Transcript
Judicial Tug-of-War: Defiance, Retribution, and the Rule of Law
Amicus: A Law Review · Sat Aug 9, 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.
My name is Jim Santel.
I am your host for this hour and also the next hour here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
As always, our commission this weekend as it is virtually every weekend of the year to bring you the top stories in the areas of rule of law and justice.
and the delivery of that justice to the American people and arguably even beyond, also analyzing that, helping you to understand, providing you with background and information about that, in the context of that word, amy amicus, friend of the court, friend of the people.
And that is indeed what animates
our discussion this weekend as well on our broadcast.
Delighted and honored as always that you have chosen to spend some time with me and with my producer Max as we get through those major stories in the areas of government and rule of law and yes indeed the aspiration for justice in America.
We have as always an ambitious agenda nonetheless achievable as we get through our list of significant goings on in America in our
courts in the streets and the highways of our nation this past week.
We always invite you to be a part of that discussion here on Amicus, that telephone number that you can call.
to voice your questions, your inquiries, your comments, your observations about these various areas, these various rule of law stories, that phone number is 855-752-4842.
Once again, that's 855-752-4842.
We are also, of course, taking those same comments and questions and inquiries on our chat line here at Civic Media.
Delighted, once again, that you would shoot
to not only participate as listeners, but also in the important discussions that we have about these issues.
What are we going to be taking on this weekend on Amica's Solar Review?
The broad concept, the broad theory, the broad...
heading, if you will, for our discussion this weekend, trends.
Trends, patterns that we are seeing in the administration of justice, both inside and outside the courts, inside the Department of Justice, outside the Department of Justice among the people.
What are we seeing in ways that the headlines may not completely capture?
What are the kinds of things that are happening with respect to the judges and their relationships with the Department of Justice attorneys who appear in front of them?
We've talked a lot about the petitions and the arguments, motions, the memorandums filed with judges by the Department of Justice.
We haven't talked a lot about the consequences of that.
We're gonna talk about something called the presumption of regularity and how that has been compromised in recent months, the past six months in particular.
We're gonna talk also about judges increasingly defying the Supreme Court.
We have suggested that in the past.
We're going to codify much of that on this broadcast.
Talk about also a concept called departmentalism.
and taking the concept and applying it here arguably to the decisions more and more of federal district court judges to break with the United States Supreme Court.
Finally, we'll talk about the increasing lack of credibility among the public with respect to the Department of Justice generally.
All of these things
In the context of the fraying, the fraying, the diminution of the rule of law, when all of these things begin to separate, begin to part from each other, they are plainly not together on a regular basis, nor should they be.
Our system depends upon checks and balances and adversarial process, but when the basic understandings and the basic relationships between judges and litigants in front of them, between judges internal to the judiciary and the judges, the justices,
who are responsible for articulating broader issues of law, when the relationship between the public
and the Department of Justice, the attorneys inside your Department of Justice, when all of that begins to crumble and fray, we've got problems even beyond the specific stories that illustrate all of that.
And we are going to spend some time showing you and describing to you in all of those areas, once again, the ways in which the judges increasingly not relying upon the Department of Justice, the judges increasingly defying the Supreme Court and the credibility
loss among the public also from the Department of Justice no longer having the confidence and trust.
of the people of America.
We're going to be talking about specific interests and specific illustrations of all of those.
We're also going to be necessarily talking about the continuing injunctions issued by federal district judges.
We'll talk about some arts funding.
Yes, we'll talk about alligator Alcatraz.
We're going to talk about birthright citizenship.
Yes, again.
And we're going to talk about a case coming out of Wisconsin, in particular, the Western District of Wisconsin, in which a judge, his name is William
a federal district court judge has issued a major ruling just this past week, like those others, but in a very different area, this one having to do the tribal rights and sovereignty and access to roads on one of our federally recognized tribes in the northern part of our state here at Wisconsin.
We'll talk about all of those injunctions and the functions once again of our federal judiciary when it comes to deciding cases and
Instructing parties litigants sometimes the government sometimes not to do certain things not do certain things some of those issued preliminarily those are called temporary restraining orders some of them final in nature will talk about all of those in the areas of the functions of federal judges when it comes to resolving issues and finally entering judgments
preliminary or final directing parties to do or not do certain things.
That's called injunctive relief.
We're also going to be chatting about.
The president's further compromise of the faith and trust that the American public have in government generally, a whole series this past week of firings, specifically firings of people inside the Department of Justice.
Once again, we have animated, been animated in our discussion about a lot of those, some of those at the hands of a fellow named Emile Beauvais going on now to be a Third Circuit Court of Appeals judge.
Some of those at the hands of Todd Blanche are
Deputy Attorney General, some of those at the hands of our Attorney General, Pam Bondi, firing people inside the Department of Justice because of what they have done in the legitimate and fair and decent and assigned nature of their responsibilities.
We'll talk in particular about what's happening just this past week at the federal
Bureau of Investigation.
It is important to remember that the FBI is not an independent agency.
It is inside the structure and the administration of the Department of Justice.
And that is why when three major senior officials of the FBI are fired as they were just this past week for their
past participation in legitimate investigations that have resulted in charges and convictions and sentences, all of that supported by and checked by the basic systems of our investigative regime, how we go about prosecuting investigating crimes.
Now, now being shown the door.
We'll talk also about attacks similar upon the federal judiciary and attack fairly recently against the now former chief judge of the U.S.
District Court in the District of Columbia.
His name is James Bosberg.
He is still there.
He is still administering cases there presiding over things.
We'll talk about in recent times the attack on him.
by the United States Department of Justice filing filing complaints ethics complaints with a chief judge there in his district now and We'll also talk about other attacks by the Department of Justice on other Judges around the nation.
What are they all doing?
They're all entering judgments
based upon the rule of law, based upon their assessment of the facts of the cases in front of them, applied to the laws that they know, that they see, that they are required to administer because of the results of the judgments that they are entering.
They are drawing the attention, drawing the ire of our Attorney General, certainly of our President as well.
And the response, the response by this Department of Justice has been to attack based upon their beliefs, unfounded,
supported by what they're doing that these judges have somehow gone as the the president often says without authority without power they've gone rogue so to speak and for that reason need to be the subjects of ethics complaints and recommended findings against them that they be removed from cases that they be sanctioned
that they arguably be referred for larger investigations related to the ethical conduct of their positions.
None of that well-founded.
It is a part plainly of this administration's further attempt to stop those people.
Retribution is the way that the president spoke about it during the campaign.
It has come alive.
It is real just in recent months and in the past week alone with respect to these fire racing inside the Department of Justice with
With respect to these attempts to stop federal judges from doing their jobs by filing ethics complaints against them, each one of which is unfounded, no merit, frivolous.
And then we'll also talk about another portion of this retribution campaign, the people who the president
feels have wronged him.
We'll talk about what the Department of Justice has initiated just this past week with respect to Letitia James, who may recall well that she is the Attorney General of the state of New York, who has, yes indeed, gotten a number of significant civil judgments entered by courts.
She doesn't do this unilaterally.
