Our own government, our own environmental protection agency, plainly appears to be heading in the opposite direction, perhaps not surprisingly given this administration's lack of focus, lack of commitment, lack of belief in the fundamental thing that scientists tell us and that's where we begin.
The Environmental Protection Agency, as you know, created by a former president, his name Richard Nixon.
He was concerned about the future of the planet and the nation and communities locally as well, the way in which we live.
and breathe and drink water and abide in each other's company.
Just this past week, we learned that the Trump administration inside the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, charged with issuing rules and regulations enforcing the laws of our Congress, enforcing the rules established legitimately, lawfully by the EPA to enact, to execute on what the Congress tells it to do.
Trump administration is drafting a plan to repeal, to rescind, to pull back on a fundamental, a core scientific
finding that has animated our policy in this country for years.
That policy has given the United States government authority to do what to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule.
that's coming up, apparently in process, would rescind, pull back, eliminate a 2009 declaration.
What is that all about?
It's known as the Endangerment Finding.
Endangerment Finding sounds very ominous, and indeed it is.
The Endangerment Finding, a scientifically established concept created by, authored by, the product of people who know what they're talking about, establishing that greenhouse gases
Like carbon dioxide and methane do in fact endanger human lives That's what scientists tell us as a part of the scientific method as they work through these issues That is not just the latest view that is the current status of the scientific Understanding about the reason why we have climate change that finding that core finding that endangerment finding the foundation the core the basis for what is
it's the basis for the EPA's only the only tool the exclusive tool that it has to limit the climate population pollution rather from vehicles power plants and other industries that
collectively are dangerously heating our planet.
That's the basis upon which our government can issue rules and regulations with respect to vehicles and power plants and other industries out there that are producing these gases that change our lives.
The EPA proposal, which is probably going to be made public in the next several days, calls for rescinding those limits on what tailpipe emissions
those tailpipe emissions standards restrictions were designed to encourage automakers, we know who they are out there, to build and sell more electric vehicles as one of the important ways of addressing climate pollution, greenhouse gas pollution in America.
The regulations, again, the basis of the of the endangerment finding derived from the endangerment finding, a fundamental part
of administrations passed to move the country away from these gasoline powered vehicles that again a majority of us drive.
Transportation sector of course is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States of America.
The EPA apparently tends to argue that imposing climate regulations on automakers poses the real harm, the real actual harm to human health because it will lead to higher prices and reduced consumer choice.
And that apparently is what's animating this apparent decision of this major doctrine, this set of rules.
Removing this endangerment finding that again gives the EPA our government the capacity to impose rules that promise or at least anticipate
a cleaner future.
Going in the opposite direction here in America from what the UN court, the court of the Hague, the International Court of Justice is telling us that we must do and describing there for what the EPA is doing as an internationally wrongful act.
Appreciating, of course, that what we do here in the United States does not just affect us here in the 50 states and territories of our country, but affects people worldwide.
While divergence this past week, rule of law issues, climate issues, government issues in the area of the environment, plainly more controversy, more action and government inaction as that issue moves forward.
Let's change our focus a bit to federal district court judges in the United States of America.
We have talked about them a lot in the context of these many executive orders that the president has issued in the past six months.
Well, in excess now of 100 of those, most of them being the subject of attacks in the federal district courts.
And we have chatted about a lot of those.
Most of the federal judges taking those up have been finding variously that the executive orders are unconstitutional, that they cannot stand subject to appeal, subject to the Supreme Court review, which we will also get to.
But we've also been talking about the work of federal district court judges and appellate court judges.
And yes, indeed the Supreme Court, when it comes to this deportation issue, the immigration issue, the deportations of
people, some of whom are subject indeed to deportation, the questions are due process afforded to them, some of them not afforded, many of them not afforded due process in terms of their arrest, their deportations, their movements.
without due process to other nations.
And that has included a man named Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
You know his name well.
He is probably the one among the hundreds of deportees in this category of immigration focus.
He is the one whose name you know best.
Who is he?
Well, you know that in March of this past year, he was detained.
He was deported to this brutal high security prison in El Salvador, along with about 200 and almost 248 others, absent due process protection.
mandated by Congress and mandated also by the judges, at least one of them.
Her name is Paula Zinnis, arguably two or three others who are saying you need to afford these people due process before you arrest them and detain them.
And it may well be at the end of that process that they are not only deportable, but should be deported.
And so we're not quabbling with you about the decision ultimately to remove them from our nation, but requiring that you do this according to a due process regime.
Abraco Garcia remained in that prison, as you know, with great controversy for many weeks.
And during that time period, the government said that we cannot return him.
He is there, even though the government early on said this was an administrative error.
He should not have been deported.
A subject brought to the attention of the federal district court judge, Zinnis, and she demanding therefore that he be brought back to this country.
doesn't happen until our attorney general announces in June just last month.
And lo and behold, a federal grand jury in the middle district of Tennessee.
The Middle District of Tennessee has returned a federal grand jury indictment, charging men to counts with the illegal, unlawful transportation of undocumented people, illegal aliens, as the grand jury indictment says, other allegations nestled into that narrative account, which we've talked about.
And based upon that, Abrigo Garcia is brought back to the United States of America from that prison in El Salvador.
