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.
As always, I am honored.
I am delighted that you have chosen to spend some portion of this weekend in conversation, in discussion, in information sharing with me and my producer Max about those major issues in the areas of law and government and the aspiration.
for justice, that as always our mission here on Amicus, a lot of you.
Part of our mission too is to engage you in that very discussion.
That includes the option that you always have to call in at 855-752-4842.
That telephone number one more time is 855-752-4842.
You can also be a part of our broadcast by sending to me and to Max a question, a comment,
observation and inquiry that you have about anything on are always ambitious but achievable.
agenda our syllabus in the area of rule of law.
Do that by dropping your comments into our studio chat line here on the Civic Media broadcast stations.
We do have, we do have indeed an ambitious yet achievable syllabus for you this weekend, this first weekend in August of 2025.
Let me tell you a bit about the kinds of things we're going to discuss.
Again, focusing a lot on the Department of Justice, focusing a lot upon courts, in particular this weekend, some very interesting late week actions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
That's way out west of that.
basically very broad swath of territory in the western part of the continental United States of America, also including Alaska and Hawaii.
We'll talk about some things the Ninth Circuit has done.
We're also going to chat about these important events happen to do
with the Voting Rights Act, and in particular this new talk once again about redistricting and gerrymandering.
You know what we're talking about.
That has to do with this initiative.
Now underway in Texas to carve out some new district lines when it comes to the House of Representatives, going to be voting for 435 members across the nation to be sent to the House of Representatives in November of next year.
Legislature in Texas proposing the creation of new lines that would dramatically shift likely the political balance there in that state, prompting responses by governors in California and Illinois and New York to do the same thing.
All of that, all of that going on while the Supreme Court is yes once again.
Looming, not just in the background, but very much in the foreground of all this, this case called Louisiana versus Calais, which they decided not to decide.
We'll talk about a major thing that the Supreme Court told us about how they're going to entertain that case in the coming docket.
The coming docket of the 2024-2025 and then 2026 term, I say all of those because it began in this past and present term, going to continue into next year as well.
We'll chat about exactly how the Supreme Court is defining that much related case, the Louisiana case having to do with racial gerrymandering there, what impact it could and may have on what's going on in Texas and arguably these
other states.
That all so happening in the midst of the court of appeals deciding in the exercise of its emergency docket to stop.
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in connection with its prohibition on private parties and private entities suing and litigating under the Voting Rights Act.
That's a lot, a lot of things going on just this past week and in recent weeks having to do with redistricting, line drawing, congressional seats, the balance of power going into November of next year.
And also the ways in which the Supreme Court has historically and now likely in the coming year or so is going to be revisiting, revisiting once again the very constitutionality
of the Voting Rights Act in Section 2.
We'll talk a bit about Shelby County again, and Burnovich, those cases in the past in which the Supreme Court has significantly curled back the application of the Voting Rights Act, all of that coming out of these redistricting issues and gerrymandering issues, now very much on the rule of law docket of America.
Also on the docket, you may be surprised to know this, but our tariffs, yes indeed, we haven't spent a lot of time talking.
about the president's actions that have animated a lot of his initiatives since he took the White House and was sworn in in January of this year.
Believe it or not, and you should believe it, there is now a connection, a very strong connection.
There always has been between the rule of law and something called the International Economic
Powers Act.
We'll talk about that act and we'll talk about what one federal court is saying now about the capacity of the president to do all of this tariff work that he has been doing.
breaking virtually every day, every hour, including just late this past week, will tell you about things related to the major questions doctrine, the non-delegation doctrine, all kinds of things coming out of an oral argument of just this past week involving the federal circuit, the federal circuit reviewing a lower court decision that says that the president does not have the authority to engage in all of this activity in which he has been engaging with foreign countries.
with respect to tariffs and levies and real-life economic issues.
It's a significant move, not a decision yet, but a certainly an indication that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is going to announce fairly soon that the President is without constitutional authority to do any of this.
We know that from the Constitution as well.
That provides that the legislature and not the President is the one that at least initiates and makes decisions.
principally on tariffs.
We'll talk about that as well.
We're going to begin, however, we're going to begin in addition to talking about federal district court judges and appeals court judges also addressing once again.
the issue of birthright citizenship lots of activities going on there including yes again in appeals courts appeals courts on opposite sides of the country addressing the issue yes that the supreme court failed to address in its decision of late june that having to do with birthright citizenship a lot a lot on our docket but we do begin we are going to begin today
in our discussion of the rule of law and government and justice in America by talking about not just the rule of law but also, yes indeed, the rule of facts, the rule of facts.
People in the areas of history and economics and commerce and labor and justice and international relations have always talked about the notion that in order to establish a nation that relies upon the rule of law and the application of
jurisprudential principles enforced by courts affording people the litigation opportunities to challenge what government is doing not only do you have to have laws that are followed and observed that's the rule of law but also the rule of facts and that if indeed
an American population, the population of any country on the face of the planet cannot fundamentally agree on core facts, not all the small details around the edges, but the core things that happen in America, the big ticket issues, the things that grab the headlines, if we cannot agree on those, and apparently we can't.
If you can't agree on those,
You have a lethal combination if indeed the rule of law is not applied to understood and known facts.
And in fact, we've got two instances where the rule of law perhaps remains in place in many places around our nation, even as it is suffering hugely from the assaults made by our present.
Department of Justice, and yes, indeed, our president as well, but also this past week, more indication on attacks on the rule of facts, on the basic understandings that necessarily undermine the very integrity of the rule of law.
Let's talk about those two issues that, once again, may surprise you in terms of our discussion here on amicus, a law review.
As always, you may be a part of this discussion at 855-752.
two issues, two events coming out, coming out of Washington, D.C.
just late this past week.
They are rule of law issues, but they're also rule of facts issues.
One of them happens to do
with the Smithsonian Institution.
You know this quite well.
The National Museum of American History removing references to President Donald Trump's two impeachment proceedings that coming out of an exhibit that perhaps many of you have not all of you have seen called the limits of presidential power.
A Smithsonian spokesperson has confirmed to media justice past week
that the museum, interestingly, curiously, shockingly, has decided to restore, in its words, the section of a permanent exhibition.
It's been there for a long time.
I recall seeing it.
In 2008, we're going to go back to the appearance of this particular exhibit in 2008, because they said various topics had not been updated since that year, and therefore, they removed references to Donald Trump.
Now they promised, they promised that in some point in the future, there's going to be some new incarnation of this particular exhibit.
But they went on to say that in reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the limits of presidential power, the section of our American presidency,
portion of our museum needed to be addressed.
The section of the exhibit covers Congress, it covers the Supreme Court, impeachment and public opinion, things we talk about a lot here on this broadcast.
