I am your host here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media for this hour and also next hour.
This is our weekly weekend review of all things rule of law related, justice related, administration of government.
issues that affect every single one of us every single hour of every single day as always I am delighted I am honored that you have chosen to spend some portions of your weekend in communication with me about these major issues for this broadcast we are not taking any callers because we're prerecording given the nature of our focus this weekend
on the United States Supreme Court, and that includes some 34 different cases.
Now on the docket of our highest court, we're going to talk about the cases that are going to be argued in just several days.
That's right, on Monday, October 6th, the new term of the United States Supreme Court kicks into motion.
We're going to tell you about six, count them, six different cases that you can hear the oral arguments in.
by tuning into the Supreme Court and listening to the justices talk with and argue with the attorneys presenting their cases.
That's going to be a major component of the second hour of our time together here on Amicus Law Review.
We're necessarily going to provide you with some updates also about things the Supreme Court has done even in anticipation of the start of its new term.
That includes something related to the Federal Reserve and will also
talk yes once again about Clarence Thomas because he had some things to say about a thing called precedent in America and the importance or the lack of importance of that will get to all of that.
We're also gonna be talking about yet another major tome, another major opus that has been written by another federal judge telling us, instructing us all on what the rule of law is all about in America or should be all about in America in 2025.
His name is William Young.
We've talked about him before.
He got in some trouble a few weeks ago, or not really, but got in some trouble, at least from the view of a couple of Supreme Court justices who thought he was acting beyond the scope of his capacity and his ability to decide cases.
He ended up apologizing.
The former associate justice of the Supreme Court came to his rescue, came to his aid, and his name, of course, Stephen Breyer said, no, no, no, Judge William Young is doing his job well.
William Young back in the rule of law news just this past week.
Why?
Because he has written yet another one of these major treatises on the exploration and the exposition
of the rule of law in America, the exchange, the communication, the relationship between the branches of government, and in particular the role that the federal judiciary plays, as it always has, but especially at this time in our nation's history, we'll tell you all about what Judge William Young has done just this past week.
And then, and then at the end of our broadcast, we're gonna offer you some thoughts on the government shutdown from the perspective of someone who's gone through that a number of times, including a major shutdown during the course of the Obama holder administration.
I administered that as the United States Attorney.
I'll talk beyond the headlines about the practical impact of a shutdown, even if it's not complete across every agency of the federal government.
We'll talk about how it affects
You dramatically every single way every single day in ways that you may know you may not appreciate fully and we'll also talk about the consequences of a shutdown
When it comes to the civil servants who are doing their jobs every single day on your behalf, serving the interests of America, all of that coming up here on this edition of Amicus a Law Review, we are going to begin, however, as promised in our last broadcast of last weekend by continuing my exposition about these major events in our recent history by which I calculate that we are now in an authoritarian government.
in particular identifying the Comey indictment of the week before this past one as being a watershed moment in our history.
We'll talk about a couple of things that have followed even in the wake of that indictment, some comments by a senior United States Senator also bemoaning what has happened here.
We'll talk about some of the confusion internal to the US Attorney's Office at the time of the return of that indictment, some comments made by the presiding
magistrate judge who accepted and docketed at least one of what now appears to be two different drafts of an indictment.
We'll talk about the incompetence of the Department of Justice in getting this into the system.
And then yes, we'll get back to this fundamental issue about the decision of our president to go after his political enemies by charging them, by investigating them, by anticipating their criminal convictions and the ways in which that major decision
represented, yes, by the indictment of James Comey, but also by the previous investigative pursuits with respect to other people, including those other folks the president has identified, Fani Willis, Letitia James, Adam Schiff,
George Soros, another one added to the list even this past week, his name Christopher Wray, yes, that's right, another former director of the FBI, now apparently in harm's way, if you will, and the subject perhaps of another investigation, perhaps another criminal prosecution of him for what we don't know, but once again, another sign that the authoritarian government in which we are living right now,
is not only pursuing those goals of authoritarianism, but is also doing it in a way that undermines the basic rule of law in America.
We'll talk about the aftermath of the James Comey indictment, but we are going to start this broadcast, starting in this segment of our broadcast by going back to the other major story, the other major rule of law event that we discussed at great length.
And that involved the permission given by the United States Supreme Court.
Yes, another one of these emergency docket.
entries, the issuance of these orders that compel the government to respond in a way that is not premised upon an exposition, a description by the Supreme Court of why it's doing what it is doing, but simply saying that the lower court decisions to stay the actions of the president to stop him from doing these things, those are lifted.
And in particular, in this case, the decision by the Supreme Court, a divided Supreme Court, once again, six to three, a divided Supreme Court says that even while challenges to the firing of a properly appointed and working commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, even while the litigation on that, the challenges to what the president has done ongoing,
In the district court, in the federal courts, those courts have up to this moment said, yes indeed, Mr. President, you have no power to do justice.
The Supreme Court entering the fray and saying that in fact those courts, at least at this point,
there stays their suspensions of the president's orders are wrong and permitting him to go ahead and fire this federal trade commission commissioner.
We'll talk once again about why that is so significant, why in this week just before this past one it joins the Comey indictment in underscoring
the fractures in our federal government and the ways in which the Supreme Court is permitting that to go ahead.
We're going to spend a lot of time starting right now with something that I initiated at the end of our last broadcast and that is these two words, Humphrey's Executor.
Huffree's executor, H-U-M-P-H-R-E-Y, apostrophe-S, executor, E-X-E-C-U-T-O-R.
What is this all about?
Why am I telling you about this wonky academic thing that yes, you would learn about when and if you go to law school, but also you're going to learn about it today because I think it represents in so many ways, big and small, the significance of what the Supreme Court has been doing for the past eight months.
And in addition to describing,
for you the reason why it is related and is at the core of this horrific decision by the Supreme Court to permit the president to go ahead and fire this FTC commissioner, also going to offer that it is in and of itself, Humphrey's executor, the ruling on this case 90 years ago, that's right, 1935.
This should be the language.
This should be the short term, the way of, in a very simple way, describing what the Supreme Court is doing.
Overruling precedent, yes, but also affording the president authorities that throughout our history.
We have never afforded him before.
That appears to be what the Supreme Court is going to be doing sometime in this coming term beginning once again on Monday, when very likely they will overturn this ruling in this case called Humphrey's executor, giving the president a whole lot more power than he's ever had before, and again in a watershed moment for all of us, giving him authorities that are not contemplated by the Constitution.
Let me tell you, let me tell you all about Humphrey's executor.
I encourage you as I often do to read the case itself its way back in 1935 decided on May 27th by yes indeed once again a unanimous Supreme Court all Justices of the Supreme Court at that time issuing this opinion.
What is it all about?
It's a Supreme Court decision coming out of our highest court that rules that the United States Constitution allows the United States Congress something we all know
to enact laws that limit the capacity, the ability, the power of the president to fire the executive officials of an independent agency and that includes the Federal Trade Commission.
An affirmation by the Supreme Court that the Congress, the Congress is the entity in our institutional structure that limits the ability of the president to make those decisions about firing and also hiring.
the officials who are responsible for making decisions inside independent agencies.