And he has remained in custody in the Middle District of Tennessee.
to this time, to this day, awaiting trial on those counts.
He's no longer overseas.
He's no longer in that high security, brutal prison in El Salvador.
He is now in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons in the Middle District of Tennessee awaiting trial.
And while awaiting trial, he has been subject to questions about whether or not he should be released pending trial.
We've talked about this a lot in other contexts.
You know the standards well because it now trips off your tongue.
those standards whether or not the defendant is a risk of flight whether he or she will leave and whether that person is a risk to the community risk to the safety and security of all of us those are the two standards and at least up until now the courts there including a magistrate judge have kept him in custody along the way very significantly our attorney general my attorney general her name Pam Bondi has said notoriously wildly that if indeed a judge should release
a brago Garcia while he's awaiting trial, which is routinely done, not always, but can be done.
Nothing wrong with that.
If that happens, she said, I promise you that I'll send the federal law enforcement authorities to pick him up again and deport him a second time, even while he's waiting trial on this grand jury indictment in middle Tennessee.
That I would offer to you is outrageous and it is important because it animates what happens this past week.
We've got two judges.
I'll introduce one of them to you.
I suspect you have not heard his name before, but you'll hear a whole lot more about him.
His name is Waverly Crenshaw, C-R-E-N-S-H-A-W.
He is in the middle district of Tennessee.
He is the judge, the federal district court judge there, who has been assigned responsibility for presiding over the criminal case, that indictment against Abraigo Garcia.
He is doing pretrial matters, motions, and hearings, all those kinds of things that attend.
any trial, any federal trial, any state trial as well.
When it comes to the pretrial proceedings, he is responsible for those, and he will oversee the trial itself of Abrego Garcia on those counts in the grand jury indictment, returned by the grand jury.
Now he also has jurisdiction, of course, over the defendant, over the body.
that is before him.
That's Mr. Abrigo Garcia.
And he has looked at all of this, and he has said a number of very interesting things just this past week.
He said, first of all, as I look at the evidence, and yes, indeed, it's not a trial, but as I look, he said at the evidence that the government has presented, at least initially, in support of its statement.
about the future of this trial, what it's going to present, but also significantly the reasons why Mr. Abrego Garcia is a danger to the community.
He said when the government has presented that preliminary, again, not final, not exhaustive presentation of its evidence, he calls it a poor attempt.
poor attempt by the government to tie Mr. Abrigo Garcia to all the bad things that are alleged in that indictment about him, talks about it being insufficient.
From his perspective, he's not the jury, but from his perspective, early on, throwing cold water on the notion that this indictment somehow incorporates and conveys compelling
not even close to beyond a reasonable doubt type of evidence.
And beyond that, he says this, when I look at Mr. Abrego Garcia from Maryland, his family is still there.
He has been here legally, administratively in error, deported.
He says, I don't see a reason to do that.
I don't see a reason to keep him in custody.
So he orders that he be released.
He is not a risk of flight.
Judge Crenshaw finds, and he is also not a danger to the community.?
And almost immediately after that,?
Judge Paula Zinnis in Maryland issues another order related to that order of Judge?
Crenshaw.
About 90 minutes inside, about 90 minutes.
When we come back, I'll tell you what Paula Zinnis does in another district in Maryland with respect to the status of Ubrego Garcia.
It is a fascinating legal
jurisprudential rule of law issue.?
Percolating up this week.?
We're talking all about it here on Amicus.?
Allah 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 is Jim Santel.
We are in the first hour of our tour broadcast this weekend.
We are necessarily, importantly, revisiting some significant developments in this immigration deportation indictment case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
He is still in custody in the Middle District of Tennessee awaiting trial on a two-count indictment coming out of a grand jury.
They're involving the illegal transportation of undocumented persons.
Just this past week,
who's presiding over that matter, pretrial, ultimately trial, his name, Waverly Crenshaw, issues in order directing that Mr. Abrego Garcia be released, not only because the evidence at least presented to this point by the government does not compel a finding that he is a risk to the community and suggesting the judge does, that even the underlying evidence is a pretty poor attempt.
to establish criminality here.
So Judge Crenshaw says he needs to be released.
And of course, this all happens in the midst of these threats by our United States government that if indeed he is released,
He will be apprehended once again and deported again.
The case against him dismissed and will deport him again, says my attorney general.
Well, that prompts action by another district judge.
You know her well.
Her name is Paula Zinnis.
She has been frustrated and understatement of wild dimension with the conduct of attorneys in front of her.
She is handling the immigration case, not the criminal case, the immigration case pending in front of her challenge.
Mr. Abrigo Garcia's deportation, his status generally.
And she, within minutes of Judge Crenshaw's decision to release Mr. Abrigo Garcia, she issues another order.
And she, in her order, bars federal immigration authorities from immediately taking Mr. Abrigo Garcia into custody when he's released from tennis in Tennessee.
In other words, you can release him, but...
federal government, you keep your hands off of him.
The order restored him to the legal situation that Mr. Abrego Garcia would have been in before he was arrested in Maryland on March 12th and sent to El Salvador a few days after that.
In her measure, she tells, again, the federal authorities, don't you dare.
Don't you dare pick him up.
I'm directing you as a federal judge that you do not have the authority to take him again, arrest him again, deport him again, as the administration has indicated it will do.
