You're listening to Civic Media.
You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.
Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.
I thank you for joining me this weekend when once again in the areas of law,
and justice and the delivery and administration of the rule of law throughout our nation, including right here in Wisconsin, we have an awful lot to talk about.
It has indeed been a very busy week in the area of rule of law for the past several days.
We're going to get to many of those stories.
As always, my producer and I, Max, are welcoming you to be a part of our discussion by calling in at that number, which is 855-752-456.
four, eight, four, two.
Once again, Max and I will take your phone calls, your inquiries, your questions, your puzzlements, your curiosities about those matters that are on our achievable but ambitious syllabus this weekend.
That number, 855-752.
Let me tell you a little bit about what is on that academic agenda for this weekend's production and our broadcast.
We're gonna begin, of course, with some of the major news following up on our discussion last week.
about authoritarianism as signaled by the indictment of the previous days of former FBI Director James Comey.
When I continue that discussion by telling you about what happened at the arraignment of James Comey in eastern Virginia just this past week, that of course is that hearing that initial appearance at which time the defendant enters a plea, not surprisingly, James
Comey pled not guilty to the two counts in the indictment against him.
We'll tell you more about that.
Arguably, even more significantly, we're going to tell you about other discussions had during the course of this 30-minute initial appearance, this 30-minute arraignment in front of the Federal District Court judge told us a lot about what the defense is going to do, very much consistent with what we talked about in our broadcast last weekend, the likely defenses to this indictment both on substance, but more importantly, even on process and the reasons why it is here.
Vindictive prosecution, selective prosecution, also a challenge likely to the very status, the capacity of that interim United States attorney to bring this case in the first place based upon a challenge to her authorization that also discussed and then the judge also entertained with the parties that included of course defense counsel and counsel
for the government, for the U.S.
Department of Justice prosecuting this case, entertain argument and entertain discussion with them about the timing of what's going to happen next, the trial date, when that will happen, and what are the circumstances under which that will go forward in connection with these pre-trial motions, challenging that indictment itself.
We'll tell you all about.
James Comey's appearance this past week in that federal district court, again, no substantive disposition, but an awful lot of revelation about what we're going to be seeing in the coming weeks and months in connection with the defense of that major federal criminal prosecution.
You know as well that that prosecution was joined by yet another this past week, that's right, out of the same district, again, out of the Eastern District of Virginia.
Another indictment, this one charging Letitia James with bank fraud.
Not so much the mortgage fraud, but the bank fraud allegations against her will tell you all about what a federal grand jury said once again at the encouragement, the presentation of this interim United States attorney.
We'll tell you exactly what is and it is not curiously in that new indictment against Letitia James.
She of course, the attorney general of the state of New York.
who has sparred with Donald Trump, and that is understating it dramatically, and got that several hundred million dollar judgment against him for fraud.
That judgment, of course, overturned in part with respect to the amount of money, but the judgment itself, finding that Donald Trump in New York had indeed violated, at least civilly, the laws of New York, that stays in place.
She has also plainly gone after him and various institutions revealing the fraud and the deception of other entities.
other initiatives of him.
over time, and that of course has drawn the ire of the president both before, during, and after his first term, and certainly during this term as well.
We have talked a lot about the premises, the predicates, the encouragement of this president to bring to the halls of justice, to bring into the courtrooms those people who have been adversaries of his, including James Comey, the former FBI director, including Letitia James,
the still current attorney general of the state of New York and many others on that list.
Those have included recently, of course, California Senator Adam Schiff, also allegations out there that he
Also engaged in mortgage fraud, nothing proven there, nothing charged there yet.
President talking about why he thinks Adam Schiff should also be indicted.
He has also talked about others on that list, including people like Fonnie Willis, the former prosecutor of that case in Fulton County, talked recently about Christopher Wray.
The former director of the FBI, also in the wake of James Comey's service as director of the FBI, no longer there.
Chris Ray appointed by Donald Trump, but running afoul of him, apparently, at least from perspective of the president, and has also talked about George Soros, many other people.
in the view of the president who have been his adversaries, his opponents, and overtly, overtly in public statements, celebrating the indictment of James Comey, indicating to his attorney general, Pam Bondi, that she should pursue that case and others as well, in the interest of justice, celebrating the return of grand jury indictments, and indicating that plainly,
The White House is now directing exactly what it is that the Department of Justice, through the U.S.
Attorney's Office, is now principally in eastern Virginia, should be doing, and in that connection, yet more reporting just this past week, no charges yet, but another one of the President's recent adversaries, his name, John Bolton.
You recall, well, he was the former National Security Advisor in Donald Trump's first term in the office of the presidency.
And John Bolton, as you may recall as well, at his home in Maryland, again, just outside of the nation's capital there in Washington, DC, the subject, the target of a search.
Remember that?
Early morning search.
reviewing and taking from that location a number of documents and the allegation reported on, we don't know because there have been no charges specifically, I said, had to do something with classified documents.
And the retention, maybe the use, we're not sure at all, by John Bolton of those documents, plainly reminiscent of the charges brought against this president himself for taking documents from the White House.
to his location in Mar-a-Lago classified other national security documents.
The suggestion is that that search warrant was predicated upon a finding of probable cause by a magistrate judge that maybe, just maybe John Bolton had in that location some documents he should not have and is therefore committing a crime under federal law.
Interestingly, we'll talk more about that and the predicates for that and the reasons why.
that John Bolton prospective possible future prosecution some reporting indicating that it may be forthcoming as soon as this coming week that is formal charges coming out of a Maryland a Maryland grand jury why that also is significant
in its difference between it and the charges against James Comey and Letitia James and why even in its investigation and possible prosecution it underscores this concept of authoritarianism and the reasons why you do not want a president, you do not want an attorney general, you do not want anybody in official capacity talking about political enemies and identifying them as
possible targets of prosecution.