The exhibit now only only includes reference to the impeachment proceedings against
Presidents Andrew Johnson that was 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 and then it also makes reference to an unimpeached president He was about to be impeached and yes impeachment proceedings were underway with respect to Richard Nixon in 1973 not impeached He resigned as you all know well before he was impeached before the Senate could try him We have had four impeachment proceedings not including Richard Nixon Andrew
Johnson, Bill Clinton, and yes, two Donald Trump impeachments.
And those two impeachments of Donald Trump no longer a part of that presentation.
at the Smithsonian Institution in the American History Museum.
Again, a promise from the curators there that's going to be revised and restored at some point down the road, but not today.
And so if you visited, as those museums are open to the public, that one right there on the Mall, within walking distance of the Congress, of the legislature, of the White House, yes indeed within, frankly, yards of the Department of Justice building right there on the Mall of Washington, D.C.
a compromise in the rule of facts, because no longer is there reference there to the impeachments that did in fact happen.
Impeachments and trials in the United States Senate, just like those of Andrew Johnson, like and those of Bill Clinton, those two, and those now removed from the official American History Museum in Washington DC, our nation's capital, removing some critical facts about our recent history.
and effectively erasing them, at least for now, whitewashing them from the ways in which our major presentation of the Smithsonian is presented to Americans, young, old, of all backgrounds.
That happened just this past week.
And then in something that you may think is unrelated, has to do with the Department of Labor, also in the category of the rule of facts and an attempt
to try to undermine perhaps just for the future, but the all important erasure of the work and the activities of a civil servant who is responsible every month providing us with basic labor department information.
She did that just late this past week and she has lost her job sending a message to the future.
about the ways in which our president anticipates reporting being made.
As we come back, we'll talk more about the lesson of that emission of the rule of facts when Amicus Law Review continues.
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.
This is our two hour
We can broadcast reviewing all things rule of law justice related a lot of focus on government and courts the executive branch the legislative branch as well and this broadcast no exception to that as always taking your phone calls not only on our studio chat line through
the auspices of civic media, but also on the phone, 855-752-4842, beginning our discussion with some focus on the rule of facts related to the rule of law and much related to our discussion this weekend as well.
Not only the Smithsonian whitewashing, we're moving at least for now, references to the impeachments of the current president of the United States of America.
Some of those, again,
of past years but nonetheless recording until this past week the history of our nation when it comes to the
power of the presidency and the rule of law impacts of impeachment proceedings with respect to three presidents.
And they are Clinton and they are Johnson and they are Trump.
Again, Richard Nixon facing impeachment, not formally impeached.
That happened this past week.
And as did this in a seemingly unrelated event, but no less significant in terms of eliminating facts and suggesting that the data upon which we all rely may indeed be compromised.
You know this story well.
President Trump again unleashing disagreement, maybe even fury about the weakness in the labor market that was reported as it is done every single month at the start of the month.
saying without evidence that the data, the latest data about the strength of our economy was rigged.
That's his word.
And that he was therefore firing the Senate-confirmed Department of Labor official who's responsible in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical way for putting together the numbers every single month.
We rely on those.
Economists rely on them.
Reporters rely on them.
Students rely on them.
Commerce relies on them across the board.
In a long social media post,
President Trump said that he directed the firing of Erika McHantrefer, M.C.
Capital E-N-T-A-R-F-E-R.
She is the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the B-L-S.
She's inside the Department of Labor, and once again, what does she do?
She produces every month.
in a non-political, non-partisan way, numbers.
She is, it reduces her very important role to some less significance by saying she is a number crunching accountant, but that is one way of describing her very important role.
She does more than that.
She is a professional.
She has been around for a long time.
She was confirmed on a bipartisan basis by the United States Senate in 2024, a long career inside the Census Bureau.
Other agents,
She's doing the same kinds of things, working with numbers, economic statistics.
She says served under the presidency of both parties, including Donald Trump, among the Republicans who voted to confirm her.
So a fellow named JD Vance.
He was a senator at the time.
He's now our vice president.
The president firing her this past week because he does not like the report, the monthly data report that showed a surprisingly weak.
July when it comes to hiring new jobs in America, also a large downward revision of the jobs growth reports in May and June.
That's not unusual.
That is revision of reports as the final data comes in.
All of that indicating that the economy is not as strong.
as some believed, economists widely interpreting the report.
There's some evidence that the policies of this administration, always difficult to ascribe particular downturns to what's going on in the immediate moment, but an awful lot of indication that the policies of this White House beginning to take a great toll on our economy, although the president insisted in a subsequent post
following his announcement of the termination of Commissioner McAnterfer that the country was doing great capital G, capital R, capital E, capital A, capital T with an exclamation mark.
Now, why is that important?
Why is that significant?
Are there other economists?
Are there other people out there?
Are there people who've got that experience who can do the job?
There may be a handful of them, but this is a sign of more of the compromise of the
rule of facts.
Again, absent facts, we've got no justice, we've got no government upon which we can rely, and indeed an awful lot of economists across the board, across partisan divides, are seeing this as being an erosion of the public confidence that all of us can have in the data published by the administration, by this very reliable group of people.
who provide us with information, who tell us truthfully what is happening and what is not happening in our economy, prompting yes, policy responses, prompting presidents and yes indeed groups like the Federal Reserve should prompt the Congress as well to do things, but relying upon facts and it is a sad moment once again.
When they're in Washington DC, the president is terminating someone not because she's incompetent, just the opposite.
She is professional and relies
and respected across the board were firing her as a sign that somehow the information that she has provided is not accurate, rigged, as the president has inaccurately, violently stated with respect to our data.
And that signals a future upon which we cannot rely upon the data produced by someone who may be told by this president, you produce information, you produce this monthly labor data.
that is not reflective of the true numbers in front of you.
Give me numbers that show that the economy is doing better.
That, that is contrary to the rule of facts, it denigrates as well the rule of law in America as does what happens across them all there at the Smithsonian Institution and in other places in Washington DC when the facts of our nation
and the information that we need to rely upon to make decisions.
We can disagree about policies, but we need to be able to rely upon a common set of facts.
Senators in the past have talked about relying upon facts as being core to our...
Deliberative process, even though you can have different opinions about what we do, that is the problem.
And that's the compromise we were seeing in Washington, D.C.
and from this White House just this past week.
When we come back, we're gonna go back to more of this White House and more of courts, beginning with the Jeffrey Epstein matter, some further commentary on that as we continue here in the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
Thank you for once again joining me in this, the first of our two hour program this weekend, talking and beginning the substance of our discussion with topics that we left you with last weekend and the weekend before.
And that is the Jeffrey Epstein matter.
As I have bemoaned on a regular basis, it is sad.
and it is commentary on our national focus both in the media in Washington DC and other places that while we've got major issues yes related to immigration and education and health care and foreign affairs and agriculture and commerce and labor and all those other things that government should be attentive to.
not instead not completely replacing that but in major portion our branches of government focused upon Jeffrey Epstein let me explain in further detail the reason for my great concern about the focus in three different areas we're going to be speaking a bit in greater detail about first first these files and we'll talk a little bit about the history of those we're going to talk necessarily then about the deputy attorney general of the United States of America his name is Todd Blanche why his recent conduct in the midst
of this, what the president has called a hoax, in fact, is simply an unfounded and unformed conspiracy within a conspiracy.