She's also ordered that the government begin any new removal proceedings against Mr. Briggo Garcia in Maryland.
If you want to go down that road, a whole new proceeding has to be initiated.
The judge also ordered the administration to provide Abrigo Garcia and his lawyers with a warning, a warning of at least three business days if they intend, if their purpose is indeed to start the process of seeking his expulsion to a country other than El Salvador.
Along the way, as she has done before, we're back at it.
The judge once again says that the department has acted badly.
wildly badly in his disposition in this case.
Her order was issued again about two weeks after she excoriated government attorneys in her court at a hearing for having, she said, destroyed the traditional bonds of trust that courts typically afford government lawyers.
And that is true.
It's not a complete deference, but it's some trust that if indeed government lawyers come before you on a search warrant and representations made in open court on applications for the discovery of evidence, there is an assumption.
that the government lawyers are true and genuine and that they have integrity.
She has said that has been destroyed.
She accused the government lawyers of defiance and foot dragging in complying with her initial decision, handed down in April to facilitate a Brego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador.
That recalcitrance, she said, is at the heart of a request made by a Brego Garcia's lawyers to bring sanctions against
Trump officials.
She rebuked the administration for the way in which it brought Mr. Abrigo Garcia back to the United States.
after having charged him in Nashville.
Now, what is the status of all this?
Two court orders effectively releasing him and also saying, don't you dare deport him as you promised to do.
It is fascinating in terms of it's the judicial interaction in these two districts, effectively telling the government that if he is released, he is not to be deported.
And oh, by the way, if you want to go down that road, you've got to start an entirely new proceeding.
That is the joint effect of the orders issued by Judge Wade.
and by Judge Paula Zinnis in Middle Tennessee and in Maryland respectively.
Now, why is this important?
Well, Mr. Garcia is still...
in custody right now.
And that is because of the concern about what your department of justice says about what happens if he's released.
And both parties, the government and Mr. Garcia, both have wisely said, until we can ensure that nothing bad happens here and bad, I mean, things that are contrary to the orders of these judges, we need to stay on that release.
And so he is still in custody.
His lawyers plainly in consultation, we're not privy to those, nor should we be, about how we
go apart effectively implementing these orders.
What are we going to do?
And the government lawyers, of course, have an interest also.
They should have an interest on your behalf and mine in ensuring compliance with what courts say that they need to do.
And so while all of this is straightened out, the defendant himself
The former deportee, Mr. Kilmar Abrigo Garcia, remains in custody, but he now has in his hand two very important orders from federal judges that say upon his release, he can return to Maryland and upon his return to Maryland, he is not to be redeported.
He will have to return at some point to the Middle District of Tennessee to face that trial in front of Judge Crenshaw.
And yes, indeed, the immigration proceedings before judge, those after proceed as well.
Neither one of these cases is dismissed.
missed, but his custody, his custody will no longer be in that of the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S.
Marshall Service.
All of that happening just this past week.
Terrifically interesting and not dispositive, but important issues.
Of course, the government itself saying that we're going to respond dramatically to this.
An assistant secretary of Homeland Security saying that Abrigo Garcia will never walk America's streets again, calling out rages.
Wallace and insane the decisions by these judges.
She says that their orders plainly are not to be followed.
And that, of course, undermining the rule of law in America.
When we come back, we'll talk about the United States Supreme Court, another institution of the rule of law when amicus, a
My name is Jim Santel.
Welcome to this, the second hour of our weekend broadcast, all things related to justice and government and the rule of law, necessarily in this, the second hour of our broadcast, talking about the United States Supreme Court, some things that it has done just this past week.
an awful lot of you were saying, wait, I thought they were done issuing those major opinions, those 67 cases rulings of its merits docket in this 2024, 2025 term.
And indeed they are done.
We will talk more about the implications of those as we have done in the past.
They continue to invoke.
However, their emergency docket processes.
This is the so-called shadow docket about which we have spoken an awful lot in the past.
We're going to spend some time talking again about the reasons why this is problematic, the reasons why this is such a change in our recent historical practice with respect to the
receipt, the filing, the action on administrative requests for immediate action by a Supreme Court.
And we'll begin with a little bit of history of recent times, and then as you may recall well, as the Supreme Court has issued various orders on about 40, count them, 40 different cases, different kinds of things of recent months.
Among those, among those, the decisions that it has made, permitting the president to remove some leaders, some commissioners of major entities like the Merit Systems Protection Board, that's the commission that reviews the hiring, the firing of federal employees when they feel aggrieved by decisions, employment decisions made, and also by the National Labor Relations Board.
In recent cases, the Supreme Court, upon the application of
the government of the administration of the inspector general being asked immediately to entertain overturning the lower court decisions that have preserved the jobs, the positions of those commissioners on the Merit Systems Protection Board, the National Labor Relations Board, even as the litigation as to them goes on in those lower courts.
And in those two cases, as in many, many others,
The Supreme Court has said short, go ahead.
You can remove those commissioners.
and they're doing that without providing explanation, without description, without the kinds of explanations and descriptions that we see in all of those other merits decisions that we've talked about, the 67 other cases, and indeed it's happened again just this past week in two different areas, two very different cases, two very different results, both, however, invoking once again the emergency docket, both
raising the issue of why?