The teaser on that is just this.
When you do that, you basically undermine the legitimate prosecutions that you may have out there, including legitimate prosecutions that may just happen to be against your political rivals and adversaries out there.
We'll get more into that as we talk again about authoritarianism in America as evidenced by
the recent prosecution, the arraignment of James Comey, the indictment of Letitia James that charges there, the responses that she has made to that indictment alleging bank fraud and the perspective.
prosecution of John Bolton, what all of that means as we continue to talk about authoritarianism here on Amicus Law Review.
We necessarily, based upon the news of this past week, also need to talk about the National Guard deployments or not, the litigation challenges in places like Portland, Oregon, Chicago, Illinois.
We'll talk about what district court judges in those two venues have done, what the appeals courts have done as well.
And we're necessarily going to be doing some summer
Authorization some summaries of what also has been going on in Los Angeles and Washington DC and yes indeed now another city Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee will talk about the litigation in those cases including the litigation in district courts and appellate courts and Finally as a part of our second hour here on animicus, of course We returned to the United States Supreme Court had a major major series of oral arguments just this past week six of them all together.
We talked about those
Last week on the broadcast going to highlight make some predictions here about what the Supreme Court will likely do in two of those cases one of them involving legitimacy of a Colorado ban
on conversion therapy allegations that that ban prohibits the free exercise of religion and free speech will tell you about what the supreme court seemed to be indicating when it comes to its response to that attack on the ban on conversion therapy in colorado and then there's also this other major case among the six argued just last week having to do with absentee ballot voting and the counting of those votes
coming out of Illinois, just to the south of us here in Wisconsin, and whether or not election officials can continue to count votes and ballots and review them and make them a part of the process, even if they're not all counted.
on election day itself in Illinois a law that says you can continue to count 14 days after the election for those ballots that have in fact been mailed submitted prior to or on election day itself an interesting voting case coming up
Again, for a decision like the conversion therapy case, probably in June of this year, but interesting oral arguments.
We'll tell you about how the justices seem to be reacting to those two cases.
And then we're going to talk about what's going to happen this coming week.
Four more cases after the federal holiday on Monday.
Four more cases on Tuesday and Wednesday involving habeas corpus and criminal restitution and searches of homes, and yes indeed, what may be the most important case on the docket of the Supreme Court, this term coming up on Wednesday for oral argument, case called Louisiana versus Calais, challenging, arguably challenging, arguably presenting the Supreme Court
with an opportunity to review the very legitimacy, the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act itself.
Section two will tell you all about Louisiana Calais means for the court and will entertain prospects of what the Supreme Court could do.
in that oral argument and beyond of this coming week.
All of that, all of that, an ambitious but achievable agenda here on Amicus Allah Review.
Again, inviting your participation through your comments, your questions, your inquiries, your curiosities about all this, because yes indeed, as always, we take a deep breath and say it's a lot.
And that's our purpose here on Amicus Allah Review.
And so we encourage you to call in with those questions at 855-75-
524-842, Max is here as well, taking those phone calls, making you a part of our conversation about all of these things, big, small, and in between, that animate the rule of law in America, that make it clear that we need to understand what's going on in our nation to not only formulate our own views, but to make certain that our future is full of representation of all of us.
All that coming up here on Amicus, a law review.
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 thanks.
to you for spending a portion of your weekend in communication and discussion in consideration with me of these major issues in the areas of rule of law, the administration of justice, and government in 2025.
In the past and in the future as well, we're beginning our broadcast this weekend by returning to a major story begun last week.
That was with the charging of James Comey, the former FBI director,
A little bit of review of that, a two-count fairly sparse and keep that in mind, a sparse, almost skeletal indictment against him in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that on or about September 30th of 2020.
That is a time when James Comey.
He is at home in Eastern Virginia, which is the reason why the case is brought there.
But he is testifying to a Senate committee across the river, across the Potomac River in Washington, DC.
He's talking to a United States Senator.
from that particular committee.
Probably that's Ted Cruz in Texas.
And the allegation in the first count of the indictment is that during that Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, James Comey, who's the defendant in this case, said that he had not authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning Person 1.
That's how the indictment reads.
And yes, that is cryptic.
that is not clear and we'll get back to the likely attack on that by defense counsel by james comey in the future the upshot is and people reading between the lines say that this is about jim comey telling that the senate judiciary committee at the time that he had not in fact authorized anybody probably a felony andrew mccabe you recall him second in command for a long period of time during the comey
term in office had not authorized him to reach out to media and tell them something about an investigation, maybe possibly involving the investigation involving Hillary Clinton.
A lot to read between the lines there.
That first count alleging that he made a false statement.
A second count is based upon the same basic facts that by virtue of saying those things, that thing that is not true, that he knew about it.
He was under oath.
It was a false statement.
And it was somehow mature.
to the proceeding itself.
Second count alleges obstruction of that congressional proceeding.
Those are the two charges and pursuant to the regular practice in America.
We have proceedings called arraignments.
You know what those are.
This is the time when the defendant makes a first appearance officially in court.
And indeed, James Comey did just that with his attorney, a very well-known attorney.
and we'll talk about him as well in just a moment or so.
He appeared this past week in front of Judge Michael Nakmanoff, N-A-C-H-M-A-N-O-F-F.
He is a district court.
He's a federal trial court judge there in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia.
And the purpose again, once again, of the arraignment is
to determine what the defendant's posture in all this is.
And it is significant to go through somewhat in detail what happened during this relatively brief about 30 minute hearing in front of Judge Nakmanoff just this past week.
Prosecutors, of course, presenting this indictment, reading the charges out loud, just as I have summarized them here.