She's gotten civil judgments, including that major, major
major case involving fraud by the president and his corporation.
We'll talk about what the Department of Justice, plainly at the encouragement of this president has done with respect to initiating, get this, a civil rights investigation of Letitia James, also going after some real estate issues.
We'll talk about what the Department of Justice has also done in terms of retribution, at least attempts at retribution against a sitting senator.
His name, of course, coming out of the, he is the junior senator now of the state of California and we'll talk about him and the focus by the Department of Justice on him as a result of the things that he has said and done in connection with
His work now as the United States Senator.
His name, of course, Adam Schiff.
You know that well.
We'll talk as well about what the Department of Justice has done again in retribution, like the retribution against Letitia James, like the retribution against the Senator from California, Adam Schiff, and also pursuing, pursuing the former special counsel.
and his name Jack Smith, of course.
He is the fellow who prosecuted those two cases against the president coming out of Mar-a-Lago and also coming out of January 6th.
He dismissed those cases and is no longer a part of the government.
We'll talk about the investigations, the referrals made as to him to something called the Office of the Special Counsel.
All of this a part of the retribution being undertaken by...
this president by this Department of Justice against people for their legitimate civil service conduct.
in the past, in the present, as a way of sending messages not only to them but to others who might challenge appropriately in the conduct of their own checks and balances positions, sending messages to them, to all of us, that if you cross this president, you in fact indeed will get, will be on the receiving end of investigative work.
As we've often said, it doesn't require punishment, it does simply require an investigation.
The investigations themselves,
as we have often said on this broadcast, are indeed the punishment as well.
We'll talk inside all of that, all of that as well, about another check and balance that we have begun to see out in California.
And that is the actions and the work of grand juries in America, in this nation.
All of that as Amicus, a lot of you, continues here on the broadcast stations of civic media.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.
Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.
My name is Jim Santel here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media, this hour and next hour as well.
Taking your comments, your questions, not only in the chat line, but also on the phones, 855-752-4842 is that number.
Join us, be a part of our discussion here of all things related to government and the rule of law and the aspiration for justice in America.
Indeed, the aspiration for justice that prompts our first focus of this weekend, and that is the incarnation, the realization that the president
We've known this for a number of weeks, if not months, is now acting on his promise during the campaign of retribution.
I will be your retribution.
I will get after those people, those civil servants put in place not to do partisan things, not to do political things, but to do their jobs.
And yes, indeed, sometimes they are checks and they are balances and they include litigation.
They include complaints.
They include various things to ensure that our government works and that all of us are abiding by the rules and the standards and the principles upon which our nation has been governed.
This past week and in previous weeks, a series of terminations of those people in many different areas, some of which we've commented upon, some of which are new just in recent times.
The president responding to past actions and saying you are no longer a part
of this government.
We've talked a lot about those in the past.
We begin with, perhaps, one of the most curious of them, and that is this matter involving the president removing the Internal Revenue Service Chief after only two months of his tenure.
Not a lot to say about this.
His name is Billy Long.
He's a former Republican congressman.
He's not only going to be serving as the tax agency's principal leader, the Treasury Secretary, Scott Besant, who you know well from lots
of economic news, he's going to be overseeing the agency as the acting commissioner, once again a cabinet level.
person, a cabinet officer taking over when we have fired, terminated a lower court, lower administrative agency person.
Billy Long, again, he is being removed by the president from the position as the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.
It is more difficult to identify this necessarily as retribution because Mr. Long, upon leaving, certainly says an awful lot of good things about this president.
He talks about him being, it's an honor.
a great service to provide to this president and the government.
Excited to take on, he says, my new role as the ambassador to Iceland.
He said, I'm thrilled to answer that call to service, deeply committed to advancing the bold agenda of this president, exciting times ahead.
Curious we'll find out more about that, but the president begins our our list here of those Circumstances where he terminates people this one in place for a whopping two months after being confirmed by the United States Senate for that position and now being replaced at least temporarily by our Treasury secretary overseeing the IRS no small position there and the reason why even though it may not be in the category of retribution we don't know
a whole lot about this.
The reason why it is significant is you want stability, and that is the through line for this termination, as it is all the others we're about to talk about, all the other attacks on other individuals.
You want to ensure that regardless of what they do, that their work is unfettered by the threat of unsupported and unjustified termination, sanction, and censure.
They can, in fact, be removed if they engage in behavior that is contrary to the basic understandings about their jobs.
That's called removal.
of civil servants for abuse of their positions.
That is not what is going on in the great majority of these other circumstances.
I could even say all of them.
But Billy Long, the former Republican congressman in the IRS chief position for a couple months, no longer there and presumably, presumably sending some messages to the Internal Revenue Service at an important time in our history about the stability at the top of that agency.
Let's talk about some that are even more
more concerning and frankly downright troubling.
Let's go to the Department of Justice.
We have seen in the past these terminations of attorneys in many different areas.
We have seen the terminations of assistant United States attorneys in the U.S.
Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia who responsible for the prosecution literally of hundreds of cases against involving those January 6th rioters, successful prosecutions in a whopping 95, 90
67% of those cases resulting in convictions by trials, convictions in front of the courts of the District of Columbia.
Virtually all of those assistant United States attorneys terminated, removed from their positions.
Why?
Because they were assigned the cases to do those prosecutions in the District Court there in the District of Columbia, no longer a part of our federal workforce, not because they engaged in any...
activity or any conduct, violative of the commission that's given to them, just the opposite.
They did what they were told to do in terms of supporting justice, reaching the result of what the law and the facts, commands and dictates, they're gone.
We know as well that virtually all of Jack Smith's staff, also responsible for prosecuting, as you know well, that Mar-a-Lago case coming out of South Florida, the major January 6th prosecution, neither one of those going to
both of them dismissed before Donald Trump took office.
We know that virtually all of the full-time civil service staff that was working with Jack Smith has been terminated as well.
Others, including the acting U.S.
Attorney in the Southern District of New York, will get back to that issue in connection with a larger concern about the judiciary in our second hour.
We have seen this across the board with respect to other people inside the Department of Justice movements and transfers and departures.
as we have talked about, of people inside the Department of Justice who are no longer able to live up to their oath of office, to meet the ends of justice, to promote the interests of government and the interests, most importantly, of the people of the United States of America.
We've got more of them coming out of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, yes, an agency of the Department of Justice, the FBI Director, Cash Patel, as are all FBI directors, responsible to the Attorney General.
She is Kashpatel's boss.
This is inside the FBI.
The FBI, just this past week, removing at least, at least three senior officials involved in cases connected with January 6th of 2021.
And we'll talk about all of that, all of that and what happened with those three as Amicus, a law review continues here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
This is Amica Salar review.
My name is Jim Santel.
We are spending much of this first hour of our weekend broadcast talking about the president's retribution.
Much of that coming at the hands of the Attorney General, getting rid of those people inside the Department of Justice, attacking people now outside the Department of Justice, attacking judges as well.
Let's talk about what happened just this past week with respect to three senior people at the FBI.