We'll talk about why his conduct should be the subject of concern, head scratching, if not more by all Americans.
And then, yes, indeed, we're going to talk about Ghislaine Maxwell.
She is also in the news just this past week, not only because of where she is now, now been moved to a new, very low security...
prison of the Bureau of Prisons.
We'll talk about all those three things, much related.
We're gonna talk about prisons.
We're gonna talk about pardons.
I'm gonna talk about something called use immunity that I mentioned in our program of last week as well.
Let's begin however by doing a little bit of history.
You recall well that the president a number of weeks ago announced that he was going to order the release or at least order his Department of Justice to seek the release of all the grand jury materials.
And we knew from the start
as we talked on this broadcast, even as our Attorney General and our Deputy Attorney General signing off on a request for the release of those documents, they're not Department of Justice documents, they're court documents and for that reason needed to go to the court to get permission under Rule 6C to release them.
We knew from the start that that application was frivolous and indeed we know based upon the reporting that we provided on this very broadcast, others as well that Judge Robin
Rosenberg looked at that and said, no, there's no legitimate law enforcement reason to release those.
The attorney general knows that the deputy attorney general knows that and therefore they're not released.
And of course, giving the president some reason to say, see more judges who are standing the way of doing what I want to do.
In fact, the judge abiding by the rule of law and more beyond that.
Acknowledging implicitly, if not explicitly, the grand jury materials are not the kinds of things that are going to satisfy anybody out there with respect to these unfounded conspiracies.
What are the grand jury materials about?
They're about the basic facts upon which the indictments of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were premised.
They're gonna talk necessarily, I'm sure, about the specific events in which they engage where they did this, the island issues, the recruitment of young girls,
to engage in this horrific behavior, the horrific behavior of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, the victimization, the survivors of much of this behavior, although there have been deaths related to this as well, it will tell you all about those kinds of things that ultimately a grand jury looked at and said, yes indeed, a basis for charges.
It is not.
those grandeur materials it is not a package of things going to provide support for what Dan Bongino our deputy director of the FBI has made much of his career on that is that identifying this somehow inside all of this there is some masterful conspiracy that maybe involves Hillary Clinton involves the the
suicide of Jeffrey Epstein and wanting to get inside that, not inside the grand jury materials, that would not be there.
And frankly, moving on to the more recent issues, the files themselves, which are apart from the grand jury materials, including things like what are called FBI 302s, reports of interviews of people coming forward, certainly reports of the victim survivors of this horrific activity perpetrated by Maxwell and Epstein as a part of their sex trafficking, their human
trafficking victimizing these young girls.
That's in the files as well.
Presumably there will be notes.
There'll be all sorts of other arguably surveillance issues and matters presented in those reports.
There'll be matters related to the basic information.
And that will probably maybe include things that the Barbner Justice has also confirmed in that now infamous memorandum unsigned of many weeks ago, saying things that are necessarily have to be true.
That is number one, that Jeffrey Epstein, after his indictment, based upon the grand jury presentation, based upon all that file information,
committed suicide inside the Bureau of Prisons that a tragedy as well as is all of this and also a matter for horrific behavior and conduct by a Department of Justice and the in particular the Bureau of Prisons that permitted somehow without being sufficiently attentive
the death of an inmate in their custody.
That is horrific in and of itself.
Nonetheless, the findings of that, which could be inside the files, not telling you anything more that we don't already know.
That is the Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide.
And that is the tragedy also related to this matter.
It will also certainly tell you that there's no magic.
There's no small black book here.
that lists the particular clients.
There may be names there and maybe you can call through that.
But the reality is that even the files themselves are not going to give you an awful lot of information beyond what the facts are related to the case.
And maybe in the end, maybe through the Congress, which is now spending all this time on this matter as well, issuing subpoenas, sending letters, demanding that the Department of Justice release all this, I suppose in the end to bring this frivolous
conspiracy stuff to an end.
It would not be a bad thing to release those by the pen of our Attorney General.
She can do it even with the redacted names of the victims and perhaps others out there.
But the upshot of all of this, it's not going to support any of these conspiracies within conspiracies.
No QAnon basis for any of this.
And again, as we talked,
last time about this concept that the simplest explanation of seemingly complex things is often the most rational.
And that is certainly the situation here.
That's number one.
The files
arguably released in the future, maybe released in all or in part, simply not going to satisfy anybody because they're not going to reveal as investigative materials the kinds of conspiracies, the hoaxes, whatever that means, Mr. President, inside, inside this investigation.
That's first.
Second, we have Todd Blanche, who is our deputy attorney general, doing something extraordinary, atypical.
Perhaps unprecedented by any other deputy attorney general in our nation's history We know as a regular portion of our work as investigators out there that it is agents sometimes accompanied by Assistant United States attorneys or attorneys in the Department of Justice But it's the agents of the FBI the special agents who are skilled in interviewing and do this routinely from the FBI from the ATF the DEA all of the other
investigative federal agencies and indeed sometimes state agencies as well that will sit down with with witnesses and talk with them and get their statements and prepare those documents and again including 302s that's the number of the form that the FBI uses to record the information provided by witnesses that's the stuff that's included in that non grand jury file
sitting in the Department of Justice, probably electronically.
We know that that is done routinely by whom?
by federal agents and not by the second in command of our Department of Justice who has as his responsibility what?
The duty to take care of the day-to-day operation of the Department of Justice.
Many, many different units, many, many different investigative components, lawyers and staff and professionals responsible for making the Department of Justice go.
The Deputy Attorney General does not go out there and become an investigator until now.
And so we've got Todd Blanche going to, at the time, the location of Ghislaine Maxwell in Tallahassee, a prison facility of the Bureau of Prisons, and talking with her, apparently, over two days, about what we don't know, presumably, about other information that she had, which is also the other reason why this is so curious.
The case is done.
She has been convicted.
She has been sentenced 20 years in prison.
Yes, it is indeed an outrage.
that somehow in the midst of all of this, somehow she has been moved from a high security prison to this place in the Bureau of Prisons in a prison camp, a minimum security prison camp in a place called
Brian Texas, Brian Texas with virtually no perimeters at all, limited or no perimeter fencing.
And that is where she is today after speaking two times, two days to the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche.
And the question is, what is this about?
What are we doing here?
The case is done.
Her conviction, yes indeed, she wants review by the Supreme Court.
We will see what, if anything, they will do with that.
They shouldn't be reviewing that.
But her case is done and her conviction
should stand.
And yet the deputy attorney general going there.
Why?