And in the end, James Comey, through his attorney, pleading not guilty to both of those counts.
The attorney himself, we know him well.
I know him well from a time that I served as an interim U.S.
attorney in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Pat Fitzgerald.
who used to serve as the United States Attorney in the Northern District of Illinois.
He is now representing the FBI Director James Comey and Pat Fitzgerald of course is very accomplished as a prosecutor and also as a litigator in general.
You call well that
While Pat Fitzgerald was the U.S.
attorney there in Northern Illinois, he undertook a number of major, major prosecutions involving terrorism, corruption cases.
You may recall he worked on an Al Qaeda case in New York in the 1990s and then became the U.S.
attorney in Chicago, successfully prosecuting some governors there.
Their names are George Ryan, Rod Bogojevic, very, very notably corruption cases there.
Pat Fitzgerald knows what he's doing.
He is now representing Jim Comey in this prosecution.
And so Pat Fitzgerald stands up and on behalf of his client, James Comey, enters a plea of not guilty to both counts in the indictment.
Arguably, however, again, that's not surprising.
Arguably, however, the most important thing that comes out of that hearing is the conversation that happens between and among the attorneys and the judge after that.
In what is maybe the most significant event in development exchange, Pat Fitzgerald says he intends to file a couple of motions to dismiss the case before trial.
And yes, not surprisingly, they're exactly what we chatted about last week on this very broadcast.
There is nothing surprising about the legitimate and appropriate reaction to this.
Pat Fitzgerald says the first motion that he is going to file is going to be accusing the government of malicious or vindictive or selective prosecution based on what you know what that's all about.
We talked about this at great length.
The president's own very public demand of his attorney general, his public insistent.
insistence that James Comey be prosecuted and the record of that is clear.
We reviewed that in great length.
That will in fact be the predicate.
the very words coming from the president of the united states of america directing his attorney general to file this lawsuit to bring this indictment through the u.s attorney in eastern virginia through the grand jury process directing that all of those statements celebrating celebrating afterwards the indictment with an exclamation about that
All of that is going to be a part of Pat Fitzgerald's presentation to dismiss this case upon vindictive prosecution, selective prosecution grounds.
And secondarily, he's also going to challenge the appointment.
of Lindsay Halligan, the second interim U.S.
attorney in eastern Virginia, the woman, the attorney there who brought this case on behalf of the government of the United States of America.
When we come back, I'll tell you more about those likely motions, what the Comey defense team said about them, what the judge said in response, and what we can expect in the future coming out of this prosecution as Amica Solaroview continues.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
We are back talking once again about these very significant charges against James Comey.
More recently, more charges against Letitia James.
Prosecutor, the principal prosecutor in the state of New York, she is the attorney general of that state, also indicted just this past week.
James Comey appearing in front of a federal district court judge in eastern Virginia just this past week, and his attorney describing what the plan is.
Not surprising identifying this notion of vindictive prosecution Selective prosecution animus in the prosecution and raising that as a threshold matter even before you get to trial And that's what Pat Fitzgerald was advocating for judge.
Give me a chance to file that motion as a practical matter
Defense counsel, prosecutors, judges, lawyers across the board know that vindictive prosecution, selective prosecution, charges and allegations and defenses are very difficult to show, especially if there is some underlying predicate, some genuine predicate, aside from the animus that may have prompted the prosecution itself.
Here, however, this has got real legs.
This has got an
a strong possibility of not only attracting the legitimate attention and focus of the district court, but also arguably an order to dismiss this case based upon basically government misconduct.
And how is it predicated?
Don't have to do a lot of discovery.
Don't have to do a lot of exploration here.
You simply need to plum the media for the past decade or so.
and find all of those statements in which the President of the United States of America called for James Comey to be prosecuted for various reasons, not related to things of substance, but because of political animosties between the two of them.
and describing James Comey, among others, as being guilty as hell, celebrating the fact that he was, in fact, indicted in the end, that very revelatory statement made by the president, maybe intended not for public consumption, but it went into the public domain, bemoaning the fact that Pambadi, nobody is inditing my political enemies, the president said, and sure enough, days after that, the president finds someone who does just that in the person of Lindsay
Heligan, the interim U.S.
attorney.
Significant also in that defense motion forthcoming is the fact that you've got prosecutors.
You've got a litmus test already.
Prosecutors appointed by this administration inside the Department of Justice, inside the U.S.
attorneys who looked at all this for a couple of months and said there's no there there.
There's nothing to prosecute.
That's a part of the public record as well.
That will also be a part of this motion that will say in the end that because legitimate
investigation and completed investigation showed that there was no there there the only reason for going ahead then is this animus and that's vindictive prosecution that's the argument that pat Fitzgerald will be making it is a compelling one we don't know how the district court judge will resolve it they're not easy arguments to make
They're most often not successful, but in this case, it will be presented from the words of the President of the United States of America, who fascinatingly, perhaps unknowingly, although someone certainly must have told him, that by making these statements in the public domain, you're undermining the very prosecution that you want to have happen.
You are your worst enemy in this case.
By saying these things about the reason for the prosecution, they're going to be cited.
Verse, chapter, word specific in that motion to
dismiss for vindictive prosecution.
There's another portion of this defense we also heard about and that is that the defendant James Comey is going to be challenging the capacity of the U.S.
Attorney who did ultimately.
Sent there into eastern Virginia to indict this case in front of a grand jury It's gonna be challenging the legitimacy of hers to go ahead and do this her name once again Lindsay Halligan She's another interim United States attorney the defense maintaining that her position there was invalid at the time of the return of the grand jury indictment you recall well that she presented this to the grand jury signed off on the indictment plainly perhaps the only person in the office who
who was willing to do just that.