We know that the former FBI acting director, Brian Driscoll, you may recall him.
He was much in the news in the interim period between the departure of the prior director and the appointment of Cash Patel.
Well, he, of course, was in charge of much of the action and involvement of the Department of Justice on a regular basis.
Brian Driscoll served as the acting director, again, of the FBI during this very important time period.
He revealed his firing in an email to employees as reported by a lot of the media.
He said this, he said, last night I was informed that tomorrow will be my last day in the FBI.
may have a lot of questions regarding why, for which I currently have no answers, he said.
No cause has been articulated at this time.
Please know, Driscoll went on to say, that it has been the honor of my life to serve alongside each of you.
Thank you for allowing me to stand on your shoulders throughout it all.
Our collective sacrifices for those we serve is, as always, has been worth it, he says.
I regret nothing.
You are my heroes and I remain in your debt.
The comments, the comments by him again shown the door again because of his prior involvement in many ways in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot investigation and other matters.
showing once again the consequences when, in fact, these decisions are made not based upon performance, based upon civil service, but based upon political animus.
You lose good people like Driscoll.
He had undeniably come under fire from the Trump administration earlier this year after he was pushing back against pressure to oust those agents who had handled those Capitol riot cases.
He said, no, we should not be doing this.
and he was fired just short of his retirement and therefore is not able to collect a full pension, something we've also seen at the hands of this president in his first term.
People described Driscoll as a well-respected leader inside the FBI recipient of the FBI Medal of Valor.
and the FBI shield of bravery no longer a part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation because of his involvement in the investigation of the riot, the insurrection in Washington, DC on January 6th.
There is a second individual.
We also know who that is.
His name is Walter Giardina.
Walter Giardina.
And Giardina was involved in the contempt of Congress case.
You may recall this against the White House aide
that trade advisor, his name is Peter Navarro.
He's back now in the White House.
You may recall well that Navarro was served four months in federal prison.
Why?
Because he failed to comply with a congressional subpoena.
He was charged, he was tried, he was convicted and sentenced.
He is a convicted felon and he is back in the White House now.
Giardino was involved in that particular investigation and that prosecution for his work on that.
legitimate matter Giardina had been in the crosshairs, if you will, of Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley.
He's from Iowa, as you know.
He had said on the Senate floor at one point that the case, the case against Navarro was the work of a merry band of partisans.
And then we have a third person, a third person also let go by the FBI just this past week.
His name is Steve Jensen.
He's the acting director in charge of the Washington field office in particular.
And Jensen,
as well.
Helming that Washington field office also believed to have been involved in the bureau's investigation of the Capitol riot all of them all of them that go not not providing us with any information about the reasons why other than to say that they are no longer there and That they are plainly plainly unmistakably unmistakably losses losses to the FBI to the Department of Justice to all of us good and decent long-tenured civil servants leaving
of those positions and diminishing the significance, the importance, the gravity of what the FBI can and should be doing, their absence will be sorely felt.
A part of the retribution of this Department of Justice, acting on behalf of this White House and this president, to go after those people who legitimately investigated these various matters no longer in those senior areas.
And while we have spoken about this in the past, it is important to focus upon it.
once again, and that is this, that when you dismiss these people, you lose not only the huge, huge amount of experience that they have, but you also lose the expertise that they bring to their investigative work.
And presumably people will take those positions.
Presumably people who will not run afoul of the leadership in the FBI, in the White House, you want people, as we've discussed before, you want people to look inside the Department of Justice,
just inside the FBI, inside the government generally, and say, you know what, I like to articulate a differing view.
I'd like to push back on our plans to do X, Y, or Z. That is a good and healthy thing for government.
And we'd like to think that those people who are assigned responsibility to handle these important cases would be given the ability to do so absent this kind of retributive behavior.
That's happening inside the FBI.
And we know as well that it extends beyond
beyond just the Department of Justice.
We have talked a lot in the past about James Bosberg, the former Chief Judge of the U.S.
District Court in the District of Columbia.
He is no longer the Chief Justice Judge there, not because of any impropriety, but because those terms expire.
But in recent weeks, the Department of Justice has filed, has filed a petition
a petition with the chief judge, the new chief judge in that district, claiming, claiming that Judge Bosberg for his activities, for his statements, and in particular a statement made during the course of an internal, non-public meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
in which the judge at that point warned about some disregard of the rulings of federal courts that he sees coming up and the triggering of a constitutional crisis, saying these things inside an internal meeting of a group of judges and justices called the Judicial Conference of the United States overseeing the administration of the federal courts, making those comments, those comments now made public and prompting the Attorney General to
to file with the court an ethics complaint.
Plainly, the ethics complaint, as to him, as to Bosberg, targeted because he did, in fact, continues to administer that major case involving the deportees, those who were on March 15th and following deported without due process to El Salvador.
We've talked about that a lot.
The attempts by that judge to get information and to oversee that case.
notwithstanding the stonewalling by the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice, the White House, plainly dissatisfied with the work of this separate Article III judge.
And so filing this frivolous complaint against him for making improper public comments.
Now, the reason why that is so vacuous, the reason why there's no there there is these were not public complaints, number one.
And number two, there's nothing about a judge or a justice in the context of another.
meeting with other judges and justices, talking about trends that they see in the administration of their work.
We want them to do that.
That's what they are encouraged to do so that they can, yes, indeed, be prepared, be understanding of what the climate and the geography is like out there.
And that's exactly what Judge Bosberg said in warning about the disregard of rulings of federal courts and the possibility that that may trigger a constitutional crisis.
Nonetheless,
the attorney general just in recent weeks seeking to have him sanctioned to be removed from the case involving the deportees to being told that he cannot engage in this kind of discussion and also being referred to the judicial conference to consider removing him or at least seeking his removal through the impeachment process.
These are no small things.
It is an attack, undeniably, against a sitting federal judge for the things that he and this
instance and in all of these cases has done as a part of the assignment we gave him as a federal district court judge.
We know that there are others, others in this same vein.
In February, the Justice Department filed a similar misconduct complaint against a judge who is overseeing a challenge to Trump's ban on transgender people in the military.
Recall this well.
Department of Justice, at that time, as the judge imposed initially the ban, it was subsequently lifted by the Supreme Court, the administration saying that the judge who said no, it is a violation of civil rights, can't do this, Mr. President, cannot remove transgender military people.
And the president comes back and says that that behavior, the behavior of the judges, hostile and egregious misconduct, hostile and egregious misconduct, justifying a misconduct complaint against her.
Last month, it sued, as we will call well, a whole group, the entire group of Maryland judges in the district court there, accusing them of intruding on the president's inherent powers at the time to enforce the nation's immigration laws, suing the entire bench.
pushing back on what they have done to try to ensure due process in terms of the administration, the law and the granting of due process to those people facing deportation.
Earlier this month, again, the Attorney General accusing members of the federal bench in New Jersey of being rogue judges.
Those are her words, rogue judges during a fight.
Again, we haven't talked a lot about this.
It's been out there in the news about who would be the state's next acting and ultimately confirm.
U.S.
Attorney.