We've talked an awful lot about those.
Many agencies out there, including the Federal Trade Commission, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the National Labor Relations Board.
Yes, indeed, the Federal Reserve as well.
We'll talk a little bit about that in a few moments or so.
But the FTC, way back in 1935,
Also, on the docket of the United States Supreme Court in this case called Humphrey's Executor versus United States of America.
And yes, indeed, I'm going to give you some history.
This is partially a history lesson because Humphrey's Executor again should be the rallying call for action.
and response to what the Supreme Court is doing here.
Also need to understand exactly where this comes from and why the Supreme Court instructed us 90 years ago on issues that are so relevant once again in the fall of 2025.
We go back to President Calvin Coolidge.
We go back to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Calvin Coolidge had appointed a fellow named William Humphrey.
to a seven-year term as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission in 1925.
President Herbert Hoover reappointed him.
He gets a second term in 1931.
Again, how is that done?
It's done by virtue of the law established by the Congress creating the Federal Trade Commission and saying that indeed,
Indeed, those folks are independent.
They've got responsibility to work on things like trade issues and other matters related to commercial integrity and economic issues.
And we know as well from the history of this that Mr. Humphrey, William Humphrey, was an outspoken and controversial commissioner.
And that's what got the attention of the president of the United States of America.
As we return here in our second segment, I'll tell you how it is that William Humphrey ran a
foul of FDR and how this led to a Supreme Court decision that today in 2025 is as relevant as it was 90 years ago.
All that as Amica Solaraview continues.
This is Amica Salaro View.
My name is Jim Santel.
I'm your host for this hour, next hour as well.
Here on the broadcast stations talking about these major watershed events in rule of law history in recent times in America.
our entry into an authoritarian state as a result of the coma indictment of a couple of weeks ago and also also this decision by the Supreme Court to permit the president to go ahead and fire an FTC commissioner in 2025 in a way that the Supreme Court 90 years ago did not.
talking about Humphrey's executor, a man named William Humphrey.
He had been appointed by two presidents, Calvin Coolidge and also Herbert Hoover.
He was an outspoken guy.
He stridently opposed many of the agency's antitrust enforcement mechanisms.
He was talking out there in the public on a regular basis, political tax of various kinds.
Everybody knew, everybody knew how William Humphrey stood on the issues.
And he argued that the FTCs, as he called them, old policy of litigation.
against American companies had made that agency, that independent agency, as he said, an instrument of oppression and disturbance and injury instead of help to business.
He was a controversial guy in our nation's history, and he drew the attention of the President of the United States of America.
FDR, who became president, as you know, in 1933, he disliked Mr. Humphrey a lot and viewed him as unsupportive of that thing called the New Deal agenda that FDR was promoting.
to get the economy of America back on its feet.
First few days, weeks, months in office, Roosevelt writes him some letters asking him to resign because his policies on the FTC did not align with Roosevelt's own.
He said this, you will, I know, realize that I do not feel that your mind and my mind go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission.
And frankly, this is FDR writing, I think it is best for the people of this country that I should have full confidence in you.
Humphrey pushed back.
Said nope, not gonna do that.
October of 1933, Roosevelt writes Humphrey another letter that simply fired him.
Says you are done, you are gone.
And the dismissal is based solely on political and ideological differences between Roosevelt rather than on any for cause basis.
Nothing about his performance or his malfeasance, misfeasance, non-feasance in office.
None of that that could justify a proper removal.
Roosevelt didn't like him, and Humphrey didn't like Roosevelt.
They sparred publicly, and Roosevelt said, you're gone.
And that contravened and still contravenes to this day, section one of the Federal Trade Commission Act enacted by what?
That first branch of government, the legislature, that identifies only these things, inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, as the reasons a president can remove an FTC commissioner from his office.
On February 14th of 1934, rather, five months after his firing, Humphrey dies.
And he is 71 years old.
You might think, well, gee, maybe that's the end of it.
It's not.
Because the FTC, by virtue of the president's firing him before he died, had stopped paying Humphrey salary of about $10,000 a year.
That's equivalent to about $240, $250,000 in real dollars today.
And even though he continued to work to the FTC each day, the FTC then did not compensate him after his dismissal.
The executor of Humphrey's estate, his name is Samuel Rathbun, R-A-T-H-B-U-N.
He sued the United States federal government in the court of claims of federal court.
He said, you know what?
My clients who are the estate of mr. Humphrey he's no longer around but the estate has a claim to the money is the government owed mr. Humphrey during that time between his firing and the time that he died and so he files a claim in the federal court and says give me that money I want five months of back pay for that period between his firing and his death and The court of claims certifies some issues for the Supreme Court to decide whether or not basically the F
law permits the president to fire and if so then does in fact the estate of mr. Humphrey get the money a couple of questions asked there the Supreme Court entertains argument on this as they're doing in this case more recently and in the end on May 27th of 1935 the Supreme Court unanimously nine to zero they all agree on this
rules in favor of Rathbun and Humphreys estate.
It's an opinion written by Justice George Sutherland was again an icon, a major figure in jurisprudence in America.
Courtholding that the FTC is in fact what it means does in fact what it says is unconstitutional for a president to remove
a commissioner of the FTC for anything other than efficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance, and office.
The opinion gives a number of different reasons for doing just that, says that Congress had created the FTC 1914, intended the commission to be truly independent and nonpartisan so the president can't fire for political reasons.
opinion describes the agency that was supposed to be free from control, the president, as one that is independent of this kind of action.
The court wrote the commission is to be nonpartisan.
It must, from the very nature of its duties, act with entire impartiality, charged with the enforcement of no policy, except the policy of the law.
Thus, the Supreme Court goes on to say the language of the act, the legislative reports, the general purpose of the legislation as reflected by the debates in support of that legislation, all combined to demonstrate clearly, unequivocally, unmistakably, that the congressional intent was to create a body of experts in this area, in the expertise of trade and related things.
who gain expertise by length of service, they said.
You undermine that when you remove commissioners for anything other than malfeasance or non-feasance.
The court concluded by ruling that the removal restrictions of the FTC Act were constitutional.
Said this, while we think it plain under the Constitution that in limitable power of removal is not possessed by the present and respective officers of the character of those just named.
The authority of the Congress in creating a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agency requiring them to act as discharging their duties is independent of executive control, cannot be doubted.
Authority includes the power to do all sorts of things.
When we come back, I'll tell you more about that and I'll tell you more about Humphrey's executor here on Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel and this is AMICA Salaro View here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
We're not taking your calls, your questions, this broadcast because of the nature of our broadcast.
We're pre-recording it.
It is all about the rule of law as it always is.
We're talking specifically about the fact that we are now
plainly in an authoritarian government by virtue of the fact not only of the James Comey indictment and others perhaps to come but also this notion that the United States Supreme Court has given and it's likely going to continue to give the president a huge authority to do things contrary to the Constitution and also contrary to laws talking in particular about a thing called Humphrey's executor encouraging you.
To write that down, yes indeed, to talk with your family and friends about it this weekend and beyond because I think it is going to be the rallying call, the words by which we define what is going on in America.