The issue here is that when there's a vacancy in this position,
The attorney general is normally able to install someone as an interim U.S.
attorney.
And yes indeed, I was one of those in the distant past.
That lasts for 120 days.
But after that expires, the law also says that a federal court can decide who next serves as that interim.
In my situation, once that expired, a federal court judge in Eastern Wisconsin appointed me in that position.
And so this is an unusual process.
Yes, it's very wonky.
It's very much in the weeds, I know, but it's important
It's important to understand because the U.S.
attorney in this case, again, his name is Eric Siebert, was removed for refusing to bring that case against James Comey in the first place based upon no evidence.
So what happens is Eric Siebert is gone and the president immediately appoints a second, a second interim U.S.
attorney.
The problem is that Eric Siebert had already served a 120-day term as an attorney general appointee.
And that term has expired.
And the question, therefore, is whether the Trump administration had the authority to make a second interim appointment rather than have that go to the courts.
That's going to be charged, and that's going to be alleged and argued in context, not of the substance of the indictment, but whether or not the attorney herself, the U.S.
attorney herself, had the capacity, the power
to serve in that capacity when she did these kinds of things.
And then there's this third aspect, which we've also more than hinted at, and that is, what does all this mean in the indictment?
Going back to that language that I cited initially, one of the most significant things that Pat Fitzgerald says along the way is that
We still have not been told, he said, who person three and person one are.
He's making reference to this cryptic language in count one of the indictment.
He said, referring to that charging language.
He went at one to say, we still haven't been told precisely what is in count one or count two.
He's scratching his head.
Maybe he's going to ask for what's called a bill of particulars.
And he goes on to say that with respect to that issue as well, we need to be told what we're being charged.
with that of course is a fundamental right under our Constitution that's based the criminal constitutional procedure and on all three of those bases there's going to be motions to dismiss this indictment each one of them has a merit these are not frivolous motions and any one of them could be seized upon by the federal district court judge they could all be denied
They could all be granted or some variation in between.
Along with this description of what the case is likely going to be looking like in the future, engagement by the judge with the attorneys, prosecutors talking about the setting of a trial date.
Prosecutors saying interestingly that they suddenly had a large amount of discovery, which also includes classified information.
That's what the prosecutors told the judge this past week.
The judge,
Looking at that said, huh?
He says, I'm skeptical.
I'm a little skeptical about these insinuations that this case was complex enough to require some extra time suggesting, what about this statement requires the disclosure of classified information?
He says, it's fairly limited, fairly skeleton.
And indeed, all the attorneys agree that this case can be tried maybe in as little as two to three days.
The question is, when does that happen?
And the judge says, this does not appear.
to me to be an overly complicated case, but I'm not going to force you to go to trial in December if both sides don't feel they can be ready.
There's a Speedy Trial Act that contemplates the defendant be ready to go to trial or be permitted to go to trial under his or her rights or its rights within 70 days of the return of the grand jury indictment.
And Fitzgerald, Pat Fitzgerald also said, yes, I'd like that time, but I want to use that time to file these motions.
He said, frankly, we feel in this case the cart may have been put before the horse.
We'd like certain disposed emotions and yes those are the three vindictive prosecutions in capacity of the U.S.
Attorney to file the case in the first place and lack of particularity about what this case is all about.
He said we'd like certain disposed emotions addressed first in the hopes that a trial can be avoided and we know beyond that that James Comey and his attorneys have also said beyond that you deny all this yes we'd like to go to trial promptly.
We'd like to invoke the
They're in Eastern Virginia.
Let's get to trial.
The judge discussing with the attorneys various dates, proposing sometimes under the Speedy Trial Act, going to trial no later than December 17th.
The judge says, I'll grant that.
I'll, well, let's go ahead.
Let's get this case tried.
The attorney is proposing some extended time for these motions.
And the judge pushing the trial date up a week.
to about January 5th, and they all agreed to that.
Initially, he had set some other dates for that.
It appears right now that on the docket, this case is going to trial again in fairly near future.
January 5th is the date that the judge set for the trial of this case.
That of course assumes that these motions will be disposed of.
That assumes that all of the motions will be denied.
and that the case will in fact be set to trial, a two to three day trial sometime in January, if none of those motions articulated by Defense Counsel Pat Fitzgerald at the arraignment of this past week.
If none of those goes ahead, none of those acted on favorably from the defense perspective between now and then, then we're gonna get a trial arguably in January, the defendant asking for that.
The prosecutor is saying, well, we've got a lot of complex classified information related to this
false statement case.
Curious to say that again.
What do they have to show?
They've got to show, of course, the statement was made under oath that it was false, which of course, James Comey has denied.
He's going to say, no, no, I never told anybody, never authorized anybody to speak to the media or some other anonymous source about some investigation.
He will deny that interestingly to think about the ways in which the government will need to
prove that that statement was false.
It's got to be knowing that James Comey knowingly made that and it's got to be material.
It's got to make a difference somehow with respect to something in government itself, the progress of this particular proceeding in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It's got to be material.
It's got to make a difference of some kind.
It's got to matter.
That's why these false statement cases, they can be shown, they can be proven, but you need a false statement that's fairly clear and dispositive.
Things like the sun rises in the west when in fact it rises in the east.
This is not that, and it prompts an awful lot of people to say that putting aside all the motions to dismiss the merits of the case are not strong, and that even if James Comey does go to trial in January, highly likely the jury will fail to find beyond a reasonable doubt.
Beyond a reasonable doubt, unanimously, 12 jurors in the federal system there in eastern Virginia finding that he knowingly made a false statement under oath that it was material, it affected the proceeding in some way.
That's a heavy burden under this very cryptic allegation against him in count one and also in count two.
We will continue to monitor all of that, even as the government, again, through the same office, the U.S.