Why are we doing these things even if you agree or disagree with the ultimate decision not getting a result just this past week?
The Supreme Court in one of its two latest invocations of the emergency docket has allowed the president to fire.
to terminate the positions of three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CSCPSC, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
That's a five member group.
that monitors things like household goods, things in your kitchen, your bathrooms, in your garages, electronics, all sorts of appliances, things your children play with, their cribs, their toys, all kinds of things.
You know them well.
You encounter them indirectly every time you walk into an appliance store, an electronics store, a toy store, virtually any commercial area where you buy things in a consumer capacity.
The court's brief order again, as it is in all of these cases, unsigned, that's typical.
We don't know exactly who said what, but we do know in this case, as always.
that there are three other members of the Supreme Court, not among the six who said, yes, go ahead and fire these commissioners.
Three of them dissenting.
We know who they are.
They're Elena Kagan, Katanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor.
The order cited as its reasoning, that is the majority order, a previous decision involving the leaders of these two other independent agencies.
That's why these cases involving the Merit Systems Protection Board
and the National Labor Relations Board, that they are apparently now being viewed as precedent, even though there's no description of the reason why the commissioners of those boards were fired.
Supreme Court says, well, we've done that before, we're going to do it again.
And without justifying the terminations, without in any way explaining why it is the president's decision to terminate these particular people is lawful, constitutional, rightful under the law, consistent with what the Congress had
when it created this, yes, independent agency, the president as an aside, not the head, not the chief of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, no authority to oversee what they do.
That's the congressional mandate.
No explanation from our Supreme Court about why it is then he has the power to terminate the positions of these commissioners.
We suspect, we suspect that these commissioners got the attention of the president by virtue of the fact,
targeted by our president by the fact that they had cast some votes to stop the importation recently of some poorly made lithium ion batteries.
That's the kind of thing we would like the Consumer Product Safety Commission to do.
Why?
Because if they as scientists and people who know what they're talking about make the decision that some products coming into our nation arguably means sold on the shelves of our commercial places.
If they make those decisions we want them to be enforced.
They said we don't
want these particular lithium ion batteries in our consumer ambit because they pose a safety risk to Americans.
And oh, by the way, these three commissioners, their names are Mary Boyle, Richard Trumka, and Alexander Hoene Sarek.
All three of them were also objecting to some recent staffing cuts.
saying that we can't do our jobs well we can't protect the American public its consumer rights if in fact we don't have enough employees to investigate to determine whether or not products and goods in our children with our children with our adults whether they are properly on the shelves of American stores and so they complained and they issued this vote with respect to batteries attracting the attention of our president who has fired them
and done so illegally.
Like the firings of those from the other commissions, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the National Labor Relations Board.
Now we add to the list the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
These are illegal.
They are illegal.
The Congress has established these entities as independent.
They are not subject to review.
by the president.
That's the whole purpose behind it.
They can be removed if in fact there is good cause to do so based upon some malfeasance, some non-feasance, some misfeasance that can be identified.
And even then, even then, there is a process for doing that.
You don't fire commissioners like this because you don't like their decisions.
That's what they've been charged to do.
You don't fire them because they're exercising their First Amendment rights, which we'd also expect them to do, to talk about the mechanisms by which
they can and cannot do their jobs with reduced staffing.
They're gone.
And again, the underlying litigation, challenging these firings, that continues.
But for practical purposes, it means that they are gone.
And even as the lower court says the Supreme Court has said, they can continue to entertain the arguments about the constitutionality and legality of all this.
But why then, Supreme Court?
Why then an emergency application to go in?
Why is it so urgent to fire these people right now?
They've been in place for a long period of time.
Why do we need to fire them on this emergency application?
urgent docket because what the interests of justice compel that if they stay in their offices one hour longer a day longer a week longer somehow something horrific will happen it's just the opposite and something horrific now happens when these commissions these boards do not have the staff the professional staff the executive staff at the top to do their jobs another invocation of the
emergency docket, the shadow docket, because we're not getting explanations about why the Supreme Court is doing these things, and we'll get back to that after we talk about the other application of the emergency docket just this past week, an entirely different set of facts.
This one has to do with the Voting Rights Act, and it comes out of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
But also out of Louisiana you may recall We talked about this briefly in our exposition of some of the major cases on the merits docket coming out of the Supreme Court justice past term There was this case coming out of Louisiana and among all the 67 cases This is the one where the Supreme Court curiously had us scratching our heads oddly They said you know what we're not doing anything with that one right now We're going to reschedule this case for oral argument.
Maybe some more discussion.
We're gonna redefine the
Questions that we're going to be asking the attorneys in this case comes out of Louisiana on, yes, once again, a gerrymandering challenge to line drawing there of districts in Louisiana has to do with the Voting Rights Act and section two, that's the basic protection against discrimination based upon color and language under this major civil rights.
a legislation in the 1960s.
That case, that case not resolved.
The Supreme Court says, you know what?
We're not going to address that right now.
Bring that back in the next term.
And there's an awful lot of thought that maybe, just maybe, the reason why they did not resolve that case is because there's internal fighting, as there often is, about the very legitimacy of the Voting Rights Act itself.