This 90-year-old case that says that the president does not have unlimited powers cannot do things with respect to agencies that are not commissioned to be under his control and his supervision.
Why is this relevant?
Why when the Supreme Court says 90 years ago unanimously at the pen of justice, Sutherland saying that it is quite evident that one who holds his, I would add also her office, only during the pleasure of another, and by that they mean the president, cannot be depended upon to maintain an attitude of independence against the latter's will.
That latter is, of course, once again the president.
You can't have independence if indeed you are subject to
of firing at will based upon political reasons.
That's what the Supreme Court said.
Humphrey's executor versus United States 90 years ago, precedent in America, precedent that is now according to at least three justices of the Supreme Court, been run roughshod over.
We know that on September 29th.
of this year.
The United States Supreme Court basically overturned some lower courts still addressing whether a commissioner, her name is Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.
This is now 2025, 90 years after Humphrey's executor, she's fired.
She is from the same agency that the Supreme Court was wrestling with and determining the constitution of some 90 years ago, president now.
Just like FDR 90 years ago says, you're fired.
I don't like your politics.
You are gone.
Does not allege that she's engaged in any sort of malfeasance or non-feasance, misfeasance.
Nothing would justify her removal.
It's simply because he doesn't like her politics.
The question should be clear then, right?
Humphrey's executor says, Mr. President, you can't do this.
And indeed, that's exactly what three members of our Supreme Court say.
We did this last weekend.
important to understand once again why this case, which is called Trump versus Slaughter, in 2025, the removal action permitted by this very skeletal order, once again, a part of the shadow docket, these emergency applications, the Chief Justice writing, go ahead and terminate her.
And by the way, we're gonna put this on the docket of our incoming caseload, that is the new docket starting in...
on Monday.
And we're going to certify, we're going to ask the question whether the statutory mobile protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate separation of powers.
And if so, whether Humphrey's executor, be back in 1935, should be overruled.
The Chief Justice identifies that and basically signals he's going to do that, obviously with the support of at least five other members of the Supreme Court.
Justice Kagan says no.
Justice Sotomayor says no.
Justice Jackson says no.
And she says on top of...
granting certiorari on top of agreeing to hear this case the court today issues a stay enabling the president to immediately discharge without cause this member of the federal trade commission that stay she says Granted on our emergency docket is just the latest in the series She then lists all the other cases in which likewise the supreme court has said go ahead mr. President even contrary to the law Contrary to separation of powers fire these people
of things like the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the NLRB, all these agencies we can go on.
And she says in each one of those, we've objected to the emergency docket being pursued and the administration of justice being pursued in this way.
She says the majority, stay order by stay order has handed full control of all these agencies to the president in a way that would horrify, this is my language, not Justice Kagan.
but would have horrified the justices of 90 years ago.
The president, Justice Kagan, goes on to say, may now remove, or so says the majority, though Congress said differently, any member he wishes, for any reason and no reason at all.
And he may thereby extinguish the agency's bipartisanship and independence.
That's exactly what the Supreme Court said 90 years ago is it not.
She is invoking Humphrey's executor to say, you can't do this, and she makes it even more.
clear.
She says, I just sent in the past from these prior state decisions, but under existing law, the law that exists right now, Humphrey's executor is good law today.
And it's good law on the 29th and the Supreme Court issued this opinion.
She says, we rejected a claim of presidential prerogative identical to the one made in this case.
She cites Humphrey's executor.
She says, Congress, we held may restrict the president's power to remove members of the agency, as well as other agencies performing quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions without violating the Constitution.
No harm here.
No violation of the law.
and then goes on to say this.
And this is the reason why Humphries' executor should become a part of our American understanding of what's going on in America today, 90 years later.
This is what Elena Kagan says.
So the president cannot, as he concededly did here, fire an FTC commissioner without any reason.
To reach a different result requires reversing the rules stated in Humphries.
She says it entails overriding rather than accepting Congress's judgment about agency design.
The majority, she goes on to say, may be raring to take that action to overrule Humphrey's executor and give the president all this power that he has never had before in our history, as its grant of Sir Sherari before judgment suggests.
In other words, the fact that we've decided to take this case on, and we're going to add it to the 33 or 34 cases we're now going to hear in the new term.
But to go on to say this, here's the telling language for all Americans to digest.
But until the deed is done, that's how she described it.
Humphreys controls.
It's still good law.
It's still good law this weekend.
And Humphreys prevents, she says, the majority from giving the president the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.
Because the majority's stay does just that, I respectfully dissent, our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to remit what our own president bars.
that president Humphrey's executor.
And all of these other cases that have said the president does not have this power now being granted by the Supreme Court to him, permitting him to do all of these things that we have talked about at great length on this and other broadcasts of civic media.
Still more, Elena Kagan says.
It should not be used as it has also been to transfer government authority from Congress to the president.
And thus, she says,
Thus, she concludes to reshape the nation's separation of powers.
That's how important this is.
Humphrey's executor, talk about that to your friends, your family members, to people in the grocery line as you're checking out because it's just that important.
Yes, it's hugely important for Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, fired unconstitutionally by the president.
likely likely going to be affirmed that firing decision by the Supreme Court Humphrey's executor nonetheless stands for the proposition that there is a rule of law in America the Congress has established agencies the Congress has established all kinds of mechanisms for the operation and the conduct of government and Absent those structures and those mechanisms being found overtly unconstitutional Contrary to our national tenor our purpose as a nation
They remain in place and a president cannot simply by the stroke of a pen, dissolve agencies created by the Congress, cannot fire people who are in independent agencies.
That's what Elena Kagan rails against.
And as she says, even while the majority may be raring to overrule that and to give the president all this power, they haven't done it yet.
They may well do so in this coming term because Donald Trump versus Rebecca Kelly Slaughter is indeed on the docket of the Supreme Court.
And as the Supreme Court Chief Justice has indicated, taking up specifically the issue of whether or not Humphrey's executor, I'll say it one more time, Humphrey's executor should be overruled.
and the Constitution, thereby undermined by this Supreme Court.
Important to understand all that.
Important to appreciate the significance of precedent and what is going on in America, especially as we continue to digest these major rule of law happenings in our nation.
The other one.
that again prompted me so dramatically last week and I continue it this week with absolute resolve and clarity to identify the authoritarian government that now takes hold in our government by virtue of the fact that a president of the United States of America directed the United States Department of Justice.
through the Attorney General, through a United States attorney in eastern Virginia to indict one of his political enemies.
If I were to tell you that about another nation, a leader somewhere or somehow in another country has chosen to use his or her power to indict, to charge, to investigate, and perhaps even one day jail to incarcerate someone who has been an adversary of hers or his in the public domain,
Frankly, just in the same way that Mr. Humphrey was with respect to FDR, if I were to tell you that, you would say that that is a government that is not observing the rule of law.
It is happening right now in the United States of America with the indictment of James Comey, and that is not addressing the merits of that indictment.
That plainly is for a trial jury now to determine whether or not he did, in fact, make these statements.
A statement in particular about whether or not he authorized someone, probably a fellow named Andrew McCabe, his second in command at the FBI, to get in touch with some media.