Attorney's Office in eastern Virginia this past week added another name.
to the list of defendants, also the president's adversaries, who are now the subject of a federal indictment.
You know what this case is all about.
We know that the attorney general of the state of New York, her name is Letitia James, she is charged now by a federal grand jury, same district, although for different reasons, a venue placement, a place of this in eastern Virginia, not because of any false statements that she made, but because of her possession or ownership
some property there in eastern Virginia, not in Washington DC, not in New York City where she lives, but based upon the location of a piece of real estate.
It's a two-count indictment, just like the Comey indictment, but very different charges.
announced on Thursday by the U.S.
Attorney once again, arguably raising the prospect that this U.S.
Attorney does not have the capacity to go ahead and charge anyone because of this interim appointment that arguably expired.
It charges Letitia James with falsely identifying a Virginia rental property that she has as a residence that she owns that she resides there rather than an investment property.
And allegedly she did that
to obtain some favorable loan terms.
That's the bank fraud nature of the counts against her.
She, of course, has denied that.
As Amicus Alaravu continues, I'll tell you more about her likely defenses and other matters related to this new federal indictment against Letitia James, a sitting attorney general of the state of New York.
All that coming up on this broadcast.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.
This is Amicus, a lot of you are spending this first hour of our weekend broadcast talking all about these indictments of the president's political adversaries as he has described them himself.
Letitia James, the second on this list of people.
in that category, now charged by a federal grand jury in eastern Virginia, different than the Comey indictment, different charges, specifically a five-page indictment of her, accusing her of having said in a loan document that she would use a home of hers in Norfolk, Virginia that she bought in 2020 as a secondary residence.
to obtain FABRO loan terms that could save her about $18,933.
Prosecutors are saying that she violated the loan agreement by renting out the home, thus the false statement in that bank document.
One count accuses Leticia James of seeking to defraud
Two financial institutions, the other accuses her of making those false statements.
Needless to say, she has denied all of this.
Her attorney named Abby Lowell has said that Latisha James not only denies the accusations, but in initial statements has indicated that she is going to go down the same road that James Comey has gone down with respect to this likely defense of vindictive prosecution indeed.
We know well that the president and Letitia James have sparred not only in court but beyond that.
The case against him brought by Letitia James in which this $500 million judgment was obtained, it's a civil judgment to be clear.
The trial judge's findings in that case with respect to fraud and valuations of property was upheld, but the amount of money was rescinded, was revoked basically.
The appeal on all of that continues, but along the way, the president has repeatedly
been lashing out at logisha james and logisha james frankly has been responding also in the public domain talking about the legitimacy of the things that she has been doing interestingly interestingly this case is a bit of a surprise based upon where it came from what the initial genesis of this case was all about we know that it came initially from some allegations that were derived from statements made by other government officials have
to do with some belief that the documents here were fraudulent, came specifically from a fellow named Bill Pulte, P-U-L-T-E.
He was the head of the, is the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
He sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department related to homes, residences that Latisha James bought in Norfolk, Virginia in 2023, and in New York City, which is her principal location decades ago.
The house the indictment focuses on was not, in fact, included in that initial referral from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Bill Polti.
It was not that house.
That house, also in Norfolk, Virginia, was purchased in 2020.
And although that's, again, very much in the weeds, it may also be the subject of some description and some exposition inside
the motions to dismiss.
It is simply an interesting albeit small wrinkle that this is not the house.
This is not the residence that was going to be anticipated to be the focus of the indictment.
It's different.
And it suggests once again that there has been investigation of this.
And once again, it raises issues about the legitimacy of the investigation based upon the many, many things that the president has said about Letitia James
and including that she is on a get Trump agenda.
Many, many other things out there that he has said over time.
And once again, how does that motion for a vindictive prosecution right itself?
All you need to do is to pull together to bring together all of those statements made by the president in the past.
over many years and recently directing his Attorney General, directing the U.S.
Attorney's Office in eastern Virginia, bemoaning the fact that they have not yet indicted these people and then being celebratory when in fact they have been indicted.
All of those things can they be included in a motion to dismiss
Absolutely.
The mere fact the president says in the public domain doesn't somehow shield them from presentation inside the court.
And you can anticipate that Abby Lowell, who is once again Latisha James attorney, is going to be culling the news reports if she hasn't.
And Latisha James going through all of that and finding all of those and presenting those to the judge as an indication that this is a product of animus.
This is the vindictive prosecution, the selective prosecution.
that is prohibited and it does in fact reflect upon an inappropriate motive.
There may in fact be some substance here we don't know.
We don't know yet.
That's for a trial jury to determine.
But as a threshold matter, even before you get to that, if indeed you can show as the counsel can probably do at least a prima facie, a superficial showing, that indeed this is at least in part the product of animus toward the defendant, that's an improper motive.
Not only does it reflect upon the fact that there has been a complete diminution, a destruction of the wall between the Department of Justice and the White House,
That's long gone, as of seven, eight months ago, that has characterized all other administrations.
That's long gone.
Now you've got the president telling your attorney general, telling US attorneys who to indict because he doesn't like them.
That's the basis for this motion.
Likely a motion, again, premised upon the authority of the US attorney there to do this in the first place based upon her subsequent interim appointment.
All of that coming up.
And although the indictment here is a bit more fleshed out than is the Comey indictment, could also be, could also be the subject of request for more information.
We know that the defense attorneys, as they are appropriately under our constitution, they are entitled to, defendants are entitled to all the information the government has.
That will be forthcoming in this case as well.
In our second hour, we're going to comment on a bit more, and that is the reporting out there that John Bolton may be next on the list, what that purports for the rule of law in America.