Because he was also in the past the.
private attorney for the president who plainly wants to produce some information that maybe what exonerates him implicates others not for law enforcement purposes not for the reasons that the federal judge identified as being legitimate but for political purposes and partisan purposes it is occupying his time and his focus based upon this past
attorney, client relationship that continues to this day, even though he's no longer representing the president in that famous, that infamous trial in front of Judge Juan Merchan, in which the president was in the end convicted.
lest we forget, of 34 counts of violations of of New York state law, a conviction that still stands to this day.
That was the setting in which Todd Blanche had an attorney-client relationship with the man who's now his boss.
That attorney-client relationship necessarily continues even as the deputy attorney general has the responsibility first and foremost to what?
To the people and the country of our nation.
Now that has been changed, obviously, by him, by the Attorney General, who say we're all now working for the President, and yet it raises huge conflict of interest issues for him, for Todd Blanche, continuing to know things said to him by the President in confidence, presumably about matters related to sex and power in that case in New York.
And now another case involving sex and power.
And that is the Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking, human trafficking tragedy, but nonetheless now resolved, presumably gathering information not for any legitimate law enforcement purpose, which should be his focus every single hour of every single day, but rather to
respond to what were presumably the requests of his former client, who happens to now be the president of the United States of America, asking information from her.
We'll see what comes of that.
We do not know, but it is curious and it is problematic.
Glaine Maxwell herself.
And as we go into the final component of this hour, we'll talk more about what is going on there.
We'll talk about a thing called use immunity and the basis upon which she was presumably permitted to go ahead.
What that means in talking to Todd Blanche, what she wants out of this and why the notion of a pardon or general immunity is also hugely problematic inside this broad issue.
That should not be consuming the time and attention of our nation and our elected and appointed leaders.
All that coming up here on Amicus.
A lot of you.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website,
talking necessarily but with some frustration about this issue that just doesn't seem to go away in the life and now the lifeblood of American history and that is this Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell matter.
We talked about the fact that the grand jury materials, the paper files, the electronic files out there reveal the investigative results which we know, which we know because even the subject of a trial of Ghislaine Maxwell.
not of Jeffrey Epstein because he committed suicide before that happened.
We know that those files, whatever the content, whatever the depth of them may be, are not going to provide any support for any broad conspiracy or hoax of the sort that people like Dan Bongino, the deputy director of the FBI, used to talk about.
But our president also calling this some kind of hoax involving another political party other than his.
We know that that's the case.
We know that we've had this very curious event in which our deputy attorney general has spent two days, hopefully not alone, but maybe, according to some reports,
alone becoming a witness himself to things that Ghislaine Maxwell has now told him about over the period of two days inside a federal prison in Tallahassee, Florida.
We don't know exactly what the purpose of that was, but we can make some legitimate guesses and that gets us to Ghislaine Maxwell herself who plainly, plainly is interested in getting out of prison.
She has requested immunity from the.
future prosecution of any law enforcement authority, including presumably that of the Department of Justice.
And she is asked for a pardon, presumably, to our deputy attorney general.
And plainly, our president has not
dismissed that as being out of hand.
Let's talk about all of that.
Now we know that she was given something called use immunity.
What is that all about?
It means basically this, that Todd Blanche went there and said, we will talk with you under the condition that nothing that you say to us will be used, thus the word use, will be used against you in any future prosecution.
Not entirely clear what that prosecution would be all about, but
often used by prosecutors in other cases to receive and get information by defendants by targets by subjects if indeed if indeed it is believed that they've got useful information for what for a future or continuing prosecution that helpful information that only they can provide about other events other people involved that the present
Department of Justice, the present prosecutors do not know about.
That's a grant of use immunity.
If you sit down and talk with me and give me that information, I, as a prosecutor, will not use that against you.
I can still prosecute you on the underlying events that you described, but it's gotta be based upon something other apart from what you tell me in this sit-down meeting.
I will not use the information that you provide against you in that.
prosecution or that further investigation that was the deal apparently upon upon which my deputy attorney general and yours sat down with her and so she's seeking presumably some further assurances that if she talks more or maybe even has already given up all that information that she will get from the president of the united states of america pardon she's asking the legislature again for
blanket immunity, complete immunity for anything that she may say.
If indeed she's subpoenaed there, she's asking for the sun, the moon, and the stars should not be granted, not be given by any legislative body, should not be granted by the executive branch.
Let's talk about pardons.
Pardons, again, traditionally inside the Department of Justice,
operated by, administered by the office of the pardon attorney.
Their basic principle has been if you have been convicted and sentenced five years ago and you acknowledge what you have done and you've made good in your life, you've done other things to show that you are no longer that person who committed those.
crimes of the past, you've done something for the community, for yourself, for your family, for your friends, for people out there who've made the world a better place, involved with you because of the work that you have done since your conviction, clemency in the literal sort of the word, a sense of jurisprudential sympathy, if you will, and a grace.
a grace which the Supreme Court has described, bestowed upon you for the things that you have done, not forgiving, not overlooking the past, but saying that your conduct has been appropriate to get you that pardon.
The office of the pardon attorney has traditionally looked through those applications which come through that office of the Department of Justice and made recommendations to the president about whether a particular applicant, a petitioner, is entitled or should be entitled.
to a pardon.
Now, we know that that's not always been followed, and certainly past presidents have run rush shod over that process.
This particular president has done that as have past presidents, including the firing not too long ago of the pardon attorney who's responsible for the administration of that very office.
Her name, Liz Oyer, O-Y-E-R.
She no longer has a job.
She's a former federal defender.
She knows the process.
She knows the system.
The president fired her.
Why?
Because she was not giving him a positive recommendation about whether or not Mel Gibson's gun rights should be restored.
Remember this story?
She is gone.
And so the president has gotten rid of the person responsible for the operation of the very office that should be doing this deliberative, nonpartisan.
review of applications.
Presumably running roughshod if indeed the Elaine Maxwell matter is now a foot between the Department of Justice and the White House running roughshod over those traditions of the office of the pardon attorney that have guaranteed some regularity and some systemic understanding about how pardons will be implemented.
This too
This too should be a reason for concern among all Americans who are looking at this mess, which is the Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell matter.
If indeed the president grants her some kind of immunity or clemency, a pardon, if in fact the Congress in some way goes along with that, we are really putting the rule of law.
And yes, the rule of facts as well, not only in a secondary seat, but a tertiary seat, maybe far beyond that when it comes to the
administration justice and all to what end.
all to one end.
Certainly not the promotion of justice, not the administration of the rule of law, and not the kind of thing that has been a regular pursuit of presidents and attorneys general and prosecutors and investigators committed to the rule of law in our nation's history.
When we come back, we'll talk about redistricting, we'll talk about tariffs, we'll talk about birthright citizenship, all that coming up on this the second hour of Amicus.
a lot of
My name is Jim Santel.
I'm your host for this the second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast all things rule of law related government related justice related in this the second hour we're going to be talking about redistricting and yes gerrymandering and things going on in Texas and Louisiana and the 8th Circuit and maybe in California and Illinois and New York as well much in the focus of our nation in
this weekend and in the days just ahead.