It is a very small, a very peculiar, very minute portion of all of the testimony given by James Comey at the time of his appearance before a Senate committee.
But nonetheless, it is a basis upon which a grand jury indicted him on two counts.
That is to undermine the...
progress and the conduct of that congressional proceeding and also to make a false statement.
Significantly, it now appears that that was also done in a real mess because we've gotten the notes not only of this curious thing that there were actually two indictments.
There are references to people one, people two, people three, person one, person two, person three in this indictment without knowing exactly who they are.
But beyond that, suggesting that there was indeed another indictment or at least another count,
It is clear that the grand jury did not return an indictment, did not issue what's called a true bill, and said, no, government, we're not inditing on that count, whatever that was.
And it comes to the attention of a magistrate judge there in eastern Virginia who has the responsibility, principally ministerial, of handling these indictments as they come forward.
Her name is Lindsay Vala, V-A-A-L-A.
And she says, as the U.S.
attorney is presenting this indictment, she says, this has never happened before.
confused.
I've been handed two documents here that are in this, the Mr. Comey case, and they're inconsistent with one another.
There seems to be a discrepancy, the judge says.
They're both signed by the grand jury foreperson.
What is going on here?
And there is a ridiculously embarrassing exchange between the two of them and the U.S.
attorney there.
says this I only reviewed the one with the two counts that are office redrafted when we found out about the two two counts that were true build and I assigned that one I did not see the other one I don't know where that came from if you can diagram that sentence congratulations it's a mess and it underscores once again the mess by which this was done
It is presented by the United States Attorney who signs off in the indictment.
Nothing inappropriate about that.
Nothing inappropriate about her presentation of the indictment.
But we know that the process was a mess here.
Not the biggest issue, but we're going to talk about some other big issues right after this as Amicus Alaraview continues here in the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
We are talking about the rule of law as we always do on this broadcast, providing some additional information in the wake of the indictment of James Comey.
And the reason why that is so significant in the history of our nation, taking us from March 15th of this year, that's the date on which we clearly entered a constitutional crisis.
That was the day on which the Department of Justice began to lie to.
to disassemble with and simply to disregard the rulings, the orders, the directives of another branch of government that is judges in America appearing in front of that that time Chief Judge James Bosberg in connection with
the deportation of those 238 people from this nation to El Salvador.
It has continued since that time and now beyond the constitutional crisis in this authoritarian state as evidenced by not only the permission given by the Supreme Court for the president to do these kinds of things, but also now indicting his political enemies.
And he has said, even in the wake of the Comey indictment, which he's celebrated in social media,
He has said that there are others who are plainly on his list.
He's denied that there is a list, but he's given the names of those people including Senator Adam Schiff from California, the Attorney General of the state of New York, Leticia James, other people like Fonnie Willis, the DA in Fulton County, and he has added others to that list.
He has added most recently another FBI director, his name, you know him well, is Christopher Ray.
Christopher Ray was appointed by Donald Trump in his first term.
They are supposed to serve 10-year terms.
Christopher Wray departed at the start of Donald Trump's second term.
President telling one of the major news outlets in the wake of the Comey indictment, yeah, there are more people that the Department of Justice should go after.
He said that Mr. Wray engaged in inappropriate behavior.
and said he would think the Justice Department is investigating him.
He said, I would imagine, I would certainly imagine, I would think they are doing that.
Don't forget, we just found out about all of those FBI agents being there.
And what the president's talking about there is this completely debunked, non-factual, made up, non-real.
allegation that somehow on January 6, the FBI agents, many of them, hundreds of them perhaps, had infiltrated the riot, infiltrated the crowd that attacked our United States Capitol and committed crimes against the United States people.
The FBI agents were at the Capitol, according to Donald Trump, and they were leading the fray, if you will.
We know that the Inspector General has reviewed that, found there is absolutely no evidence that undercover agents were in the crowd when that riot broke out, where their responses by the FBI, once the riot was underway, once the insurrection was underway, you bet.
The President now invoking a completely unsupported notion, as the government has done with respect to James Comey, that he somehow lied about this.
odd and peculiar directive or non-directive to tell someone to go in touch, get in touch with the media.
Now, encouraging overtly the Department of Justice to investigate if they are not already doing so, former FBI director, his name, once again, Christopher Wray, not only, not only breaking down completely.
and kicking into the curb any sense of separation between the Department of Justice and the White House that has existed since Watergate put in place those basic norms, those policies, those practices, so we did not have another imperial presidency.
It is back.
It is overt.
The president has identified the people he wants prosecuted, and he is getting that from the United States Department of Justice.
Other people on the list significantly in connection with concern about what's going on here, Lisa Murkowski.
She, as you know, is a Republican.
She is from the state of Alaska.
She is United States Senator.
She's a moderate Republican by all assessments.
She's raising questions.
She is raising questions about the independence of the Justice Department.
It's more than questions.
Senator Mikowski, and you have said that, just that.
She points to, as she says, political pressure from the White House that preceded former FBI Director James Comey's indictment.
She said this, the Department of Justice has long been insulated from presidential administrations to protect public trust in the rule of law.
But that independence, Senator Mikowski said, is called into question when overt political pressure from the White House leads to an unusual personnel change.
And criminal charges filed just days after the president calls for them.
You recall what she's talking about is the fact that the previous U.S.
attorney in eastern Virginia...
who had investigated James Comey and others, including Letitia.
James came back and said, nothing to prosecute here.
There's no evidence, nothing we can bring to the grand jury that suggests would indicate that there is a violation of federal criminal law.
That's what Donald Trump's own U.S.
attorney put in that place has told him that's unsatisfactory, as you know.
Because Donald Trump then fires that person and says, I need somebody in that position who will do what I want.
And he got that person in the U.S.
Attorney who did return the indictment against James Comey.
Does it on her own?
Mishandles the documents because she doesn't know what she is doing.
But nonetheless, James Comey indicted.
And that promises McCarty Murkowski
to condemn this even more.
She says former FBI Director James Comey, like any American, is entitled to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial.
As the legal process moves forward, the strength of our democracy rests on the public trust and equal justice under law.
If Americans come to believe, Senator Murkowski said, to believe that federal prosecutions are driven by politics rather than facts and evidence, the damage will be difficult to undo, I would add, it may well be impossible.
possible to undo.
And all of that by Senator Mikowski affirming this notion.
Senator Mikowski telling America that that is the state we are in.
That's the authoritarian state we are in by virtue of not just this representation in the grand jury indictment.
that James Comey has committed a crime will determine through the trial process he has presumed innocent as she said but this entire group of people identified by the president for investigation for prosecution he plainly is looking for convictions as well although as I've often said it is not the conviction that's the point it is the investigation it's the prosecution
That is, the punishment is, as the President has himself said, that's the retribution I will exact for you.
And he has done just that.
When we come back, we'll talk about the United States Supreme Court and its new term starting in just hours from now.
Continue to listen here on the broadcast stations of civic media.
My name is Jim Santel and I am so delighted.
I'm so honored that you're spending some portion of your weekend in engagement with me on these major rule of law issues in this, the second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast, turning as we so often must and so often do to the United States Supreme Court.