We know that that has now been resolved by the Senate in confirming the President's selection there along the way.
The Attorney General saying that the judges there in terms of their appointment and the process which is prescribed for them to do under the law that they're being rogue.
They're rogue judges and for that reason they should receive and be the receiving end of our disapproval.
All of that happening at the hands of our Attorney General.
These complaints, these attacks,
upon federal district court judges for doing their jobs.
Plainly the president in other areas has also referred to them in descriptive language and has also suggested that they are without power, that they are judges that are not doing the jobs assigned to them.
All of that reasons for great concern here in this time in American history.
It is, of course, appropriate.
as we often do under the First Amendment to respond to and even criticize if we feel strongly the decisions of federal judges, district court judges, appellate court judges.
What we don't do is engage in the name calling.
What we don't do is suggest that because they have a view that is articulated, for that reason, they need to be reviewed.
and they need to be the subject of these ethics complaints.
They need to be sanctioned, and they need to be told to knock it off, to stop doing what they are required to do under their oath of office, their own commitment to the United States Constitution.
We've got more of that as well, and it leaves in many ways Washington, D.C.
in part and stays there in part.
The Justice Department, again, Justice passed week continuing this retribution movement.
escalating the pressure this time upon Letitia James.
You remember, Caldwell, she is the attorney general and plainly an adversary of the president in many pieces of litigation.
We have talked about a lot of those.
The Department of Justice this past week, opening, get this a civil rights investigation as to her in her office and appointing a special prosecutor to scrutinize
Her real estate dealings, those developments concerning the James behavior, their conduct, all that kind of thing, again, a part of this dramatic escalation by this administration against anyone who has done their job and pursued, in this case, civil litigation.
When we come back, we'll talk more about what Leticia James did and did not do, and then we'll also talk about what Adam Schiff apparently did or did not do.
to draw the ire of this president and this administration here on Amicus,
Allah review.
This is Amicus.
A lot of you we are talking in this principal first hour of our weekend broadcast all about the consequences of terminating firing seeking retribution seeking the issuance of ethics orders against various people who you do not like who have done things in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities that run afoul of your particular views about what should happen those views of course the views of the president arguably of the attorney
general as well.
We talked about these complaints, these ethics complaints issued as to various federal judges doing things the president does not like in stopping various of his executive orders, perhaps the top of the list, this ethics complaint as to James Bosberg saying that he's undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary by talking in a non-public
review and discussion with other judges about some concerns he's seen with respect to the compliance of the government with court orders.
Something in fact has come true indeed in his own court in the courts of those other judges all now on the receiving end of ethics complaints.
We have seen this across the board.
We see this as well, not only with respect to judges, but also prosecutors inside the Department of Justice, the firing of those folks.
We see it now with
respect to the firing of senior level people inside the FBI, doing their jobs as good civil servants.
Losses of their experience or expertise profound cannot be replaced quickly and therefore compromising the expertise, the capacity of the FBI, the elite investigative agency of our nation to do its job.
Now we have these additional attacks upon Letitia James, who again, not inside the federal government, she is
a state agent, a state officer.
She is the attorney general of the state of New York.
And of course, she is the individual, this officer who has brought a number of lawsuits against Donald Trump, all of them successfully.
And the Justice Department escalating pressure on her by saying that they're initiating a civil rights investigation.
And saying to her, basically, they're going to determine whether or not you violated the president's civil rights, the civil rights of other people, arguably, for pursuing these investigations, whether or not the attorney general violated civil rights in her successful civil fraud lawsuit against Donald Trump.
And all of that, again, coming out of the Department of Justice.
Apparently, it appears that the Department of Justice, through the acting U.S.
Attorney in New York, has sent a couple of subpoenas to Attorney General James' office, one of which was related to the civil fraud case, and the notion that somehow that was a product of a civil rights violation.
Second one involving
the Attorney General's long-running case against the National Rifle Association.
The Attorney General there had sued the organization, you may recall, back in 2020, winning, winning the ouster of the long-time leader there and diminishing its powers significantly.
All of that happening again at the hands of our Attorney General.
She has also appointed Ed Martin, you may recall, Ed Martin, the unsuccessful, one-time acting U.S.
Attorney of the District of Columbia, now inside the Department of Justice, reviewing all these attempts, according to the President, to weaponize
the Department of Justice, none of that, none of that based upon anything serious.
Ed Martin is now being appointed.
as a special prosecutor to supervise these ongoing investigations into Letitia James real estate dealings according to some reliable reporting.
Of course, all of this is just blatant.
It is an example of this administration's political retribution, which is what the president promised during the course of his campaign.
We also know, we also know that Ed Martin is investigating the real estate transactions of
Senator Adams Schiff, who is a Democrat, as you know of California, he's another high-profile person who has been speaking against the president and many of the things that he has done.
Senator from California plainly attracting the ire of the president for various statements he has made in connection with many of these executive orders.
Now, now Ed Martin apparently investigating Adam Schiff for real estate transactions.
And in particular, in particular, probably the result of the senator's objection to Ed Martin's nomination to be the permanent.
U.S.
Attorney for the District of Columbia.
That was also spearheaded by Senator Schiff as a part of what?
As a part of his duties and responsibilities as a United States Senator.
People can disagree about those things.
We require, we ask attorneys, we ask staff of the Congress, we ask senators on all sides of the political aisle to voice their views about the legitimacy and the qualifications and the merits of candidates.
before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that's what was going on here.
That gets you under this administration an investigation into your conduct, in particular focusing upon real estate transactions that presumably have little, if anything, to do with that conduct.
Should those matters be a part of the public understanding?
Of course they should.
And if there's something untoward there, if there's something illegal there, they should be investigated.
No indication that there is a
to believe that there is anything untoward illegal going on there.
And that also underscores one of the final points in all of this, which is, traditionally, the Department of Justice does not announce investigations, specifically if they're grand jury investigations, if they involve subpoenas, those kinds of things.
Many good reasons for not doing this.
This administration, once again, breaking the norms across the board, announcing not only the conduct of these investigations, providing folks
to them issuing subpoenas that are also apparently in the public domain, all of that contrary to the ways in which the Department of Justice has worked in the past, but also a part of the attacks of the Department of Justice on these various public officials inside the FBI, inside the judiciary, outside these agencies because in the past they have done things
that are contrary to the views and the positions of the White House.
This is retribution incarnate.
When we come back, we're going to talk about federal district court judges, more of them out there issuing injunctions.
And I'm going to spend a lot of time in our second hour talking about the collateral consequences of all of this on the rule of law in America.
Stay with us for all of that and more.
My name is Jim Santel.
Thank you so very much for spending a portion of your weekend in conversation and discussion in absorption of many of these issues related to the rule of law, the administration of justice in our nation.
That includes necessarily an awful lot of focus upon our judiciary, the representatives who are serving on our behalf inside important
agencies of the United States government, people outside government in other areas that are also on the receiving end of the president's retribution.