And we'll talk about why that case, that case might be substantively different from the Comey and Letitia James cases, but even in its difference may underscore this notion that this administration
is pursuing political enemies of the president upon his direction, that as we undertake further exposition of these prosecutions, here on Amicus, a lot of you.
This is Amica Salar Review.
My name is Jim Santel.
I'm here in the studios of Civic Media, engaging with you in a discussion of the major rule of law issues of this past week's spending.
Virtually all of our first hour talking about the latest indications, the reflections of the authoritarian government that has now taken hold, at least with respect to these decisions by the Department of Justice, to prosecute the defendants, the presidents.
adversaries as defendants in federal district court.
That includes James Comey, now most recently, Letitia James, who sometime soon, like James Comey, will also have an arraignment somewhere in the federal district court in eastern Virginia.
There is yet a third matter that has percolated up a little bit below the headlines of this past week, but it was in the headlines a number of weeks ago at the time that the
United States Department of Justice did in fact obtain from a federal magistrate judge a warrant, a finding by that magistrate judge that in the residence, the personal residence of a fellow named James John Bolton, who is the president's former national security advisor, a senior advisor in the White House during the first Trump term, that based upon
probable cause.
There is reason to believe that John Bolton, or at least in the house of John Bolton, one would find evidence of a crime.
And so you recall well this early morning execution of a search warrant.
by FBI agents and other authorities, seizing many documents out of that residence.
We don't know a lot about that.
The strong speculation is that it's based upon classified documents that John Bolton in his former capacity in the first term of Donald Trump either retained,
arguably inappropriately maintaining, using, we don't know anything about the specifics of the management of those documents, but probably cause to believe that there may in fact have been a crime committed there, although again on its face has to be fairly antiquated, has to go back to a time when John Bolton had those kinds of materials as a result of his actions, his tenure inside the White House in this high security level position.
We don't know, and the case has not been charged, but the speculation is that the investigation is going on as to him as well.
And in fact, sometime in the next week to two weeks, there may be a grand jury indictment as to John Bolton as well.
And here is the all important point.
the theses, the premises this weekend.
The John Bolton indictment, if it comes, may in fact be apart from a different kind of thing than the indictment of James Comey and Letitia James, both of which seem fairly skeletal on the surface, and certainly, certainly the products at a minimum of a vindictive prosecution by this president's selective prosecution, probably easily demonstrated by virtue of the president's own statements
asking that they be prosecuted, calling upon them to be indicted by a federal grand jury, bemoaning the fact that they were not prior to their indictment.
This is arguably different.
And it may partake of both things that are substantive and not.
And what do I mean by that?
It may well be.
We do not know.
It may well be that John Bolton
presumed innocent as always until a jury is finding him guilty if it does beyond a reasonable doubt, but it may well be that in the end a trial jury could find John Bolton guilty of some violations.
of documents classified documents national security secrets we don't know the charges we don't know the the dimensions of that but again the finding by a federal district court magistrate judge that there is probable cause to believe that some criminal activity may have taken place arguably removes this from the broad category of the james comey and leticia james cases which have very little to support them substantively and here's the point
John Bolton may in fact be guilty of the offense conduct that could be charged against him.
Again, we attend, we recognize always that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but he also falls into the same category with James Comey and Letitia James-Y.
because the president has likewise identified him among his adversaries.
John Bolton has written a book in which he's very critical of the president, causing the president again to make scurrilous statements about John Bolton and his service and the lack of competence when he was in the White House during the first term.
This has gone on with respect to John Bolton in the same way that the president has criticized Letitia James, James Comey, other people, including Adam Schiff, including George Soros, including Christopher
including others out there, calling recently, for example, for the arrest of the governor of the state of Illinois and the mayor of the city of Chicago, all of that inappropriate things, wildly inappropriate things that can undermine any prosecution here.
And it may well be that if John Bolton is indicted, he will raise the same kinds of indicted prosecution claims that the attorneys representing Letitia James and James Comey are certainly going to be representing and raising in those other venues.
The point of it is just this, when you begin to identify adversaries and call upon and achieve their prosecution, you sully,
you denigrate, you destroy the legitimacy of the legitimate prosecutions that you may have, even of the people who are your adversaries.
It may well be that some people you do not like, and some people who you have run afoul of, and they've run afoul of you in the political arena, those people may well have also committed crimes.
They may partake of both categories, if you will.
arguably committing crimes and also being your political adversaries.
If you are silent as to all of your political adversaries, the notion of charging someone who is indeed violative of the federal law becomes a whole lot more legitimate because it robs in that prosecution, it robs the defense of the capacity to say that this is the product of a vindictive prosecution.
John Bolton arguably has
aspects of this case in both buckets, if you will.
He may be guilty of a crime, but he's also an adversary.
He is an adversary of the president who also may have committed a crime, unlike the others.
And again, the compromise here of justice, the difficulty in all of this is
that when you begin this list with James Comey and Letitia James and presumably others including Adam Schiff out there who may be indicted in the future all of those premised upon vindictive prosecutions when you finally identify someone who may have been
actually involved in criminal conduct, that too looks not just suspicious, but also the product of an inappropriate prosecutorial intention.
And that's going to be the challenge of this government, again, likely to be prosecuted, if at all, by the U.S.
Attorney in Maryland, not Eastern Virginia, not New York, not D.C., Maryland, the U.S.
Attorney, and may in fact encounter the same difficulty.
That is that while there may be some support,
for the indictment the whatever the allegations are the motion can still be filed by virtue of the record of this president saying the same kinds of things about john bolton as he has said about his other political enemies the upshot of this the kind of thing that the attorney general should be telling the president is that by saying these things about your political adversaries you are undermining
and compromising the very prosecutions that you are hoping to accomplish, the very prosecutions that are now underway.