Why?
Because in just a few hours, yes, on Monday, Monday morning,
Monday, October 6th, the United States Supreme Court begins its next term.
You might think, gee, Jim, it doesn't appear that they were much out of business and they weren't issuing major decisions, including as late as the last few days and weeks on its emergency and other dockets.
But it is a formal and significant matter that on the first Monday of October, every single calendar year, the United States Supreme Court reconvenes and begins to address the cases on what I'll call its merits.
It certainly can continue to review cases in this emergency document.
What does a merits docket mean?
Well, it means it up to now up until this weekend right before the start of the new term.
The United States Supreme Court has identified 34, 34 different cases from circuits around the country, including one.
from the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
That's where we are here in Wisconsin and Illinois and Indiana.
34 different cases.
It's going to decide in this coming term.
And presumably sometime, could be earlier, but May, June, they're going to issue some of those major decisions that we talk about on this broadcast.
anywhere from 10 to 20 to 50 to 200 pages of writing by our Supreme Court justices, doing that in the wake of briefing by the parties, doing that in the wake of oral arguments presented by the lawyers to them in a series of oral arguments scheduled.
There are 19 of those scheduled right now for the days and weeks just ahead.
There are plainly going to be many more of those scheduled even as the term begins.
And we know that
just before the term began, just this past week, the Supreme Court met again in private session to discuss other pending cases that it may be putting on its docket.
It probably will get to a docket of somewhere around 60, maybe 65, maybe up to 70 in this entire term.
And plainly disappointing, thousands of people out there who would love to have their cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, not going to happen because the Supreme Court, once again, as you know, here's your Latin, here's your lost stuff.
has not granted the writ of certiorari.
That is saying to the lower court, send that file up here.
We want to take a look at it.
We want to review what you have done and make a determination about whether or not those cases should be reversed.
The reversal rate is very high.
If you get to the Supreme Court, chances are somewhere in the 70 percentile that the cases are going to be...
reversed.
It depends somewhat on the circuit from which those cases come, but it is a high percentage throughout time, throughout history.
Indeed, that's the way it probably should be.
Supreme Court should be taking only those cases where perhaps the lower courts have been wrong or perhaps there needs to be some clarity about what the law is.
There may be a difference of opinion among the circuits.
They've got to unify that.
And indeed, the Supreme Court is attempting to do at least trying to do some of that.
They got together this past week.
to figure out what additional cases they may add to the docket of 34 among those.
They're determining, apparently, according to reporting, whether or not to take on the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal conviction.
You know her well.
She is not on the docket as of this point.
She has requested Supreme Court review of her criminal conviction, her 20-year sentence for doing what?
For engaging in human trafficking, sex trafficking.
We've talked a lot about her.
You know her well from the stories in the media about the horrific things that she did.
And we can say it in that way now.
because indeed a trial jury has found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of that offense conduct.
It may well be...
that the Supreme Court sometime soon will either grant her application for a writ of certiorari, taking the case on reviewing her record and reviewing the conviction of her, or will say no.
They should say no.
There's nothing significant about this appeal, aside from the fact that it has garnered the attention and the focus and the abiding, abiding obsession at some levels with the Jeffrey Epstein matter that does not go away, just because it's in the public domain.
just because there have been this huge amount of focus on this issue does not mean it's a matter that requires legal review.
It does not.
And the conviction should be left exactly where it is based upon the trial jury's determination.
We also know that this past week, the Supreme Court, again, getting ready for its oral arguments beginning on Monday and along the way, along the way,
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas talking about that word we've already used in our first hour and that is precedent.
We talked a lot about this thing called Humphrey's Executor, 90 years old, that basically says the president is not a king and cannot fire people who are not under his control, not subject to his review.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court taking that on and Clarence Thomas apparently viewing that discarding, if you will, a precedent.
the things that are important for our history to understand.
Reviewing that in a clavellier way.
During an appearance at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law, just recently, the Associate Justice said the Supreme Court should take a more critical approach to settle precedent.
Arguing the decided cases are not the gospel.
They're not gospel.
They're not gospel.
They can and should be reversed when it's appropriate to do so.
We've done that in our nation's history, specifically when it comes to race and voting.
things like Brown versus Board of Education saying that education that is separate is inherently unequal, overruling things like Plessy versus Ferguson and Dred Scott.
Yes, we do that when it's appropriate to do it.
But Thomas goes further than that.
He says, you know what?
Presidents are simply something somebody dreamt up.
and others went along with.
That's the word and words.
Those are the words of a sitting associate justice to the Supreme Court.
It's just something that somebody dreamt up and others went along with.
He said, at some point, we need to think about what we're doing with starry decisis.
Starry decisis being, of course, that principle of abiding by precedent, doing what we have said before.
Why?
So there's consistency in the law and the people of America understand where the rules are, where the lines are drawn and what their conduct should be.
It goes on to say it's not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say starry decisis and not think turn off the brain, right?
Those are the words of our associate justice, Clarence Thomas, plainly somebody who has in the past also said things like Brown versus Board of Education should be reconsidered.
At least the enforcement portions of it should because it's gone too far.
That is one of the nine Supreme Court justices.
He is one of the nine Supreme Court justices going to be appearing in the courtroom of the United States Supreme Court on Monday morning, beginning the new term of the Supreme Court, 34 cases, and in particular,
In this coming week, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, lots of things going on.
Six different cases being argued before the United States Supreme Court in this session.
The first portion of its October term, 2020, 2025, all of these cases granted.
Rits of certiorari so the court can review them.
Let me give you some sense about what they are, one of them this week coming from our own United States Supreme Court.
Monday, October 6, first case up, first case up, case called Villarreal versus Texas, V-I-L-L-A-R-R-E-A-L, filled name David Asa Villarreal, arrested, tried on charges of murdering his friend and his roommate.
During the trial he was the only defense witness and claim self-defense.
Now some peculiar things happened during the course of this trial.
that warrant some exposition, although it's long and lengthy.
I'm not going to give you all of the details.
There's some recesses that occur that are appropriate.
And the court issued during one of those resources, what's been called a qualified conferral order, which basically says that while the witnesses are on the stand as they begun their testimony, I don't want you talking with them further to coach them further.
The trial court told defense counsel in Mr. Villarreal's case to imagine during the recess that Villarreal was still on the stand.
and not to confer with him about, as the judge said, what you couldn't discuss with him if he was on the stand in front of the jury, his testimony.
Don't get around this by talking to him now.
in a break in a recess.
Villarreal was convicted and sentenced to 60 years.
Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed that conviction.
Villarreal petitioned the Supreme Court for review, asking the justices, the nine Supreme Court justices, again coming out of the High Court of Texas, to address whether the trial court's qualified conferral order, saying he can't talk to him, violated his right to assistance of counsel under, you know what this is, the Sixth Amendment.
The question presented before the
The Supreme Court now is just this.
Is in fact this a violation of your right to counsel?
If indeed in a break, in a recess, your counsel cannot talk to you.
The question whether a trial court abridges, violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting that person's defense counsel.
From discussing the defendants testimony during an overnight recess.