We know that in addition to all of those folks we talked about in the first hour, including judges, that Jack Smith himself, the...
former special counsel, the special prosecutor who prosecuted those two cases, one coming out of South Florida involving the president's Mar-a-Lago documents, so to speak, and also that January 6th prosecution, Jack Smith appointed again by the attorney general to do those prosecutions, now himself, now himself the target of an investigation by an agency called the Office of Special Counsel.
It is independent of the Department of Justice, but how did it get there?
got there because a senator named Tom Cotton, he is from Arkansas, sent a letter.
to that particular agency saying that Jack Smith's actions in investigating and prosecuting those cases were clearly driven to hurt President Trump's reelection and also that the actions of Jack Smith are fully actionable and fully accountable.
He should be held to a higher level of accountability according to the senator.
The OSC, the Office of Special Counsel, opened this investigation to determine whether or not
whether or not Jack Smith violated the Hatch Act, the Hatch Act, which enforces a law that restricts government employees from engaging in political activities.
You know that well.
The allegation, again, made by a sitting center of Jack Smith's behavior during the course of his investigation, resulting from what it's worth in two grand jury investigations and at least two grand jury indictments.
Members of the public finding there is probable cause to believe that the president has engaged in these violations of federal law.
Nonetheless, Tom Cotton referring this to the Office of Special Counsel on the basis that Jack Smith has somehow engaged in political activities intended to undermine the political status of candidate Trump at the time, now President Trump, and for that reason should be sanctioned even though he's no longer in office.
The Office of Special Counsel has opened that investigation.
Again, a part of this attempt to go after those people who have wronged the president in the past from his view by virtue of doing the basic job duties and responsibilities that have been signed to them, it is a source, should be a source of dramatic concern and consternation and disappointment, dismay, objection by all Americans because we are now targeting people who've done their jobs.
for retributive actions.
We appreciate so much the comments and the contributions of all of our listeners, including...
Greg, Gary rather, from Madison Rights, this administration's recognizing the judicial department will only destroy everyone's civil rights.
And that's the concern by having these petitions, these attempts to try to stop federal judges from doing their jobs.
You're therefore having a direct, not indirect, but a direct effect upon the capacity of the judges to do their jobs undeterred.
by these frivolous and unsupported allegations.
Mark also writes, he writes, how smart is it to fire people who likely have seen incriminating evidence about you, about Donald Trump in particular, and he also bemoans the fact that this is going on.
All of that happening in the United States of America, much of it just this past week, investigations.
Ethics complaints, firings of people who in the past have engaged in legitimate actions in their various positions a source of great concern.
Not only here on this broadcast, but for all Americans going ahead.
a programming note at this point early in our second hour, and that is what's going to be happening in our next broadcast next weekend.
We are approaching once again that time, and the Supreme Court is going to be back in action, if you will, entertaining oral arguments in October of this year.
We know that they've got about 30 cases already on their docket, and that includes cases involving voting rights and transgender sports and campaign finance and conversion therapy, and yes, indeed,
abortion.
All of those and about 25 other matters pending before the Supreme Court already.
Next weekend we're going to be spending some time talking about the group of cases the Supreme Court has already undertaken to review in this coming term.
Lots on our agenda.
for that next weekend broadcast.
Lots on our agenda for this hour as well.
This hour as well, we turn now to federal district court judges who again have been under fire by this administration by entering various injunctions, doing various things that are a part of their duties and responsibilities.
And these are judges that have been appointed by Democrats and Republicans alike.
We have had district court judges, appellate court judges who have sometimes declared
inclined to enjoin the president from doing things often, more often, enjoining him, stopping him, at least by virtue of their orders and their directives, stopping him from engaging in many of the kinds of things that he wants to do through these various executive orders that he has entered.
Let's talk about more of those that have happened just in recent days.
Let's talk about a federal district court judge who has ruled that the administration's
abrupt elimination of some arts funding, some humanitarian grants that were previously approved by, yes, that's right, by the Congress are unlawful.
And that a lawsuit that's brought to challenge that action by the administration to stop those arts funding
pockets from going ahead, that those can move forward.
The lawsuits challenging those do indeed have some reason for being pursued.
In April, the group led by Elon Musk terminated some grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities to thousands, thousands of groups nationwide.
And those involved humanities councils, museums, historic sites, archives, libraries, educators, media outlets, all sorts.
of things going on out there receiving these funds and now terminated by virtue of the president's executive order.
What happens just this past week is U.S.
District Judge Michael Simon, he writes that the councils were likely to succeed on their claim that the withholding of the funds at issue in this case is
unconstitutional.
He says the United States Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to the Congress and not to the president.
He also goes on to say that federal funding for the arts and the humanities has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades with Congress continuing to strengthen the statutes governing these authorities, the national endowment for the humanities, and provides stable funding generation after generation supporting the
injunction against that plainly plainly subject to further review district court action federal appeals court action but a federal judge rules that these cuts to the humanities these grants given them previously are unlawful that coming out of the pen and off the desk of U.S.
District Judge Michael Simon just this past week another completely different area but one that's much more in the news this is alligator Alcatraz we've got a
Judge, her name is Kathleen Williams.
She is in the Federal District Court in Miami, that's South Florida.
She issues a temporary restraining order from the bench saying that the state, the state of Florida cannot install any more lighting and paving and fencing or other fixtures at this detention center that has been dubbed.
Alligator Alcatraz, it plainly is the place where great numbers of people facing deportation are being and will be housed, will be incarcerated pending those proceedings.
The order, the order is in a place for about 14 days.
It gives the judge some time to complete a hearing on the case.
It's brought by several environmental groups.
And yes indeed, there's other litigation pending, attacking the civil rights processing,
due process of the people at that detention facility.
This one is about environmental matters.
They're arguing that this project to build this facility near the Everglades there run by the state but housing federal immigration detainees that the very construction of this is going ahead without first completing
an environmental review, and that's required by federal law.
You know that, well, you've heard about this a lot in the past.
The groups are therefore seeking from Judge Williams a preliminary injunction to stop the operation and the construction of the center itself.
And the communications director, of course, from the governor's office has responded to this temporary suspension of construction with dismay and with disagreement, he said,
that the detainees there would remain in the detention center.
And he said the ruling, suspending construction there would have no impact on immigration enforcement in Florida.
The judge has been hearing testimony in this case for a day and a half before ruling from the bench.
The reason for her temporary restraining order is that the plaintiffs here provided information that there were dozens of trucks carrying what appeared to be fill, as well as a soil compactor driving into the detention center as recently as the last couple of days, continued construction on the site.
And the result of all of that testimony
is that the judge said while we're going on and determining whether the merits of this case are there sufficient to enter a preliminary injunction she says that the construction has to halt in the meantime while we figure out what's going on here the government lawyers declined to make a commitment to stop the construction and so Judge Williams from the bench
Here's arguments and she says that I'm now going to issue orally the argument or rather the order to stop the construction.
It is temporary.
But it is a pause on the further destruction of this sensitive area to allow the parties to further present evidence to Judge Williams as this matter goes forward.