And of course, in the end, the footnote comment that we always make about all of these is just this, that in the end, it may well be that a conviction of James Comey will not happen.
A conviction of Letitia James will not happen.
A conviction of John Bolton may not happen.
We do not know.
The point is that the prosecution, the investigation is the punishment.
And in these motions alleging vindictive prosecution, selective prosecution, we're going to hear again from some other words that the president articulated during the campaign, which is, I am your retribution.
And Defense Council raised that as a legitimate way of pushing back against these charges saying, see, this has nothing to do with the administration of justice.
This is vindicating the president's own plan to get back to his political enemies.
And the things that the president has said,
are his own worst enemies, if you will, linguistically in the very legitimacy of the cases that he is now celebrating.
Someone should be telling him that and encouraging him, it's much too late, but encouraging him going forward not to continue to speak in the public domain, he has that right to do it.
But again, he is compromising with every additional word that he articulates about his personal animosities.
his political disagreements with the defendants who are now charged compromising those investigations, perhaps resulting one day in the dismissal of them.
Indeed, that may not be his ultimate result, a conviction.
The prosecution, the investigation is the punishment, as we've said, and that, that the president has already accomplished by virtue of these indictments present and perhaps future.
That's the authoritarianism about which we have spoken on this broadcast.
Let us talk about the other major rule of law news in the domain of America just this past week.
again, related to an exercise of presidential power.
This is what having to do with the president's announcement of the deployment of the National Guard in various venues around the nation.
We focused this past week upon Portland, Oregon and upon Chicago, Illinois, but there are others as well.
Let's talk about exactly what the president has done and said and what the courts have done and said in these various areas.
We're going to begin by identifying not just Portland, Oregon, not just Chicago, Illinois.
but also other places where the deployment of National Guard have drawn the attention of federal district court judges and appeals courts as well.
That includes Los Angeles, California, and yes, Washington, D.C.
and the latest one on the list, Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee.
Let's talk about those, begin our discussion about these deployments, attempted deployments, proposed deployments by the president of National Guard in cities, in states, in places where the governor
have said, with one exception, that the deployments are not necessary to address
anything of what the president is describing, that is the mayhem, the carnage going on, which simply does not exist.
Let's talk beginning in our discussion here about Los Angeles.
I mean, you may recall that in June, the Trump administration, Donald Trump sent about 5,000 troops from the National Guard and the US Marine Corps to Los Angeles area.
At the time he justified that, he said, we need to stop the protests over these immigration raids.
Governor Gavin Newsom, as you know, filed a lawsuit accusing Donald Trump of an unprecedented usurpation of state authority and resources.
And here's where the litigation gets very interesting.
And maybe it's important to understand because the Ninth Circuit, once again, facing the same kind of thing in connection with
Portland.
On September, early September of this year, a federal judge named Charles Breyer, we talked about him, B-R-E-Y-E-R.
He happens to be the brother of a former associate justice of the Supreme Court.
Federal District Court in San Francisco, he finds that the National Guard troops were being used illegally, says this is unconstitutional, Mr. President.
He wrote that the Trump administration had violated what the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
You know what that is because you've been school
at all this in recent weeks, that makes it illegal to use federal troops for domestic policing purposes in most circumstances, absence of findings of extraordinary circumstances, that ruling by Judge Breyer at the time barred the federal government from using troops anywhere in California to engage in arrests and searches and security patrols and traffic control, crowd control, the entire gambit of things, riot control.
the administration appealed that decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
And the Ninth Circuit paused that decision of the judge, said, no, we're going to stay that for a while, pending a hearing on it down the road.
In the meantime, the Pentagon, the Defense Department withdrew most of the troops from Southern California.
Gavin Newsom has asked the court to send them all home.
And so that's pending in the Ninth Circuit.
And there is, again, no resolution there.
But that's what happened in Los Angeles when we come back.
Let's focus upon Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, Illinois, also involving district courts and appeals courts in America.
All that on Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
We are talking in this second hour of our broadcast.
about the attempts by the president of the United States of America to deploy the National Guard in various places around the nation, chatted about that situation in Los Angeles.
Now talking about Portland, Oregon, this is one that percolated up while quite literally around the air last weekend.
It comes out of Portland, Oregon at the time, and it relates to September of this year, of course, the president proposing to send about 200 Oregon National Guard into Portland, Oregon, the basis
for that plan, that intention.
Donald Trump called the city war ravaged and cited protests against federal authorities and their immigration rates.
This comes in front of a federal district court judge.
Again, just like it does in Los Angeles, her name is Karen Imragut, I-M-M-E-R-G-U-T.
And over the period of last weekend, she has a couple of hearings.
It's a fascinating procedural aspect of all this.
Karen Imragut
and entertains the challenge to the president's intention to send the National Guard into Portland, Oregon, based upon the calamity that the president identifies there.
She has a hearing on all this.
And in the end, she finds that the president, just like Charles Breyer did in Los Angeles, had exceeded his legal authority in calling up the troops.
She said the protests were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days or even weeks leading up to the president's directive.
It goes on to
talk about his invocation of the Insurrection Act, that there is a rebellion, that there are other things that have to be responded to, is simply unsupported by the facts of this case.
And Judge Emmergut, who again, it is unfortunate that we need to do this, but we shouldn't do this.
She was appointed by Donald Trump in his first term.
All right.
And she agreed that the timing of the president's order, also with respect to notifications involving ICE officials and various other domestic law enforcement there, simply did not meet the legal standard for calling in the National Guard.
She said the state provided substantial evidence that the protests at the Portland ICE facility were not, were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days, weeks ahead.
of the president's orders to go in.
And so the judge says, do not come in.