We're also going to talk.
about tariffs and the intersection between what the president has been doing in one of his major initiatives of his presidency, imposing withdrawing, delaying, imposing again tariffs as a part of our international policy, our economic policy.
Believe it or not, a federal court is now weighing in on that issue as well.
And then we're also going to be talking
About birthright citizenship yet again as appeals courts appeals courts now also weigh in where the Supreme Court did not all of that coming up in This hour of amicus a lot of you you as always can be a part of this by sending to max My producer or me a comment in the studio chat line of civic media are also calling in at 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 let's begin with what's going on in Texas and the implications for the rule of law and
justice generally.
The legislature, as you know, in Texas, just this past week, unveiling a redrawn map reconstituted for the United States House districts, proposing to carve up five seats.
Those are democratic seats so that Republicans would now be likely to win them in 2026, November of 26 when all members, all 435 members of the House of Representatives are up for election.
The proposed maps would propose to provide five House representatives in seats that would include Houston and Dallas and along the United States-Mexico border.
The redrawn map, condemned by Democrats, not surprisingly, and many others around the country, as a badly partisan map, also racially discriminatory, which is very important to understand as we talk through this, at what's really a rare mid-decade redistricting, as you know here in the state of Wisconsin, other states throughout the nation, all states, every time a census is done, they look again at...
their lines inside their particular state and decide whether or not the lines need to be redrawn to ensure, at least the aspiration is, that there is not unconstitutional, shouldn't be political gerrymandering, not racial gerrymandering, that people's voice should be heard when it comes to the people we send to Congress in Washington, D.C., and also, of course, the people we send to the state houses in our state capitals around our country.
Pushed for Months by President Trump, and accepted by the governor there, his name is Greg Abbott as you know, and other Republican leaders.
fulfilling what is generally viewed as the president's demand for five additional Republican seats that he can count on that would help the party keep control when in fact all of us go to the polls in early November of 2026 to vote for those 435 members the president pressing Republicans in the legislature also in Missouri
and Indiana and elsewhere to follow this lead of Texas.
And indeed, Texas is taking the lead.
We know that just this past week, the members of the legislature began to have some discussions of a formal nature to discuss this plan, which is out there, which would accomplish, again, these major changes, merging the 35th and 37th districts and accomplishing what could be a political gerrymander, but also according to some a racial gerrymander.
And indeed, there are allegations that merging the 35th
and 37th districts is an illegal voter suppression of black and Latino votes in central Texas.
And that from the representative named Greg Cesar, who is one of those who is sent to Congress in that one of those districts, along with another representative named Lloyd Doggett, D-O-G-G-E-T-T.
They may be forced to run against each other by virtue of this redistricting plan.
It appears that the legislature there is going to go ahead and vote on this as soon as this coming week.
It is developed in consultation with a National Districting Trust Group.
It's a Washington-based group.
It could well give Republicans control of 30, count them 30 of the state's 38 house seats, putting about 80% of the delegation Republican control in the 2024 election for what it's worth.
Donald Trump carried the state with 56%.
Of course, again, it's got to be approved by the committee as it reviews that.
by the full House, the full Senate, all of that is moving forward.
even this weekend, certainly in the coming week, and likely, likely that there'll be legislative action to redraw the lines mid-term, mid-decade, if you will, in Texas to redraw lines in a way that arguably, depending upon how this is done, how you construe it would accomplish a partisan gerrymander by changing the Democratic and Republican weightings in those various districts, but also arguably a raci-
And that is significant, of course, because the Supreme Court has said to us that generally the federal courts should not be in the business of reviewing partisan gerrymanders, that of a case several years ago, but can indeed review racial gerrymanders.
If you're doing this for racial purposes, and we know that the Supreme Court and other courts, the lower federal courts, the district courts, they are in business when it comes to that.
So as this gets enacted in high likelihood,
in the coming week, anticipate a judicial challenge right away into one or more district courts in Texas, probably the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the appellate court there, taking this up, arguably ending up in front of the United States Supreme Court, all of this tick-tock.
Because again, it's gotta be in place somehow long before November of next year, as we are talking about this and making these changes likely in August of 25,
People have got to know what district they're in.
Candidates have got to know this in order for the system to work.
Now, why is this so significant and why does it likely have extensions not just in those other areas that the president has encouraged Missouri, Indiana and other places, but we know that the Supreme Court has also weighed in in part or at least dipped its toe into the lake of a case coming out of Louisiana.
This is Louisiana versus Calais.
We've talked
a lot about it.
It is a redistricting case coming out of Louisiana.
It has to do with the legislature's creation there of two majority black districts upon the direction of a lower district and appellate court in that part of the world.
When curiously out of the 65 cases that the Supreme Court decided in this past term on its regular merits docket the Supreme Court specifically did not address did not resolve the challenge to this Louisiana redistricting matter brought by people who maintained that the redistricting Accomplished a violation of the Voting Rights Act by inappropriately inappropriately placing too much emphasis
upon race and creating two, two black majority districts.
The Supreme Court on Friday of this past week returned to this Louisiana case by expanding the scope of this Louisiana congressional redistricting dispute that's been pending for months.
And specifically the Supreme Court, again weighing in here in Louisiana, ordered new briefing on a legal question.
that is implicated in all of these jurisdictions that is the strength of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The court issued an order specifically asking the lawyers, in this case, it didn't send it back, it said, as you come back and argue this case, give us more briefs, write more on this issue of whether in seeking to comply with the 1965 Voting Rights Act, that again protects minority voting rights and language rights as well,
the Louisiana legislature in creating these two majority black districts violated the Constitution's 14th and 15th amendments, both of them, of course, enacted after the Civil War, and doing that to ensure that black voters
were treated equally under the law.
Is that in fact, is that in fact a violation of the Constitution?
And again, there's a lot to unpack here.
If the court rules that the state did violate the Constitution by creating those two majority black districts, by affording more people in Louisiana, people of color, the opportunity to have their voices heard, it would mean that states cannot cite the need to comply with the Voting Rights Act if
they raise race as a consideration during the map drawing process.
There's a lot to unpack there.
The upshot is that this Louisiana matter may well, once again, implicate the legitimacy of the Voting Rights Act, which has been around since 1965, arguably to be invoked as soon as next week in Texas.
neighboring state there when it re-describes its lines, maybe on a partisan basis, maybe on a racial basis.
And the matter in Louisiana right now appears to put the constitutionality
of section two of the Voting Rights Act back in play.
We have spoken a lot about sections four and five and two of the Voting Rights Act in the past.
You know well that in a case called Shelby County way back in 2013, the court, the Supreme Court removed a major tool of the Voting Rights Act that required prior approval to change the ways in which voting is done in those areas of the country, around the country, not just in southern states that have a history of
and violations of voting rights.
That was Shelby County in a case called Bernovich 2021 coming out of Arizona.