Interestingly, Judge Williams also previously held a fellow named James Uthmeyer, who is the state's attorney general and the governor's former chief of staff in civil contempt.
for defying her order in another case that blocked enforcement of a provision in the state immigration law.
So she has had some previous experience in all of this.
The environmental case, of course, as I said, is one of a couple of them that are focusing upon this particular alligator Alcatraz facility.
There's another one.
That attacks the due process rights of the detainees there and relates to their civil and constitutional rights The lawyers for the Department of Justice the federal folks in this have tried to distance themselves from all of this by saying the detention center
has been constructed by state authorities and its location suggests that, and therefore the feds are not involved in this.
Well, plainly, federal detainees are being placed there, difficult to make that argument, but the judge, again, just this past week, ordering the construction of that continued construction of that facility to be suspended there at Alligator Alcatraz in Florida.
We've got more judges, as we know, who are entering orders
with respect to birthright citizenship.
We know that the Supreme Court and one of its last orders of this.
season of this year, if you will, this term, the Supreme Court decided specifically not to decide whether or not the president's executive order on birthright citizenship should be upheld or not.
Instead, they focused upon this national injunction notion that judges do not have the capacity, whatever their final ruling is, to make it effective for all of the nation or certainly for areas beyond their particular jurisdictions.
When we come back, I'll tell you about yet another.
judge in the wake of that order who's entered an order in this area.
And we'll talk more about that.
It comes from a judge in Maryland.
We'll talk about what she did this past week as Amica Salah Review continues.
This is Amica Salaravu.
My name is Jim Santel.
We are talking about, once again, as we often do, the injunction function of federal district court judges, judge finding that the president's attempt to cut arts funding is unconstitutional.
that alligator Alcatraz at Facility in South Florida, the construction there has got to stop.
We've got more judges who are entering orders, preventing the president's executive order on birthright citizenship from going into effect.
Once again, we know well what the recent history of this was.
Supreme Court's decision of late June talked all about the incapacity, the lack of power of federal judges to impose nationwide injunctions.
Can't tell everybody across the entire nation what to do.
coming from your particular district that applies plainly to any orders related to birthright citizenship or other things generally that came out of Amy Coney Barrett's pen.
They specifically decided at that time not to wrestle with and not to address not to resolve whether or not the underlying order whether the president was right in restricting birthright citizenship based upon whether or not your parents were here legally or here temporarily they didn't decide that issue and so sure enough
Sure enough, federal district court judges taking up the Supreme Court's language and they're deciding the case.
We know from our previous reporting that in the wake of what Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority, you had district judge at Joseph Plant.
He's from New Hampshire.
He says, you know what?
If class actions are still available, that's what I'm going to do.
He says that he's identified a class of all the babies were born since mid-February or so in the wake of the president's executive order.
All of them who'd be aggrieved
by this particular executive order.
They're a class.
He certifies them, and he says as to them, they're all citizens.
That again, taking up the language of the Supreme Court that says that class actions may still be available, even though national injunctions may not be.
We talked also about this judge.
His name is Leo Sorokin.
He's in Massachusetts.
He's done basically the same thing.
He said, you know what?
The injunctive relief that he granted to about a dozen states remains effective.
Likewise, in the wake of the Supreme Court's order, not deciding on this issue of birthright citizenship.
And just this past week, we've got another judge, not at all unexpected.
Her name is Deborah Boardman.
She is in Maryland.
And just this past week, she has followed the lead, if you will, of her colleagues.
And she has likewise entered a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the executive order.
She also says the same thing that
She certifies a class as does Judge LaPlante, and that class is all children who have been born or will be born in the United States after February 19th, who would be affected by Donald Trump's order.
She said the plaintiffs in the lawsuit before her were extremely likely to win their argument.
that the birthright citizenship order violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Of course, that language, including a citizenship clause, says that all people born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the US jurisdiction of the United States are indeed citizens.
They were also likely to suffer irreparable harm according to Judge Boardman.
If the order went to an effect, she now enters yet another injunction against this.
We've got more and more judges around the country doing what the Supreme Court has not done, not in defiance of the Supreme Court, but certainly taking up on the language built into that order, saying that there are other remedies and the judge is seizing on that and doing what the Supreme Court
failed to do.
It is interesting to note that in the wake of all of these judicial actions at the lower court levels, finding that the president's executive order is unconstitutional, is illegal, cannot go into effect as to these babies born in recent weeks and months, that the Department of Justice has said we're going to pursue this with the Supreme Court.
We're going to go back and seek from the Supreme Court a definitive decision which they did not rule on about whether or not the President's executive order is in place.
Again the contests the challenges continue inside and certainly outside of the federal judiciary as all of this goes ahead We're gonna talk more about that in just a few minutes when we talk about some of the internal dissension Inside the federal judiciary as well internal to federal district court judges some appeals court judges and yes indeed the Supreme Court itself when we talk about the fabric of the rule of law again unwinding
and diminished as our nation continues to witness all of this.
I'm going to talk about one more injunction that also comes right out of our own.
State of Wisconsin.
This is the U.S.
District Court in the Western District of Wisconsin, and it comes from the pen of a federal judge, and he has made a major determination just this past week about the homeowners' rights and the rights of an Ojibwe tribe with respect to a long-standing Rhodes dispute on the Lakdu Flambeau Reservation.
Judge Conley, Judge William Conley, who is a federal district court judge again in Madison, that's the Western District
of Wisconsin has declared that dozens of homeowners within who've gotten property private property over time lawfully purchased this private property on the lacto flambo reservation do in fact have the right.
to access unfettered access to their land using four disputed roads that run across tribal land.
And of course, all this relates to issues of sovereignty and agreements made with tribal populations around the nation, including the Lactu flambo reservation and the Ojibwe tribe in particular.
The tribal authorities had barricaded these roads for several weeks in 2023.
They said that attempts to renegotiate
some easement agreements that had been longstanding for the roads to be used by these private citizens who do indeed have private property inside the properties and the reservation of the tribe.
They said they tried to pursue those and they were ignored.
by the non-tribal Tron officials and title insurance companies that manage those particular properties.
The case goes into court.
Tribal officials say in that context that the roads had been illegally built decades ago and that the non-tribal residents who again have these private parcels of land inside the reservation were therefore trespassing across those tribal lands for at least about 10 years after the easements that were granted to them had expired.
When we come back, I'll tell you what Judge Conley did in that case.
A major case, not only for the reservation, for the tribal authorities, for the tribal members, for the residents there, but for all of us concerned about our state, our nation, and issues related to our Native American populations.
That coming back here on Amicus, a law review.
This is Amica Salah review.
My name is Jim Santel.
We are talking about injunctions once again here on our weekend broadcast and focusing upon this very significant order entered by Judge William Connelly.
He's a federal district court judge in the western district of Wisconsin located in Madison.
He has before him this challenge, this fight, this disagreement between the Lactofambo tribe.
And the members of another portion of the litigation, the plaintiffs who are seeking to retain access to their private properties they purchased, or their predecessor has purchased many years ago, that also are inside the confines, the outer borders of the reservation there.