It's very very particular It's very process related, but it's an important case why?
Because the issue of right to counsel is back on the docket of the Supreme Court Six amendments stuff right to counsel and it is coming up It is first up first of the first thing you'll hear on Monday morning It's all about mr. Villareal's case and the Texas matter the decision coming presumably in May June
of next year about whether or not that violates the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.
That's first up on Monday, second up on Monday, a case called Burke vs. Troy, B-E-R-K vs. Troy, C-H-O-Y.
This is a very lengthy procedural matter, not going to discuss it in great detail.
The bottom line is that a fellow named August Harold Burke injured his left ankle and foot and in his home and there's a doctor.
who was, who treated Mr. Burke, his name is Wilson Choi, thus the name of the case, in an emergency room at the healthcare facility at the BB Medical Center.
Something goes wrong.
And in the wake of that treatment, involving an ankle monitor boot and other therapies,
There is allegedly, allegedly, some medical malpractice committed by Dr. Choi, unclear whether that is the case, and so in the wake of his, what, Mr.
Burke would say is improper medical treatment files, a medical malpractice action against Dr. Choi.
And the question is whether or not that was properly supported at the time of his filing, because it turns out that the Delaware legislature enacted something called the Health Care and Malpractice Insurance and Litigation Act, very long name, way back in 1976.
It was trying to address at the time what it perceived to be the growing number of medical malpractice claims were unfounded.
frivolous and it resulted in a tremendous increase in liability insurance for healthcare workers.
The legislature comes around and says before you can file your lawsuit, you got to be able to have some medical person come forward with an affidavit stating there are some reasonable grounds, some basis to believe that the defendant, the healthcare provider, the doctor had committed medical negligence.
Very, very procedural aspect of this.
The court determined
in an unpublished decision that Burke's claims should be dismissed.
It goes into federal court and the third circuit precedence required to the district to apply the Delaware state law.
The court determining that the medical records and printouts of the physicians in this case did not comply with the Delaware expert affidavit requirement this now in federal court.
And the question being whether or not this state requirement for some sort of an affidavit by a health care authority
at the time of filing is also necessary in a federal case.
The question whether a state law prohibiting or providing rather than a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court.
Coming from state court to federal court, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and ninth circuits holding the affidavits of merit do not govern actions in federal court.
Third and Tenth Circuit say that they present no conflict with any federal rules.
A split in the circuits coming up before the Supreme Court this coming Monday.
We'll talk about other cases as Amicus, a law review, continues.
My name is Jim Santel, and this is Amica Solaroview.
We are anticipating.
I know, like me, you're all very excited about the fact that the United States Supreme Court begins its new term, the 2025-2026 term, in just a few hours on Monday, October 6th.
telling you about the cases that are up for oral argument.
These are the opportunities for the parties principally, although not exclusively, for the lawyers to argue in front of the court, for the court to ask questions of them, sometimes to ask questions, even spar with each other on the bench, figure out whether or not the positions of the parties are legitimate in the law and the constitution.
And you can listen live.
You can also hear these things recorded.
You can go online to the official site of the
United States Supreme Court.
There's a folder right there.
You can tap on it and you can tap into the live discussion, these live oral arguments beginning on Monday morning, Monday, October 6th, including these cases, Villarreal versus Texas and Burke versus Troy, different kinds of things.
Two more cases coming up.
The same thing applies.
More oral arguments on the morning of Tuesday.
October 2nd, and here's one of the big ones.
Childs versus Salazar.
C-H-I-L-E-S versus Salazar.
C-A-S-A-L-A-Z-A-R.
This is it.
This is a significant Supreme Court case challenging Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors.
And it's focusing in particular upon an aspect of the Colorado law that implicates First Amendment rights regarding professional speech.
But at the core is this issue of conversion therapy.
You know what that is.
is roundly, soundly rejected by every single medical authority of credibility on the face of the planet as a way of converting one from one sexual identity to another, discredited medically and downright dangerous, according to most medical authorities.
The Colorado ban on conversion law also also prohibits certain representations made by professionals in that connection.
The central legal question in child versus cells,
Colorado law, which does in fact censor.
It limits certain counseling conversations based on the viewpoints expressed whether that violates the speech clause of the First Amendment.
Kelly Childs, who is a licensed professional counselor in Colorado, petitions the court for review.
In her complaint, she says she's a practicing Christian.
She believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, her words, including their biological sex.
Her lawsuit says she wants to help patients with the goal of, as she said, seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of
harmony with one's physical body.
She contends that the law of in Colorado violates this free speech and free exercise clauses.
That is a religion of the First Amendment.
The law, for what it's worth, does in fact make exceptions for therapists who are engaged in the practice of religious ministry.
She's represented by a group called the Alliance Defending Freedom.
They have also been frequent appearance-makers before the Supreme Court, most recently in that 303 Creative v. Elena's case, and others before the Supreme Court.
The implications of child versus Salazar may be
far beyond just what Colorado is all about, because there are about 20 states that have enacted similar bans on conversion therapy here.
The case highlights this ongoing national debate over the rights of counselors to engage in various discussions, counseling, and conversations with their clients that align with their client's religious beliefs.
And again, in that context, the extent to which the government can regulate professional speech consistent with its ban on conversion therapy.
It is a critical intersection, if you will, of religion and a mental health practice and First Amendment rights, constitutional rights, all sorts of things, making it perhaps one of the most important cases before the Supreme Court in this docket.
It is going to be argued on Tuesday morning.
And you can once again hear the oral argument about that, both in favor of and in opposition to the Colorado law on conversion therapy and the prohibition of certain kinds of language in Colorado.
Does that violate the First Amendment free speech, religious exercise, or is it a proper, as the lower courts have determined, is in fact, is it a proper exercise of legislative prerogative with respect to ensuring the safety and the security of.
the population there.
And major case, Child vs. Salazar, Tuesday, October 2nd, on that same day, right after Child's is argued, there's another case called Barrett vs. United States.
What is it about?
Mr. Barrett was convicted, once again, in a federal case by a jury in the Southern District of New York.
Federal case here, one count of conspiring to commit what's called Hobbes Act robbery.
The district court sentenced Barrett to 50 years of imprisonment, 20 years on a conspiracy count and robbery counts, five years of imprisonment under what's called section 924C, 25 years of imprisonment for a different robbery.
The district court did not impose a separate 924C sentence stemming from a murder involved in all of this reasoning that the statues involved here, the statues of conviction basically merged into one.
because one's a lesser included offense than the other.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys and judges appreciate the second circuit basically ruled that these statutes and the convictions under them stemming from the same murder did not merge can't bring them together and Imposing separate sentences for both of them would not run afoul of the double jeopardy clause again in the Constitution Question presented for the sermon court is where the double jeopardy clause You can't be tried twice for the same offense conduct if it's charged separately.
Is that a violation of double jeopardy?
if you're convicted separately, whether double jeopardy clause permits two sentences for an act that violates these statutes, question that divides seven circuits about which the Solicitor General and the Petitioner agree, also an issue related to this thing called the Hobbes Act.
It's a criminal case.
It is very walky.