Maybe there's some discussion about how broadly we should be going in terms of addressing this Louisiana case.
in connection with the entire legitimacy, the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act itself.
And I say all that as prelude as an anticipation of what comes next.
And that is what the Supreme Court did just this past week in a case that might curiously be related to the Louisiana case and the odd disposition of a number of weeks ago.
Supreme Court, just this past Thursday, preserving
on its emergency urgent docket it says it's going to preserve the voting rights act and does it on the emergency docket again without any explanation we'll get back to that preserving the status quo of
the Voting Rights Act.
For the entire nation, including the states, they're basically the Midwestern states just to the west of us, the Eighth Circuit states, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, on down to Arkansas, just to our immediate west here, seven states there all together, preserving the status quo and guaranteeing voters, at least for now, at least for now, the right to sue, to bring litigation, to bring a lawsuit, to enforce rights under
Section two of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
And I might
say, well, gee, what is this all about??
I thought we could sue under the Voting Rights Act.?
And yes, indeed, that has been the law of the land ever since the Voting Rights Act was signed by Lyndon Johnson, passed by the United States Congress a long, long time ago in the mid-1960s.?
At issue in?
the North Dakota case is Section two.
That's the basic core case.
provision of the Voting Rights Act, which makes race-based discrimination illegal, signed again into law by President Lyndon Johnson, prohibiting
discriminatory practices like literary tests, literacy tests and poll taxes, other things like that that would disenfranchise voters of color in America.?
When we come back, I'll tell you what exactly this 8th Circuit case is all about and what it is that the Supreme Court did on its emergency docket, at least for now, to preserve?
the Voting Rights Act in America.?
All that as our broadcast continues.?
This is Amica Solora of you.
Thank you once again for spending a portion of your weekend with me and my producer Max talking about as we often do seemingly every broadcast about the United States Supreme Court.
We do that because it is important to know about.
It's important to understand what it is they're doing and what they're not doing when it comes to this emergency docket.
We know that the Supreme Court again just this past week permitted the president to terminate the status, the employment of some
of the Consumer Product Safety Commission that being done without any explanation, no justification, no explanation for why it is the president with no authority to do that nonetheless can go ahead and do just that.
We've got this other case coming out of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and it also is the subject of disposition not without dissent in the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court pursuant to its emergency docket.
The North Dakota
began in 2021.
This is the one in the Ace Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Republican-dominated state legislature in that particular state implemented a revised redistricting plan.
We have seen this in legislatures virtually in every state of the nation.
It was challenged by two Native American Indian tribes, and they contended that by virtue of the lines that were drawn, the redistricting map diluted Native American voting strength and violated, therefore,
section to the voting rate sack, which prohibits discrimination voting and elective processes based upon race.
The tribe said in particular the result of the redistricting was that the first time in 35 years.
in North Dakota.
No Native American candidates were serving in the North Dakota Senate.
Now, that's where it just begins.
That's where the litigation begins.
Federal District Court, an entity sides with the tribes.
It blocks the enforcement of the map and sets a deadline for the legislature to come back with a better map.
When that deadline is passed, the District Court requires the state to implement a new map endorsed by the Native American tribes that corrects the problem.
And that results in the election of one Native American state senator and two members of the state House of Representatives.
All of that, all of that gets appealed to the appellate court there.
And they argue, they argue not only that the underlying decision by the district court is wrong, but also interesting, and here's the rub, that the individuals, the Native American tribes in particular,
We have standing.
Don't have the right to sue the government in the first place.
Don't have the right to sue over alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act.
The Ace Circuit, believe it or not, agrees with that.
And what's this all about?
Well, it's been out there for a while against one of these fringe theories that finds no support in the legislative history of the Voting Rights Act way back in 1965 and the history of the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
But it basically says that only, only the United States government, only the Attorney General, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, only the government can sue for remedies under section
two of the Voting Rights Act.
Private parties cannot do it.
Private entities, individuals out of luck cannot go into court.
And that theory, although it's been out there, has got no support.
Other courts have addressed this and summarily dismissed it because they have said that no, the language of the Voting Rights Act clearly contemplates
Private causes of action, individuals who are not the government can sue, they have done it.
It is significant to note that the great majority of cases brought under the Voting Rights Act are done by private parties, individuals and entities, absent their involvement, absent their participation, their work in this area.
There would not be a jurisprudence under the Voting Rights Act.
And so this has been roundly dismissed until recently.
when it gets to the A Circuit Court of Appeals, the A Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with the government there in North Dakota and citing its own previous ruling in 2023 says that the Native American tribes
are not empowered by the statute.
Do not have the authority under the Voting Rights Act to sue.
Only the government can do that.
They're not here in this case.
Therefore, the case cannot go ahead.
No right to vindicate the basic provisions of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The tribes then go to the Supreme Court and ask them to block
this standalone, this separate decision from the A Circuit Court of Appeals for the first time at an appellate level says, you've got no right to sue under the Voting Rights Act.
Get rid of this.
Tell the A Circuit, the tribes say, tell the A Circuit to stand down.
Don't do this.
They contend that if the court doesn't intervene, the state could kick out of office those duly elected tribe members who are thereby virtue of a map.
that came out of the very litigation that produced this kind of result.