They further weakened section two, which is the core provision of the voting rights act that ensures or should ensure that people of color have the right to vote.
Bernovich, Shelby County, maybe now followed up by this Louisiana matter that they will take up again in this second time this.
repeat term coming up, the 2025-2026 term coming out of Louisiana, maybe affecting and diminishing once again the strength of the Voting Rights Act.
Now, why is this further important?
Because we know that in another matter, yet another matter involving the Voting Rights Act, what did the Supreme Court recently do?
We talked about this recently as well.
This comes out of the 8th Circuit.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, basically the breadbasket
states right in the middle of our nation, telling the Ace Circuit that it had to stand down, cannot enforce its finding, its finding in a case involving two tribes in North Dakota, Native American tribes of that state, who alleged that there was redistricting that compromised their voting rights in that state.
The Ace Circuit finding that
The tribes could not bring the lawsuit to begin with because only the Department of Justice can litigate under the Voting Rights Act.
That's what the 8th Circuit found contrary to the law ever since 1965.
The 8th Circuit, a stand-alone district, and interestingly, appropriately, our Supreme Court as a part of its emergency docket.
told the ace circuit it's got to stand down that that ruling cannot go forward but plainly indicating that there will be more action coming out of that ruling of the ace circuit finding that there can be no enforcement of the voting rights act by private entities private individuals only the department of justice and yes indeed the civil rights division
of the Department of Justice can litigate, can prosecute civilly under the law.
That's a lot.
But it means that an awful lot is in play right now when it comes to the Voting Rights Act, that the Texas matter, the challenges made also by other governors in California and Illinois and in New York, to do the same thing, to redistrict all of that, all of that, placing the Voting Rights Act and redistricting
in the rule of law attention of our nation.
Once again, when we come back, some final comments about that, and then we'll move on to tariffs and, yes, again, birthright citizenship.
Stay with us for all of that discussion.
This is Amicus, the love of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
Thank you for once again joining me and Max.
For a discussion of many things in the areas of rule of law and justice, including redistricting and gerrymandering, a lot of focus right now in the state of Texas, the legislature there, very likely in the coming week, redrawing their lines mid-decade, not obliged to do it, but mid-decade redrawing the lines according to Democrats, unconstitutionally, unfairly, unreasonably.
Perhaps creating five new districts that would be solidly Republican limiting the Democratic stronghold on other seats requiring some members of the Democratic Party there to face off against each other.
Plainly going to be facing a lot of challenges coming out of whatever the legislature does in the coming weeks that joined by the Supreme Court Justice past week resurrecting this case out of Louisiana involving Louisiana and Calais, Mr. Calais alleging
along with 11 under plaintiffs who identify as non-African-American voters who feel aggrieved by the decision of the legislature there to create two, two majority black districts.
Is that in violation of the Voting Rights Act?
Is that in violation as they maintain of the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Supreme Court directing new briefing on those questions just this past week, even as the 8th Circuit matter that said,
in a matter that the Supreme Court has shut down, that private parties do not have the capacity to go forward and litigate under the Voting Rights Act, the Ace Circuit law, no longer in place, but arguably to be resurrected down the road.
In the midst of all of that coming out of the Texas action, we've got...
statements by the governors of California, that's Newsom, by Illinois, that's Pritzker, by New York, that's Hocal, all saying if Texas does this, we're going to fight fire with fire, and we're going to redistrict in our states, presumably, to create more democratic seats in those states.
to send to the Congress in January of 2027.
A fascinating, troubling, concerning time to be looking at all of this.
And again, tick tock, because all of this has to happen in some way, shape, or form across the country.
And maybe other states implicated as well.
Long before you go to the polls in early November of 2026, so the candidates know what districts they're running in, that voters know what districts they live in, so that they can vote in a way that's
consistent with our constitutional principles.
And yes, indeed, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, if it survives, if it survives into the years just ahead.
In addition to redistricting, which is indeed a rule of law issue, here is one that you may be surprised to hear about.
It has to do with tariffs.
You know well.
You know well the president's focus on tariffs as late as this past week, imposing and changing the numbers of tariffs with respect to specific countries around the world.
Just this past week, a federal appeals court, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hearing argument.
in the Trump administration's appeal of a lower court ruling, which we have talked about, a lower court ruling, and the question is whether or not, whether or not the president has the authority to hit all of these foreign nations with 10% tariffs under something called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
or the IEPA.
Now, that's not a household world.
That's not a household term.
I'll say that once again.
It's the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or the IEPPA.
And the reason why this is important, of course, is it means that even this issue, the President's authority to set, impose, to negotiate, to change, to amend,
tariffs and levies against foreign nations, obviously having an implication for all Americans on the dollars that they pay here in our nation.
Can he do that?
Well, you know, the Constitution says no.
The Constitution plainly gives the right of what the Congress itself, the legislature, to impose those kinds of tariffs.
And that's where the debate begins.
The three-judge panel of the U.S.
Court of International Trade had blocked the sweeping duties that the President had asserted previously on most countries, and the Federal Circuit had temporarily reinstated the tariffs while it considered the dispute.
So what happens here?
Well, what happens is...
is that just this past week, the 11th, 11 judges, all 11 of them, of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, they're located in Washington, D.C., they have oral argument on all of this.
And as the arguments get underway, several judges on the Appeals Court, Pepper, the Justice Department lawyer about whether the IEPA, this statute,
authorizes the president to impose these tariffs when it's clear that the Constitution says just the opposite.
One of the judges immediately noted that the law has never before been used to assess the levies on trading partners.
Says this we've never seen before.
Many others talk about the laws that regulate trade that include the word tariff.
One of the judges saying it's interesting to him that here the IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs and doesn't even mention tariffs and pointing to those trade statutes which impose constraints on the duties that a president can assess here.
One of the judges goes on to question why a president would rely on those laws
when the IEPA provides broader power under the Justice Department's interpretation.
Again, it's a lot.
It's a lot going on here.
One of the judges says it's a wholesale revision of the scheme that Congress enacted.
It's really kind of asking for an extraordinary change to the legislature's approach to the tariff schedule.
And the upshot of all of that is, of course, that we've got members of this panel saying that they're very
of the president's capacity to do this under the Constitution and under this particular statute.
Other members of the federal circuit seem concerned about the breadth of the authority the president is claiming under the IEPA to impose those broad tariffs and talking about unbounded authority of the president.
When you come back I'll tell you what the government lawyers said in response to that and again what the federal circuit may well
do in telling the president once again what he cannot do in all of this major tariff work that's been occupying our tension in recent months.
And when we come back here on Amicus, a lot of you.
This is Amicus, a law review.
My name, Jim Santel.
We are talking about presidential authority once again, and this very interesting oral argument that was had just this past week among the 11 judges of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewing a decision of a lower court, the U.S.