It is deep inside criminal practice, but it's important because it once again gives the Supreme Court this opportunity to talk about double jeopardy and what it means in America.
As we continue, we'll also talk about other cases on the docket of the Supreme Court.
That includes cases coming up on Wednesday, October 8th.
And in that connection, we'll talk about a case coming out of the Supreme Court.
That, as Amicus, a law review, continues here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
My name is Jim Santel.
You are listening to Amicus Solar Review, this in the midst of our second hour in our weekly weekend broadcast about things related to the Supreme Court and many other institutions of government.
Yes, indeed, including lower federal district courts, certainly the presidency, agencies both inside the executive branch and outside the executive branch.
Important to understand what the Supreme Court is doing.
And that is why we are spending so much time in this broadcast talking about what's going to happen in this coming week.
talking about these cases, criminal and civil both, Villarreal versus Texas and Burke versus Troy on Monday, the subject of oral arguments on Tuesday, October 7th, this major case involving conversion therapy and free speech rights, that's Childs versus Salazar, Barrett versus United States having to do with sentencing and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution, all of that coming up this week before the United States Supreme Court and yet not to be undone on Wednesday.
Two more cases, one of them coming out of our own 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
It is on the docket for Wednesday, October 8th in the morning.
What is this case all about?
It is accessible because it's related to voting.
Federal law, as we all know, says the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Federal Election Day, if you need the reference, that's two United States Code sections one and seven, and three USC section one, those are the references that established the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Federal Election Day.
Several states, including Illinois, have enacted state laws that allow ballots.
to be received and also counted after election day.
This is that old issue related to the timing of counting ballots that have come in playing the absentee ballots brought in or sent in by voters.
Petitioners in this case contend that the state laws, including one in the state of Illinois, that's why the case is called boss versus Illinois State Board of Governors, contend that those state laws are preempted.
under the election laws.
They are basically superseded by, can't be found consistent with the elections and electors' clauses of the constitutions.
The petitioners, again, boast B-O-S-T, sued to stop Illinois' law that allows these ballots to be received up to 14 days after election day.
Their proposition is that election day established by statute
And for that reason, that's the date upon which any ballots have to be counted.
The question presented, boss versus Illinois State Board of Governors, obviously relevant to Illinois, just to our south here in Wisconsin.
But beyond that, too, many other states have similarly permitted as a way of ensuring that the franchise is observed and that people have the right to vote and their votes be counted.
The question before the Supreme Court coming up.
on two on wednesday morning of this week is whether petitioners as federal candidates their people are looking to run for federal office have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show what's called article three standing we've talked about that is at such great length whether they have in fact suffered an injury by virtue of the fact that these particular states including illinois continue to count
these ballots, these absentee ballots after the formal election day has passed.
Have you identified a particular injury?
Do you have standing to bring this case to challenge the state, time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal regulations?
We know that the Constitution does in fact give to the states, not to the president,
not to anybody else but the states, the right to establish the time, the place and the manner.
by which voting will take place.
That's in the Constitution.
That's James Madison stuff.
The question is whether or not under that authority, given the states, can they, the states, continue to count these ballots even after election day as established by sections one and three of titles, two and three of the United States Code.
Interesting cases because once again, it will affect plainly.
The federal elections coming up in 2026 and will also also animate other other voting cases They will almost certainly get in front of the federal courts that case bossed versus Illinois State Board of Elections or a argument or a argument listen in on it on Wednesday morning October 8th and finally this week.
We got the postal service United States postal services versus Conan K O N a n got a thing called the federal tort claims act we have
from time to time talked about this as well when I was the Civil Division Chief, both in the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Eastern Wisconsin and also in Western Michigan, supervised and engaged in litigation myself a lot under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the conditions under which you can sue, alleging torts.
violations, basically wrongs, misconduct by the federal government, slip and fall, for example, at the Postal Service, medical malpractice by VA hospital doctors, all kinds of immunities also set forth in the Federal Tort Claims Act.
For injury or loss of property or personal death personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the federal government guest being off an officer an employee of the federal government if in fact you were injured in some way again other limitations under the FTC a the the federal tort claims act has to be prescribed
with particularity in that complaint?
What are the circumstances under which the United States of a private person would be liable in the same way that that private person is?
According to the law of the place where the act of admission occurred.
That's a lot of language.
Basically under the federal tort claims act, you adopt the tort law of the state in which the federal case is brought.
The question presented again
being decided by the Supreme Court, United States versus Postal Service, United States Postal Service versus Conan, whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants, she's a landlord, she has some tenants, did not receive mail because Postal Service employees allegedly, intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address, whether that claim arises out of some loss,
or some miscarriage of letters or postal matter under Title 28 of Section 2680 of the federal code.
Again, an awful lot of wonky stuff going on there deep in the law, but it has to do once again with a major portion of the ways in which litigation America has conducted the Federal Tort Claims Act and whether or not it can, in fact, be applied in this circumstance with respect to the delivery or non-delivery of the mail.
fascinating, important case coming up over the Supreme Court this coming Wednesday.
We know as well that the Supreme Court just this past week, in connection with cases that it has decided, made a decision with respect to Lisa Cook, who is that Federal Reserve Board member, that she can in fact remain in her position even while litigation related to the President's attempt to fire her continues.
An interesting
Entry by the Supreme Court into that litigation also happening while the Supreme Court undertakes its new term and specifically this week six different cases.
Arguable for the Supreme Court Monday Tuesday and Wednesday of this week more of them next week and yes indeed in our Broadcast of next weekend I'll tell you what's going on on Tuesday and on Wednesday Including especially on Wednesday October 15th.
This major case could be the biggest case on the docket of the Supreme Court Louisiana versus Calais.
This is the one that was bumped over from review by the Supreme Court as previous term
Questioning whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is still viable has to do with some line drawing congressional districts in the state of Louisiana.
An awful lot of people are concerned that this may be the case in which the Supreme Court addresses and perhaps even overrule Section 2, which is the principal enforcement mechanism under the Voting Rights Act, may render the Voting Rights Act
incapable of addressing violations of basic civil rights at the voting booths and the polls in America.
Kelly coming up for a decision.
Of course, many other cases also on the docket, including that major case involving tariffs that is going to be on the docket of the Supreme Court.
We'll talk about those cases as they are scheduled by the Supreme Court coming up in this term and beyond.
The Supreme Court term runs again through the end
of June of 2026, as is normal, the Supreme Court has decision days where they make decisions about how they're going to resolve cases, they assign those cases, and we ultimately are given the results of those cases in those multi-page opinions that we spent a lot of time talking about here on this broadcast.
That's the merits docket.
And that's the doctrine by which the Supreme Court has traditionally done its work.
Will the shadow docket?
Also be a part of this almost certainly if the Supreme Court continues to take these cases from the lower courts giving us one sentence and one paragraph results on their review very limited without oral argument without exposition by the attorneys those can also happen during the course of this year and it's entirely possible.
Bet many of the decisions Approaching approximately 20 altogether just in the past eight months or so Supreme Court decisions in the shadow docket Those may eventually reach the merits docket in this term and that's why the Supreme Court has not yet filled up This entire dance card if you will for all the cases it is going to be entertaining in this coming term
Probably about 30 more cases are going to be added to that docket before the Supreme Court finishes up its oral arguments and then its decisions in June of 2026.