And so the results are important practically, not only in that state, North Dakota, but also throughout the A-Circuit and arguably throughout the country.
Because if this...
This doctrine says that only individuals who are in the Department of Justice, only lawyers who are commissioned by the Department of Justice can sue.
Nobody else can sue.
That brings a close to this litigation and frankly the great majority of the other pieces of litigation around the country that enforce voting rights in America.
So what does the Supreme Court do this past week?
Once again, here it invokes its emergency docket.
doesn't tell us again why it does that, but a majority of the Supreme Court, we know it's six to three, it's not the normal consortium, if you will, that we anticipate here.
The Supreme Court does say it intervenes in this case and says, at least temporarily, we're going to tell the A circuit to stand down.
Temporary, the rights of individual voters to bring these vote dilution actions are enforced, they're going to remain.
in place.
The law which has been in this nation's courts and in our country ever since 1965 remains in place.
The Supreme Court does that this past week, effectively overturning for now what the Ace Circuit has done, but does it on its emergency docket?
And in this case, again, you're maybe saying, well, gee, that's a good result.
It is a good result for those of us.
I'd like to think all of us of any party, any persuasion who are committed to voting rights in America and committed to the fundamental focuses of the Voting Rights Act.
When we come back, we'll tell you about the implications of that.
And I'm gonna take some callers who are part of our discussion here on amicus, a law review.
This is Amica Solar Review.
My name is Jim Santel.
Thank you for once again joining me this weekend.
We are talking as we necessarily have to do about the United States Supreme Court.
And it's continuing invocation of this emergency docket application.
We know that in this term alone...
The government has gone to the Supreme Court on 20 different occasions.
We're all of those granted by the Supreme Court in matters of great import.
We'll get back to that.
Just this past week, once again, granting the government the capacity to fire members, commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and then going out to the A-Circuit and saying, you know what?
The decision that the A-Circuit has made that prohibited people, including Native American Indian tribes, from going ahead to challenge the decisions, the voting-related decisions there in North Dakota, that the A-Circuit is wrong and cannot limit the litigation going ahead, preserving the representation of the Native American population there in North Dakota in the Assembly and the Senate.
A fascinating result.
which many of us, I would say all of us should embrace.
But once again, underscoring because there's no reason for it, it would be great.
It would be interesting.
It would be appropriate for all of us to know the reasons why six of them said that.
Is it simply because they view the law being as it should be, as it has been since 1965, and the 8th Circuit is an outlier, and they should be stopped from imposing some other view of the Voting Rights Act?
We know that there are three justices of the Supreme Court.
Their names are Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito and Neil Gorsuch.
Say they would have denied this request of the Native American tribes to suspend, to stop the A-Circuit opinion from going ahead.
That's interesting and that's fascinating to know.
But we still don't know the reason why even this good result
is the product of decision-making and judgment and applications of law.
In fact, they're inside the Supreme Court.
Another example of the problem we are confronting here, especially concerning, because this matter in the Ace Circuit may in fact come back.
and it may in fact be the precursor to not only the Louisiana case which we talked about, but maybe this A-Circuit case as well in which the Supreme Court may be addressing the constitutionality overall of major provisions of the...
Voting Rights Act, including the capacity to sue, we don't know.
There's a huge amount of mystery behind the Louisiana case.
There's now mystery behind the A-Circuit case.
The law hasn't changed anywhere in America, but it may well, and it would be good to know that.
We're good to know, even in this interim stage, why it is the Supreme Court is doing what it's doing.
That's the problem with the...
emergency docket.
The shadow docket does not permit this process in briefing, argument, other issues presentation in the public domain from going ahead.
It frequently involves these major issues of great import, right?
We know that the Supreme Court has recently done things like revoking legal protections for about a million immigrants in this country, dismissing thousands of federal employees, barring transgender individuals from the military service, replacing leaders of these
independent agencies, many other measures out there, doing major things, they're big ticket items, and we're not getting explanations about those.
It also changes our language, does it not?
What does urgent mean anymore?
What does immediate mean?
Why is this, why does these things have to be done so quickly when in fact they've been in place for in some cases decades, if not longer, and now all of a sudden for reasons that are not explained by the petitioner, the government?
Why is it that suddenly we need to have these actions undertaken?
We understand coming out of the Acerc of the reason there and that's exposed by the petition that doesn't come from the Department of Justice but comes from the lawyers of the Native American tribes and they say yes indeed We need to ensure that the Voting Rights Act is enforced.
That's the kind of clarity we would like to have when it comes to understanding the urgency and immediacy of all of these other situations to
Typically, these decisions produced without any attribution of individuals.
We get some numbers.
We get some dissenters, as we have in some of these cases, writing 15, 18, 19-page dissents, explaining why, as we saw again this past week, the Supreme Court is doing things that are contrary to what the Congress has commissioned, contrary to our basic principles about how government works.
All of that is what the fuss about the shadow docket is all about.
It's the reason why it's so much
more than fuss.
And yet it continues.
We have had 20 applications by the government, just this past term.
In the previous term of Donald Trump, there were 40 altogether.
And just by way of comparison, in the Obama administration, eight years of Barack Obama, in the previous Bush administration, eight years of George Bush, 16 years of presidency, there were eight applications.
from the government.
Four of those, four of those were granted.