Court of International Trade, that had blocked
had blocked these sweeping duties of the presidency, the authority of the president to impose tariffs of all things, and a seeming majority of the bench this past week.
in the federal circuits saying, you don't have the authority to do this, Mr. President.
They are met, they are met with the argument from the President's attorneys, and those are the attorneys from the Department of Justice who say, well, wait a minute, we're going to be invoking this IEEPA, that is the International Emergency and Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.
And what does that say?
Well, that says that the President can exercise
the authority to do this, in instances where there's an unusual or extraordinary threat to national security or the economy for which a national emergency has been declared.
Now, in invoking that language, again, the IEPA just says nothing about tariffs, nothing about levies of this sort, but in rolling out all these tariffs of recent weeks and months, Donald Trump has claimed
that trade deficits and the flow of illicit drugs into our country across our borders have constituted this national emergency about which the IEPA does in fact give him some authority and that's the basis upon which the argument is made by your attorneys in front of the federal circuit just this past week that the president does have this authority
The members, the full members, all 11 of them of the court of, on the federal circuit, the court, they're very skeptical.
They haven't issued their decision yet, but probably coming sometime soon.
Along the way, here's your piece of civics and your piece of law school as well, which we sometimes incorporate here on the broadcast, in addition to saying that the IEEPA does not.
Does not authorize Donald Trump to engage in this tariff work the lawyers for the small businesses and the states that were arguing against his authority Also said they violate the actions of the president violate this major questions doctrine and the non delegation doctrine there's some basic principles the Supreme Court has variously embraced and sometimes not embraced to prohibit to prohibit various
governmental actions.
And what are those mean?
Well, under the major questions doctrine, we've seen this in the past, an agency that seeks to decide a major issue.
that it has some political or economic significance, something big, as the Chief Justice has said, and something new, big and new, has to have some clear authorization from Congress.
That's the major questions doctrine.
Only the Congress can implement those kinds of things.
The argument here that the President not only acting in violation of the Constitution can't do this.
It's big.
It's new.
And for that reason, major questions prohibits the president from doing this.
Second, the non-delegation doctrine, under that doctrine, Congress cannot not able to delegate to give its legislative authority to an executive branch agency.
Can't say here you do this.
Unless it sets out an intelligible and understandable or reasonable
a clear standard, some judicially enforceable principle to guide that agency.
Here once again saying that the Congress has not given up its authority to impose tariffs as the Constitution, James Madison and George Mason and others wrote many years ago.
Non-delegation doctrine says he can't do this.
And those doctrines as well seem to be favorably received by the members of the...
federal justice past week.
What a decision that would be if indeed they come back and say that all this tariff work, all this initiative underway, even in the hours of recent weeks, cannot go ahead because the president does not have the authority and his reliance on the IEPA.
is unfounded.
Now, of course, would that go to the Supreme Court?
Of course it would, and the government, your Department of Justice would certainly appeal it promptly to the Supreme Court for its review, but we now have another challenge to a fundamental thing that our president is doing along the way, coming out of the federal circuit in Washington, D.C.
We'll see what they decide.
Along with other courts out there reviewing the actions of this president this one having to do with tariffs and the legitimacy the constitutionality of all of this Question whether or not our president would follow that even if this court or another courts says you can't do this, mr. President We do have issues in another area where the president has issued an executive order and appears to be moving even this past week
And the wake of the stay, the 30-day stay of that major decision in that CASA case, CASA in which the court of the United States Supreme Court did not address the issue of birthright citizenship, whether you're born here, whether you therefore have a right to claim citizenship.
or whether he is right, and that if you were born of parents who are illegally here, who are here only temporarily, you are not citizens.
The Supreme Court, in that major case, the single most important case of this past term, decided not to decide.
And although they did say you can't have national injunctions, can't universally impose what one judge or even an appeals court may say across the country, that was their ruling coming from Amy Coney Barrett.
In that case, the last day of its major decisions, even though they said that, no national injunctions, we've had a lot of activity in the wake of that.
Judges, district court judges, and now appeals court judges also deciding what the Supreme Court
not and saying across the board uniformly universally that the prior decision of the Supreme Court in the late 19th century saying that indeed if you are born here in this country geographically we don't need to look at your parents heritage you are a citizen of the United States of America that's the precedent of the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court has not overturned what do we know we we know in the wake of even that decision in Casa
We had district court judges who are saying, we're going to go ahead and find that the president's executive order with this restrictive view on the 14th Amendment cannot stand.
We know about Judge Joseph LaPlante.
He is in New Hampshire who certified a class of all the newborn babies who might be subject to that executive order and said, the class is certified.
I'm protecting all of you.
You are now all United States citizens.
They don't know it yet because of course, they're babies.
baby is just born since February of this year.
We've got a judge, another judge.
Uh, her name of course is, is Deborah Boardman.
She's in Maryland.
She's said the same thing that she is likewise going to do the same kind of thing.
If in fact, when she gets a return report and a return order from her court of appeals, she is likewise going to do the same thing.
That is Deborah Boardman.
She is in the district of Maryland.
And then we've got Leo.
the U. S. O. R. O. K. I. N. Just this past week.
He's a district court judge in Massachusetts who does the same kind of thing.
He says, you know what?
The Supreme Court, having not decided this, I'm going to decide it just like Judge Lapland and just like Judge Boardman have done.
I am finding that if you are born here in the United States of America, you are entitled to citizenship.
and not defying the Supreme Court but saying that that's the way the law should be.
At least three district court judges across the country who are making that decision in the wake of the Supreme Court's non-decision on this issue and now, and now we've got even more, even more judges and they are at the appellate court level who are coming to the same result.
Let's talk about those in the first circuit and then also in the ninth circuit.
First Circuit, just this past week, on Friday, ready to become, believe it or not, the second, the second Court of Appeals in the country to rule that President Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship is unlawful.
It is unconstitutional.
A three-judge panel of the Boston First U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.
It's in Boston where they sit, spend about two hours looking skeptically at Donald Trump's
executive order in a series of cases in which, again, many other courts, including those in the First Circuit, have said the executive order violates the Constitution.
And in particular, this past week, the Chief Judge, his name is David Barron, their B-A-R-R-O-N of the U.S.
Court of Appeals in the First Circuit, says this, says, we have an opinion of the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard.
That's Chief Judge David Barron.
He's referring to that 1898 Supreme Court case.
It is United States versus Wong Kim Ark in that particular case coming out of California.
You have present appearance who are of Chinese ancestry and citizenship.
They are here in California in the United States.
There is the birth of their son.
The question is, is that son a citizen of the United States of America and the Supreme Court?
Uniformly, unequivocally says, 1898, that their son is a citizen of the United States of America.
Why?
Because he was born on American soil.
Other members of the panel, Justice Past Week, said they required to stick with the holding in that case.
Judge Julie Rickleman, R-A-K-E-L-M-A-N, said that the Trump interpretation is wrong.
and the ass that the court had adopted the dissenting opinion in that 19th century case simply is not what she is going to do in the first circuit.