It is a significant time in history of America for many, many reasons, including, including and not limited to the work of the United States Supreme Court, a very active and.
According to many federal judges, actions of an unconstitutionally animated president and a legislature that seems not to be involved as it should be in oversight of an executive branch, involvement with judiciary in terms of identifying the things that it can and cannot do.
And that brings us to another story that loomed large in the history and the annals of just this past week or so.
I promised some discussion from the pen of Judge William Young.
from Judge Young in the past.
He is that judge who is admonished by the Supreme Court in particular to justices who said that he is failing to follow Supreme Court precedent Judge Young had before him a question about some funding for some grants and the Supreme Court said you're deciding this is the wrong way.
We said in one of our emergency docket
decisions.
One of those one sentence orders, he can't do this.
And the judge came back and said, no offense intended, no disrespect intended.
I just didn't know those were precedent.
And
didn't know what you were saying in that one sentence because he didn't tell me the reasons for doing what you were doing.
He apologizes for it.
We get Justice Breyer, who's now retired, coming to just judge Young's defense and saying he did nothing wrong.
leave him alone.
Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, he did nothing wrong.
That's Judge Young, who's back in the news for another reason this past week.
He is a judge in Massachusetts for what it's worth.
We shouldn't have to do this.
He is an appointee of Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan, who was once the president of the United States of America, appointed Judge Young to the federal bench.
He has been there ever since, is a senior judge.
He has got a great reputation for being fair and decent, impartial, and
non-political as all federal judges, as all judges should be.
He's in Massachusetts.
He rules on Tuesday of this past week a major ruling.
Donald Trump, the administration, has used this threat of deportation.
to remove systematically and silence.
Contrary to the First Amendment, some non-citizens in academia, some students who are protesting in support of Palestinian clauses and Palestinian positions, he says that violates the First Amendment as a part of a broader strategy of the President to stamp out campus activism.
Strong words.
Basically saying, Mr. President, you can't do this.
Violation of the First Amendment to deport them to silence them.
Cannot do that.
It is a remarkable ruling not only because of the import of the lesson here.
Donald Trump unlawfully targeting non-citizens over their speech, but also because of what Judge Young said beyond just that.
When we come back, I'll tell you the instruction that Judge Young is giving all of us about the rule of law in America in his opinion that coming up right after this.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amica Solar Review.
We are concluding this broadcast that has included a review of indictments, including review of firings of agency officials, including a review of some of those major Supreme Court cases coming up for oral argument before the United States Supreme Court beginning in just hours, just a couple of days from now on Monday, October 6th, the start of the first of the next term.
of the United States Supreme Court.
The first day it is back in business, although it really never went out of business, did it.
And we're concluding all of this with words from another federal judge that are reminiscent of things we've talked about in the past.
You may recall well that I spent a lot of time in reciting the major words, the important instructions given by a judge named Harvey Wilkinson.
He is a long-tenured judge in the Fourth Circuit who is schooling all of us and especially schooling the presidency on
what the rule of law means and the respect that needs to be afforded.
Between the parties, between branches of government, the executive branch and the judicial branch, he talked about how judges are instruments of method.
and means, and that the executive branch is an instrument of results and ends.
It says there's a natural tension there, but we need to get along.
We need to respect each other.
He called upon the president to stop the attacks upon the judiciary.
We also talked about another ruling from another judge.
He is a federal district court judge named Tom Cullen.
You may recall this one.
This is the case in which Judge Cullen brought in from Virginia to preside over a case involving Maryland judges.
Department of Justice had sued all the federal judges, alleging that they were in violation of the prerogatives of the Department of Justice and the administration generally in imposing some rules for handling all these immigration cases.
Judge Tom Cullen likewise schooling, in a major opinion, coming out of the Maryland district.
He was sitting by designation telling not only the Department of Justice that its lawsuit was no good, but also instructing on the ways in which judges do their job.
of justice, the importance of an independent judiciary, and that these kinds of lawsuits run counter to that.
We've got another one.
And again, his name is Judge William Young.
And just this past week, in connection with a major decision saying the Trump administration has used the threat of deportations throwing you out of the country to systemically intimidate
certain campus demonstrators into silence.
He said that the government had used the threat of ideological deportation to punish people for criticizing the Israel's government and its war in Gaza.
Describing the question before him as perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court, Judge Young basically rebuked.
President Trump and said, you can't do this.
And you are violating the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Again, Judge Young and appointee of Ronald Reagan many, many years ago, let me tell you more about what Judge Young has done in his opinion begins with publishing in the opinion itself, a threat that was made to him, suggesting that the.
President has Trump has pardons and tanks this particular threat that the judge received says to him what do you have?
Judge and the judge begins his order by saying alone I have nothing but my sense of duty Together however the judge says we the people of the United States you and me we have our magnificent Constitution he goes on to explain
why he had ruled against administration officials, including the Homeland Security Secretary, her name is Christie Nome, and the Secretary of State, his name is Marco Rubio.
He said, the court finds as fact and concludes as a matter of law, that secretaries Nome and Rubio, and there are several agents and subordinates, acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target non-citizen
pro-Palestinians for deportation, primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech.
And again, as we've said so many times on this broadcast, the First Amendment, in all of its wondrous glory, is intended to protect things that may be offensive, may be contrary to views, may be unpopular.
That's what the First Amendment is all about.
the judge goes on to say they did so in order to strike fear into similarly situated non-citizen individuals proactively and effectively curbing lawful speech and intentionally denying those individuals the freedom of speech that is their right.
Judge goes on to say moreover the effect of these targeted deportation proceedings continues unconstitutionally to chill
freedom of speech to this day.
The judge addressed what he called the Trump brand by quoting his wife, who apparently said he seems to be winning.
He ignores everything and keeps bullying ahead.
Agreeing with that sentiment in his writing, young judge young noted that the president often ignored the constitution, our civil laws, regulations, mores, customs, practices, courtesies, all of it, he says.
The president's symphony ignores it all when he takes it into his head to act.
He says this,
where things run off the rails for him is his fixation on retribution.
Very strong words from a federal district court judge telling the president what he is doing when it comes to the Constitution of the United States of America.
He goes on to say this.
It is at this juncture that the judiciary has
robustly rebuff the president and his administration.
That is an understatement as we have spoken at great length.
It is the federal district court judges and appeals court judges who pushed back on the unconstitutional things that this president has done.
Federal grand juries appearing to be doing the same thing in ways that we have seen and not seen in America.
The judge concluded his 161 page order.
Long and lengthy and exposing all of these issues, said that monetary damages money would not suffice because the harm here, the deprivations suffer run far deeper.
He said, I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking that their own personal interests are not affected.
He concludes this order by saying,
Is he correct?
And with that, the words of Judge Young, that is also the conclusion of this broadcast of Amicus, the Law Review again next week.
More on the Supreme Court, more from federal judges, more from grand juries, more from all of those institutions of the rule of law.
Have a good weekend, everybody.