Now, in the first six months of this term, we've got 20 applications, the great majority of which are being granted, a concern for every single American out there because of the nature of the problems being discussed and resolved and the way in which they're being done absent the transparency that we expect of all of our branches of government.
including the United States Supreme Court.
Appreciate so much our callers as always calling in.
Appreciate very much.
David, calling in from the West Coast this weekend.
Be a part of our discussion, David.
Oh, thanks, Jim.
Yeah, I personally think that they're just trying to crush the Magna Carta.
What has been 900 years ago that the king was rounded up and forced to say that he was supposed to look out for the people.
And it's pretty clear that the corporate state does not want to look out for the people.
And so when you're talking about getting rid of the product safety board, just selling cheap crap and forcing us to accept it, that seems like a major part of it.
But when you're talking about the voting rights, that whole principle of taxation with representation is torn apart with that.
No voting rights and you got no ability to demand voting rights.
So it's, I would say that's a big part of it.
But when you were talking about the consumer product review board,
I was reminded of, you remember Edgar Allen Poe, one of his most famous stories was called the Mask of the Red Death.
And it was about an insane king that was confronted with an epidemic outside the castle walls.
And rather than taking care of the people, he decided to slam the door on the people, let the epidemic run riot, and then he was gonna have a party.
And that party then, the mask of the red death, shows up at his party and kills him and the rest of the party goers.
So you, the whole principle of the product safety board is about that.
That, you know, we've got not only epidemics, but we've got exploding batteries.
And he's going to say that it's good to have exploding batteries, let the market forces deal with it later.
That's just crazy.
Right and it's and it's doing it David could not agree more doing it in a context that is plainly illegal, right?
He doesn't have the authority to do all this your point is the very important one Which is of course that by doing this you're also not just doing something inside the Beltway in Washington You're also compromising our safety and security.
That's how important to these issues are That's why the Supreme Court should also tell us about the reason why we're letting him do this It's a reason why we need to have the reemergence of law appreciate
the Edgar Allen Poe invocation, David very much appreciate the comment generally.
And I also note that Mark has also sent a note into Max and me commenting on the same kinds of things.
Trump administration doing some things that are plainly contrary, not just to our constitution, our laws, but also the very reasons why we have a nation talking about the Declaration of Independence, the reason why the founders were so troubled and angry and finally overthrew the king and said, no, no, you can't do these things without authority.
Mark appreciates.
your comment sent to Max and me as well.
David, I appreciate so very much your insight and perspective as a part of our discussion too.
And we're also hearing this morning from Jack, calling in from Mayor Mack Jack.
Thank you for being a part of our broadcast.
Thanks for taking my call, Jim.
This is why I'm really called, but first of all,
This shadow docket stuff got to stop.
My
personal opinion, my personal opinion for the court using it is that there is no real basis for many of these decisions.
So the extreme majority doesn't even want to try to twist the laws and constitution to give an explanation for those decisions.
That's I think what this is all about.
But like I said, that isn't why I call.
And it has to do with your first caller as well.
I hear the term unelected faceless bureaucrats a lot lately regarding civil servants, regulators, and our government.
People need to understand these bureaucrats are.
Yeah, they're not personally elected, but they're authorized by Congress, legislation signed by the president, and even in most cases deemed illegal by the Supreme Court.
And most, if not all of those currently serving, and that's what they do.
They serve the public.
They're heavily vetted.
They have to, they're almost all experienced
past.
It's serious exams to enter the profession.
And I know, because I've taken some of those exams,
I've got a master's degree in science.
I've been offered a job in that field, and though I didn't accept it.
These people are the ones, they look at practical issues, job safety regulations based on experience, real world data.
They look at the science of pharmaceuticals, decide whether the drugs are safe and effective.
You know the story on this.
The only people who disparagingly call these public servants, and that's what they are, they're servants.
faceless bureaucrats, those people that have an axe to bear touch a grind because one particular regulation or maybe a couple affected them and it cut down slightly.
They're usually huge profits.
The majority of our decisions are definitely not political decisions.
They're not.
The whole idea of civil service.
If you want to, if you, one last comment, and that is, if you want to see what America would be like without some of these bureaucrats, I suggest that people read a book called The Poison Squad by Deborah Blum.
It's about the establishment of the FDA, basically.
The poison squad,
squad.
Yeah, a different one.
It's a real eye-opener.
It takes place around the turn of the last century.
And his first name was Harvey Wiley.
And in his fight over 20 years to get things like heavy metals that were used to color.
candy that was sold to kids out of that candy.
They were used because those colors are very bright colors and we've established safety regulations for things like that.
It just goes on and on.
intruding in a way in our lives that is positive and good to keep us safe and secure.
I love your invocation of the word science and people who know what they're talking about.
This is not the deep state.
These are not these folks who are unelected bureaucrats who are doing things without any supervision.
They're bringing to all of their decisions, as you've said so, well Jack, their insight, their experience and to the good of all of us when they depart, when they are not there with sufficient staff and when they are removed completely
We are all compromised in addition to the compromise in our rule of law system.
Jack, so much appreciate your excellent insight this morning, this weekend, this morning, these days, as I do that of David and Mark as well, all of that, all of that going to how our government works and the rule of law in America.