And so we have, just this past week in this contest, this challenge between the two, US District Judge William Conley ordering
permanent permanent public access for roads that go through the land that is indeed owned by the elective flambeau band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians and directing that the private
property owners inside that reservation for their parcels, they can in fact get access to those.
What has happened of course in the past is that the tribes maintaining their sovereignty, maintaining that under previous arrangements with the federal government, this is their land.
They had begun to blockade those roads when the failure to go ahead on negotiating easements, that is opportunities and mechanisms for those private property owners to get access over the lands of
the tribe.
When those opportunities, those negotiations failed, they put up these barricades and said no more.
and that prompted the litigation.
And again, it's all about property, it's about property rights and access and things like easements, but it's also about larger issues related to sovereignty.
And we know that the nations, the recognized, the federally recognized tribes here in Wisconsin, there are 11 of them, many, many others recognized by the federal government throughout our nation.
It is all about sovereignty and they remain sovereign nations inside our country.
Judge William Conley, along with
away wrestling with some of the historical legislation, including a thing called the Indian Right of Way Act.
Interestingly, the United States of America, the Department of Justice, joining with the tribes in contending that the town's use and the use by the property owner's maintenance of the road is a trespass because it lacks a valid unexpired right of way under this Indian Right of Way Act.
50 homeowners there who rely on the roads to reach their property Also intervened as defendants in this case lots and lots of litigation going on in the end the judge among other things in his 47 page opinion It is exhaustive and yes indeed as I often do I commend your reading of it because it is a judge wrestling with difficult issues Addressing the legislation addressing the equities if you will addressing the history of our relation
and our interconnection with our Native American populations here in Wisconsin and also throughout our nation.
In the end, he notes this, among other things.
He says, neither the United States nor the tribe have attempted to impose reasonable restrictions on the homeowners or towns access, perhaps inviting some future negotiation and involvement between the two of them.
He says, instead to date, the tribe has attempted to block access altogether and demanded that the town pay an exorbitant...
monthly fee to keep the roads open or a one-time 20 million fee for permanent public access.
Accordingly the judge says the court concludes the town and the homeowners having implied easement, applied access to use and even access the roads to reach their homes and their properties.
47 pages of writing by this federal judge wrestling with all of this plainly it is not the end.
We do have statements
from the tribe indicating that they will continue to defend their tribal lands and uphold the promises they said made to treaties with the United States of the United States of America saying they're disappointed by the outcome concerned about the precedent this decision may in fact
set for tribal governments across the country.
That from Locke Du Flambeau, President John Johnson.
Nonetheless, he said, we will carefully review the decision and consider all available options.
One of those, plainly, would be taking the case up to appeal.
That would go to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
That's the next higher court here in our part of the world.
Arguably, going back to the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court should choose to pursue that as well.
A very interesting, a fascinating case.
involving all of those issues, statutory issues, historical issues, constitutional issues.
We know that Native American rights appear in our constitution.
All of that, all of that commended to your attention and reading as you consider these very difficult issues, these very challenging issues about the relationship between our laws, our commitments in the past, our commitments to the present, to our tribal populations in our state and beyond.
We're going to talk, as promised, about some of the larger consequences, some of them unseen as a result of all of these compromises and infringements on the rule of law in America.
I promise we talk about judges, both internal to the judiciary, judges in connection with their relationship to the Department of Justice lawyers, and indeed the relationship the Department of Justice has with the public in general.
Let's talk in the wake of those discussions about some
of those earlier injunctions we talked about just a few moments ago.
Let's talk about what's happening, first of all, inside the judiciary itself.
Lots of headlines out there indicating that federal judges keep defying the Supreme Court.
And that may or may not be a phrase, a verb that you yourself might embrace.
But the reality is that federal judges are finding ways to push back on what they feel are the inappropriate, arguably illegal positions of the Supreme Court.
We talked about three of those already.
Finding, that is the judge's finding, ways in which to find that the president's executive order on birthright citizenship cannot stand.
Supreme Court didn't decide that.
They're invoking the language of
of the Supreme Court order to say, OK.
us if in fact we can't do that as a national injunction we'll certify a class and do it that way and get around this problem that you've identified.
There are many other instances of the same kind of thing.
Here are some of them that I pulled from my own research and review.
U.S.
District Judge Gia Cobb has blocked the Trump administration just this past week from using a process known as expedited removal.
We've talked about this in the past to quickly remove illegal immigrants from the country.
The order could
at least for the time being dramatically curtail the White House's ability to carry out some of its components of the deportation agenda.
Public statement about the ruling, the administration says that this judge is defying a previous Supreme Court ruling.
Judge Cobb, the administration says, is flagrantly ignoring the United States Supreme Court, which upheld expedited removal of illegal aliens by a seven to two majority.
We talked about that case.
Ruling is lawless, the administration says, and won't stand.
Similar cases where the lower courts have likewise chipped away at what the Supreme Court has done are out there.
We recall, well, Brian Murphy, another instance here.
He's in the Federal District Court in Massachusetts.
He issued a preliminary injunction in April against the transfer of those deportable illegal migrants.
Remember, these are the convicted criminals.
They're dangerous people.
They should be deported, but not afforded due process about where
they go to third countries, not of their origin.
And he says he can't do that until you afford them a due process.
The judge decided that his order remained in effect even after the Supreme Court issued a stay, a suspension of his order.
Judge Murphy invokes the language of the dissenter, Sonia Sotomayor.
And she says, he says that her language permits him nonetheless to support what he said before.
The Trump administration then refers to
Brian Murphy's action is unprecedented defiance of the Supreme Court's authority.
Maybe, maybe not.
In yet another case, this one involving the comments again by the Solicitor General and others, Supreme Court ruled an administration's favor in a 72 decision in July, allowing the Trump administration to deport a group of migrants to South Sudan.
And that is why, once again, in the wake of that, Judge Murphy goes back and he says, well, they didn't specifically prohibit me from doing what I am saying here.
And Solicitor General John Sauer says that the district's ruling that follows all that Supreme Court action disrupts the sensitive diplomatic relations, slams the brakes on the executives' lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals back and forth.
District Court judges, according to the administration, not following what the Supreme Court is saying, but according to them saying, no, we're doing what the Supreme Court has said according to its language.
We've got another one.
Here's Michael Simon once again.
And we've talked about him previously.
We have talked about the fact that he is in the District of Oregon.
He is ruled in July that the Department of Homeland Security could not engage in wide-scale parole status termination for migrants.
This is the case we chatted about just a few moments ago.
In May, the Supreme Court had quashed many of those orders from another federal district court that had likewise blocked President Trump's dismissal of two members of that entity.
And once again, we've got the Supreme Court staying
decisions over over the objection of district courts in in other circumstances.
You've got the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals choosing not to stay a district court order.
that enjoined the presidential removal.
Remember this, of members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and another agency, obviously the Merit Systems Protection Board.
In July, the Supreme Court granted this day, citing a previous order as president.
The Trump administration likewise objecting to all of this, the upshot of all of this.
And yes, indeed, it's a lot.