She tells the DOJ attorney who's arguing again on behalf of the executive order, she says, we have to apply the majority decision, not the dissenting opinion, almost mocking, if you will, the position of the government attorney.
a ruling against the administration here, likely coming from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, saying that the executive order cannot stand, cannot stand, would represent the second time.
In addition to all these district courts, you also have appeals courts, the First Circuit, and also even before the First Circuit review of all this, the second, actually the first time that a Court of Appeals has taken a look at this,
is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
That said, huge geographic swath of land again on the West Coast, also including Hawaii and Alaska.
Huge geographic area.
That's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
It said last month.
that again the trump executive order cannot stand and in a separate case again coming out of district courts there in the ninth circuit finding that the judges that the president's executive order is unconstitutional contrary to president contrary to the law contrary to what has been the understanding in america for
Well over well over a hundred years arguably even before before the decision of the Supreme Court in that long
Kim arc case, saying that that cannot stand.
So now, now the likely status is that sometime soon, the First Circuit Court of Appeals is going to join the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in answering the question that the United States Supreme Court did not answer, which is that the executive order cannot stand.
And then indeed, the law is and should remain as it has been for all of recent history.
And that is the children born, children born this year.
In the wake of the executive order, there are babies born, even of parents who are illegally here, who are here temporarily.
All of that, all of that cannot stand.
All of that, all of that, a part of what the appeals courts are doing.
And all of that, a part of what the judges in America are assigned to do.
to do as they undertake the work and the initiatives, taking up these challenges to the president's decisions.
When we come back in our final segment, some comments from at least one caller about many of the topics we've discussed today, and then also some observations about other things going on in the courts of our land, as Amicus, a lot of you, continues.
This is Amica Salar review.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is the final segment of our tour program.
This, we can appreciate your...
Attention, appreciate your engagement on all of these issues.
And yes, as I say with increasing frequency, it's a lot.
It is a lot to digest.
I appreciate that very much.
I appreciate your interest in the civics aspect of these issues, in the law school stuff that we do on this radio broadcast as well.
It is perhaps the one good thing that comes out of all of these challenges to the president's executive orders and other machinations.
that's coming out of this administration, that we also learn more about our judicial system, about how courts work.
about the processes, the rules, the procedures, and even the doctrines that they apply on a regular basis.
Appreciate your attention acknowledging that it is a lot.
We also appreciate here in our broadcast the comments and the involvement of all of our listeners, and that includes Mark, who calls in and also reports to us on the studio chat line about two of the issues we've discussed this weekend, and those include,
redistricting and gerrymandering and about that, about that, Mark notes that race and partisan politics are still entwined intimately and goes on to note that it is interesting coming out of Louisiana that in the fourth district, Mike Johnson, of course, who is the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
It is his district that is somewhat the focus of that Louisiana case that we talked about.
The case is still before the Supreme Court when it comes to deciding whether a newly drawn map that includes two majority black districts should stand.
Mark notes that it is fourth district, it's Mike Johnson's district.
It resembles the very original gerrymandering, gerrymander up there in Massachusetts coming out of Eldridge Gary's
governorship at the time, and the cartoon of great fame that gives life to this notion of gerrymandering.
Mark, I appreciate very much your comment about not only the history here, but also about the fact that when it comes to Louisiana, comes to Texas, maybe comes to these other states, including California and Illinois and Missouri and Indiana, who knows how far this is going to go as we take up once again the issue of line drawing and gerrymandering in the nation.
some of it may be partisan, some of it may be racial.
It's all intertwined, and that is Mark's point, and that certainly is one of the things with which courts need to wrestle.
What is the nature of this line redrawing?
What are the reasons for our doing it?
And it affects dramatically the results.
Mark also comments upon tariffs and notes, as we have noted here repeatedly, including in our weekend broadcast here, that the Constitution, he says it's pretty clear.
It is indeed pretty clear, Mark.
that the congress has the power to set tariffs.
The way that the president is doing it, he says, is essentially taxation without representation.
Mark goes on to say the founders were concerned, as discussed in various letters of the federalist papers, about a president setting policy for personal gain, and these tariffs fall in that category.
Mark, appreciate very much your commentary.
about the authority of the president to impose these tariffs as we have seen them in recent months and weeks.
Appreciate those comments, Mark, and appreciate the comments and the involvement of all of you here on our broadcast.
A final note also about the work of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
We talked about them just a few moments ago in connection with their affirmation of the traditional meaning and purpose of the 14th Amendment.
Just late Friday, late Friday, the Trump administration suffered what can only be called another setback.
You may recall well that there was a judge.
We talked about her a lot named Mame Frimpong, F-R-I-M-P-O-N-G.
She is in the federal district court in Los Angeles.
She had decided that the actions of various federal agents in detaining without suspicion, without an appropriate basis, without finding a basis to detain,
and even arrest people on the streets of Los Angeles cannot stand.
On Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals affirms what Judge Frimpong has directed, telling basically the federal agents to stand down, or at least redirecting them to what the law of our nation has always been, that you have to have reasonable suspicion before you detain someone, before you arrest them on the streets of America, including Los Angeles.
You can't simply base it upon how they look, upon their employment place, or some other
characteristics that are not based upon a reason to believe that they're engaged in some kind of criminal activity.
The three judge panel of U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirming the lower court ruling that these kinds of actions relying exclusively on a person's race and some other factors, for example, like speaking Spanish, cannot form the basis for arrests and detentions.
And of course, we know that the administration's raids there and the arrests, other things have
been a lot of focus of our national attention, all of that back in the news recently.
The appellate judges wrote that the plaintiffs in this case are likely to succeed on the merits again, all of this in the nature of preliminary injunctions.
They're likely to succeed in showing the federal agents made arrests based on how people looked, how they spoke.
and where they lived or worked.
And for that reason, they said that activity cannot go on.
The civil rights groups that brought this case filed these suits on July 2nd, accusing the Trump administration of these unconstitutional sweeps, since early June, nearly 3,000 people have been arrested.
And that happening before and even in the wake of Judge Frimpong's order,
The American citizens and immigrants who are legally in the United States have been caught in this dragnet.
Of course, even if you're not a citizen, you are entitled to the protections of due process and what our constitutional dictates provide.
61-page ruling, the appellate judges said it was likely the arrests were made without reasonable suspicion.
And they added that because the arrests were part of a pattern of officially sanctioned behavior, they're likely to recur without court intervention.
They have said it cannot go on.
It's got to stop.
And the Court of Appeals now affirming the lower court saying you can't do this, likely headed to the Supreme Court again.
We've got a lot on our docket of America, a lot on the docket of this broadcast.
I thank you once again for staying with me on all of this and I invite you back again next weekend as we take up the events, the circumstances, the times in which we live under the rule of law here in the United States of America.
Have a good weekend, everybody.
The national news cycle never stops, but it can be hard to find news about your local community.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.