As we go into our final segment, a couple of more things yet before we break this weekend, what it has to do with sanctuary cities.
And then again, a few comments at the end of our broadcast on Jeffrey Epstein, all that coming up on Amicus, a lot of you.
this is amicus a lot of you this the last segment of our tour broadcast appreciating so much our callers those who send in comments as well we digest them all you add to the richness and vitality of our discussion more of that in the future always invited here in the broadcast stations of civic media before we conclude this weekend's broadcast
Two other matters on our agenda, one of them related to sanctuary cities, two things, two different jurisdictions.
We note that just this past week on Thursday, the Justice Department, yes, the Attorney General, has filed a lawsuit against Mayor Eric Adams, claiming that New York City, which he is still in control, he says the mayor,
He is thwarting, according to the Trump administration, their enforcement immigration laws.
Interesting that once again, the Trump administration apparently had odds with Eric Adams based upon immigration issues.
37-page lawsuit filed in the federal district court in Brooklyn.
And that says that the city's policies advanced by Eric Adams violate the supremacy clause of the Constitution.
What does that do?
You know that.
Well, it gives federal laws precedent.
Supremacy quite literally over state laws and the lawsuit names the city council names the mayor names the police department commissioners as defendants again the latest action by the Trump administration against these so-called sanctuary jurisdictions
which, depending upon how you define them, depending upon how particular municipalities may adopt resolutions to support the concept, they limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities and therefore provide, if you will, sanctuary with a small s, maybe in quotes as well, for those people who are seeking immigration protection.
That filed again just this past week.
The administration now again at odds with Eric Adams briefly.
again.
community with him at the time, actually even dismissing the criminal case against him, presumably because they wanted his cooperation with respect to immigration issues.
Now, once again, we're back at odds with each other and it underscores the nature of the reason why you don't dismiss criminal cases for reasons other than the strength of the law and the facts underneath it.
Now we've got another lawsuit between Eric Adams, the city of New York and this administration.
about immigration.
It's back again.
And it comes in the wake of another lawsuit that was in the news just this past week.
Federal judge in Illinois, the judge there is Lindsay Jenkins, wrote that the Justice Department's lawsuit, in which the Justice Department argued that state and local officials there in Chicago,
and in other places in that area where violating the Constitution by enforcing again the same kind of thing.
Sanctuary measures that limit cooperation with immigration agents.
This particular lawsuit in Illinois.
began in the early days of the Trump administration.
And once again, it's challenging, challenging the immigration policies of what is one of the strongest democratically led jurisdictions in the country.
The Illinois lawsuit that has now been dismissed by Judge Jenkins and the federal court, named as defendants, the governor, the Chicago's mayor, the police superintendent, the Cook County board president and the sheriff.
All of that now dismissed.
certainly attracting the attention of the Department of Justice that had litigated that case, that case.
in the federal district court there in Illinois, the judge finding
that this challenge to the Illinois Sanctuary measures cannot stand that the government, that the Department of Justice had failed to show a?
violation of federal law, certainly some precedent, admittedly, in a different district, certainly some precedent when it comes to that movement forward of the recently filed new lawsuit in the Southern District of New
York against Eric Adams.?
claims there in New York City it is a?
lot it is complicated and the beat goes on when it comes to these kinds of sparring between municipal authorities and federal authorities all of that inside the rule of law sparring also indeed the catch word of the day in connection with the
Jeffrey Epstein matter I'm gonna throw out another word to describe this in Broglio, which is the Jeffrey Epstein matter It is indeed extremely confusing and complicated and downright embarrassing and that that concept is Occam's razor Occam's razor will get back to that in just a moment or so two legal things Which I seem to do a lot of here in the closing moments of our broadcast and one of them
is in connection with something we predicted, which is the federal district court judge who had before her that request of this administration to release the grand jury documents and materials here.
Her name is Robin Rosenberg.
She's in the southern district of Florida.
She said no.
That as we said last week, rules succeed.
The rules and standards for doing this do not support that.
the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, upon their application they are wrong, she said, and therefore the grand jury documents are not released.
As we've said before, grand jury documents were never ever the focus of this.
Indeed, there's a larger file that plainly is an existence there.
All kinds of things that the attorney general could release if she wanted to.
Business documents, recordings, reports of interviews, that still exists.
But we come back to what we do know and what we don't know inside this
Broglio and it leads to Occam's razor.
What is Occam's razor?
It is this notion that when it comes to competing theories or competing notions about the world, you go with the simpler explanation of what happened.
And indeed, what do we do know about this?
We do know a number of things.
We do know that a grand jury indicted both Maxwell and Epstein on horrific violations of the law involving human and sex trafficking.
We know that she went to trial and that she was
she's spending 20 years in prison, a jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty of those offense conduct behaviors.
We know that he committed suicide while in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, we know that that is horrific and that's tragic just as is the entire prosecution.
All of this tragic, including especially for the victims of their offense conduct, we know as well that almost certainly there was not a client list here, but a lot of
of information that could, in fact, be presented by the Attorney General.
The seriousness of this imbroglio continues.
The simple explanation is offense conduct, violative are our federal laws, and again, the subject of dispositions in our federal courts.
When we come back next week, we'll talk more about youth immunity and Maxwell next week.
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.