It is a lot, including these birthright citizenship orders, as you've got federal district court judges in the wake of the Supreme Court issuing orders, variously staying, or at least issuing orders commenting on the subject matter of their administration of cases in their courts.
Supreme Court's saying things.
The district court, in the wake of that saying, we hear you, we understand what you have articulated.
Nonetheless, we're going to go ahead and do what
think our prior order contemplated, we don't think it violates what you, Supreme Court justices, have said, and therefore we're going to reaffirm what we've done before.
The administration goes back to the Supreme Court and says, tell this lower court to do what you said in some instances.
Yes, indeed.
The Supreme Court does, in fact, grant that subsequent order.
But you've got this sparring going back, which we have not seen in these numbers, but this kind of particularity.
And all those four instances or so and more that I've articulated here, and yes, indeed, it's a lot.
It's a lot to consume in even one broadcast.
The upshot of it is
this fraying of matters even inside.
the federal judiciary.
District court judges entering orders, having them be the subject of Supreme Court rulings, some of them in the emergency docket, which also causes a huge problem.
That's the issue with the Judge Murray, Murphy rather, Brian Murphy matter in Massachusetts.
This back and forth, this sparring between them, again, prompting headlines like judges keep defying the Supreme Court, requiring the Supreme Court go back and
and telling those lower court judges to hold the line and follow what they have said, sometimes with the support and the following of the district court judges, sometimes not.
This birthright citizenship matter promises to raise the issue once again, especially with respect to these judges who are out there finding that the president's executive order is unconstitutional.
If indeed, the administration is successful in getting another hearing before
Supreme Court.
Supreme Court issues an order one way or another on birthright citizenship.
It will be fascinating to see what the lower courts do after having entered this entire series of orders now saying that it is in fact unconstitutional.
Supreme Court agrees with that.
No issue.
Supreme Court says, indeed, the executive order is constitutional.
Then we may have more sparring internal, internal to the federal judiciary in 2025.
When we come back, we'll talk about relations between the courts and the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice and you as the public as Amicus, a law review continues.
This is amicus a lot of you my name is Jim Santel as we talk about the ways in which the rule of law is fraying even inside the federal judiciary these judges out there not just in connection with
birthright citizenship, but all sorts of other matters, beginning to tell the United States Supreme Court that we're not going to follow, or at least we're going to find ways to get around what you have directed in many of these areas.
It is not a good sign, regardless of how you feel about the merits of the cases in front of them.
This is not a good sign, and it's another indication of the diminution of the rule of law, even inside the judiciary itself.
There is a concept, which I promised at the top of
broadcast this weekend called departmentalism.
What's that all about?
And it basically says this, the president can still ignore a judicial order that on the president's independent interpretation exceeds the scope of judicial power when a district court, for example, enters an order.
The basic theory of this thing called departmentalism is that while the Supreme Court has the authority to exercise Article III judicial power in cases or controversies, the president
article to duty to take care that the lobby faithfully executed gives him an independent power to determine what the law is including what the Constitution says what legislation says it is a theory that once again is out there it is concerning for many reasons because once again it would seemingly put the president above the courts the lower courts the Supreme Court and it is now being discussed in the context of these
so-called defying judges, can the president invoke the concept of departmentalism to say, in the end, it doesn't matter, I'm going to do what I think is right?
Further underscoring the great concern about the balance of power, the checks and balances between the branches of government, departmentalism, something you should know about, maybe, again, on the lips of our president, even the attorney general, when these continued attempts
to effectuate things that are unconstitutional, animate our lives and livelihoods.
Let's talk about another aspect of this and another concept out there and that is called the presumption of regularity, the presumption of regularity.
Justice department lawyers like me for many, many years have enjoyed what's called a professional benefit when they appear in court.
Nothing inappropriate, nothing illegal, but basically the notion is that judges tend to take
prosecutors and government lawyers at their word.
We rely upon the truth, the veracity, the ethical integrity that you bring to this presentation, to your argument to me, and assuming that the Department of Justice lawyers are indeed telling the truth.
But in the past several months, as we have seen in many of these cases, as President Trump's Justice Department, the lawyers who appear in these cases have misled the courts, violated their orders, even demonized judges.
We've talked already this broadcast alone about the name calling and the other things that have come in the wake of this sparring between the attorneys for the Department of Justice and these lawyers, many looking to determine whether or not this presumption of regularities still
still applies, that when judges have in front of them an attorney of the Department of Justice, are those judges still going to place credence, take them at their word, assume they're telling the truth, and give them the presumption of regularity.
Well, for example, in June, when an order was unsealed in Federal District Court in Washington, showing magistrate judge Zia Furukwai,
all that she needed, presumably needed to know about unsealing this, she ripped into some prosecutors there after they tried to convince her, I'm sorry to convince him rather, him, that he needed to be highly deferential to their request to keep a sealed, a search warrant sealed.
Blind deference to the government, Judge Verruque wrote, that is no longer a thing.
Trust has been earned over generations and that has been lost.
After all, the judge pointed out the Department of Justice lawyers under
Donald Trump have done much, she said, to destroy the confidence normally afforded them in court.
After Paula Zinnis has had the latest exchange in her courtroom, again involving Kilmar Amando Abrego Garcia, we've talked a lot about that case.
The immigrant who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador, now in federal custody in the Middle District of Tennessee.
After a recent hearing there, Judge Zinnis spent weeks, weeks, and their hearing followed weeks of her trying to get the Department of Justice lawyers to give us straightforward information.
about her questions, about the status of this case.
She finally loses patience.
And she says, this has been the process from day one.
You have taken the presumption of regularity, she uses that term in particular, and you've destroyed it in my view.
In April, we recall Judge Dale Ho.
He's in the Federal District Court in Manhattan.
He rejected this false representation by the Department of Justice that was giving reasons for dismissing
those bribery charges.
Remember those against Mayor Eric Adams of New York?
Judge Ho eventually does indeed, throughout those charges, throughout the charges, he feels obliged to do that.
But along the way, he criticizes the department.
He says it appears as though the officials have used their power in a quid pro quo with Adams to get him to support Donald Trump's immigration crackdown.
Everything here, the judge says, smacks of a bargain.
dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions again, suggesting that presumption of regularity no longer applies.
There's a federal judge on Long Island.
He refuses just last month to take the department's word after prosecutors ask her to dismiss an indictment against Vladimir Chavez.
He's a leader of the violent street gang, MS-13, before sending him back to El Salvador.
Instead of accepting the government's assertion that the
against Chavez needed to be tossed out because of national security concerns.
The judge there likewise says, I need to know more about that.
Her name is Joan Azrak.
She orders the government to tell her more about the politics behind the case.
And again, she is not pursuing the presumption of regularity, requiring the government to disclose a whole lot more about the relationship between the administration and Al Salvador, all of these kinds of things, suggesting once again that this
presumption of regularity no longer exists.
Next we're going to talk more about that and even how federal grand juries more and more suggesting that they're not doing exactly what the government may want.
We'll talk also about the public interaction with all of this as Amicus Halara View continues next week here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
Join us for all of that and have a good weekend.
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.