And she says that there is some has not shown the government has not shown evidence of, of any significant violence there, any evidence demonstrating
that the episodes of violence were part of any organized attempt to overthrow the government as required by the law to justify this kind of thing.
She enters an order in Saturday of last weekend saying they are to stay out of Portland, Oregon.
What happens is someone back at the White House, so wait a minute, she is simply prohibiting us from sending the Oregon National Guard into Portland.
What about other folks?
What about other folks, other National Guard forces from other states?
like California, like Texas from other places that could arguably go into Portland, not in literal violation of what the court's order says.
attorneys representing the people challenging any of these deployments get back to the judge get back to judge emmergut and have a late night hearing on Sunday of last weekend and she is on the phone and by summarizing very generally what she says is this I don't play linguistic games with me and she basically says of course I meant that there should be no National Guard at all the location from which they come is not the point you are
If it wasn't clear the first time, it's clear now.
You are prohibited from bringing anybody.
any National Guard in from California, Texas, any other jurisdiction, that was plainly the impetus, that was plainly the focus of my order.
And she implicitly, if not explicitly, explicitly accuses the government of playing fast and loose, too cute by half, as some have sometimes said, in attempting to get around the language of her order.
Now what happens there again, goes up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, appealing Judge Imre
got throughling to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
And government lawyers, of course, on behalf of the Department of Justice, argue that the protests in Portland amounted to this rebellion that Judge Emerget said is simply not there, no evidence at all based upon the evidence that she has seen.
And that the courts do not have the power, the Department of Justice says, to review the president's decisions when to deploy the National Guard.
This is beyond their capacity to act.
Three judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, now this is coming up from Judge Imorgut's order, ruled on Wednesday.
They said on Wednesday that the Oregon National Guard members could stay under federal control.
until a broader legal ruling was issued.
In other words, we're going to keep things in place there.
They left in place the temporary order from Judge Immergut that barred the troops from being deployed.
In other words, they can stay there, but do not deploy them until we have an opportunity to review this at greater length, effectively staying a major portion of her findings.
At a hearing on Thursday, the panel appeared to take seriously.
some arguments by the administration lawyers that all of these things the deployments
are in fact legal, and at least some of the judges on the appellate bench were questioning whether Judge Imragut's conclusion that a military presence was not needed, questioning whether that is a proper finding of hers based upon this evidentiary record.
Not clear exactly when the Ninth Circuit's going to resolve this issue, but presumably, maybe sometime this weekend, maybe sometime early next week, going to issue a decision, not clear.
The tea leaves indicate that at a minimum, they are skeptical
of Judge Imragut's decision that this is not a rebellion, or at least the president does not have the authority under these circumstances to permit the Oregon National Guard to go in more coming up again, coming out of Portland in the wake of this dance going on over the weekend with Judge Imragut and the attorneys of the Department of Justice in and out of court.
And then we come to Chicago, Chicago as well, of course, Illinois and Chicago, the state of Illinois, the city of Chicago, likewise have sued the Trump administration early this past week, same kind of things, same kind of lawsuit in a federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois.
What is the basis for that?
Again, the president's proposal to move national security troops, national guard troops into the Chicago area.
When we come back, I'll tell you more about that case, about
its disposition by a federal district court judge there, and where it is headed, which is to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals as well.
All of that as Amica Salarovu continues.
This is Amica Salarovu.
My name is Jim Santel.
We are talking about the litigation.
involving the National Guard in America in places like Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon, Chicago, Washington, D.C.
and Memphis, Tennessee.
Let's talk about Chicago.
Chicago, again, the Illinois state and the city of Chicago.
both bringing lawsuits again in the federal district court.
They're challenging the decision of the president to bring the National Guard into the Chicago area.
Department of Homeland Security initially requesting the troops, saying that they're needed to protect the immigration and customs enforcement facilities in that region.
There were some demonstrations in recent weeks that were...
protests that had grown very tense in that area.
After a curfew was imposed, some of those protests early this week died down.
Demonstrations have become a whole lot calmer, but 200 National Guard troops were brought in from Texas in the wake of that activity.
And early in the week, again, this lawsuit brought by the state of Illinois, brought by the city of Chicago, goes into federal court.
Appears in front of a judge named April Perry.
P-E-R-R-Y, she's one again, another.
federal district court judge.
She is in the northern district of Illinois and she has a very initial appearance, initial hearing in that matter in which she says, I'm not going to enjoy, I'm going to stop anybody from doing anything yet.
But she encourages all the parties not to do anything until Thursday.
And on Thursday, she does in fact issue, she has a hearing and in the wake of that hearing,
The judge, again, April Perry temporarily blocks the National Guard from going into Chicago, into these operations in these areas for 14 days.
And she says, like the judge, Judge Emergot in Portland, she says that she's seen no credible evidence that there is a danger of a rebellion in the state of Illinois.
And she also says the deployment of troops there would only add fuel to the fire.
So she says, stay out.
I'm directing that you not do that.
I'm going to put this in place for 14 days, and we're going to have a further hearing on this after that 14 day period.
And we're going to see what will happen.
Needless to say, the judge issuing a written opinion then prompts the United States Department of Justice to seek review of that before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which is our circuit.
And again, just like the Ninth Circuit,
likely ruling on the case coming out of Portland sometime soon.
Highly likely that as that litigation goes ahead in front of the Seventh Circuit here in the Midwest, highly likely that the Seventh Circuit will also issue a determination about whether or not Judge Perry is right in her determination that there is not a rebellion going on in Chicago sufficient to justify the president's decision to send in the National Guard.
Washington, D.C.
also, as you know, the focus of a lot of
activity.
The case, they're a bit different because the District of Columbia's Attorney General, again, different posture.
The District of Columbia, of course, doesn't have a governor, but they also have something called the Home Rule Act.
And the Attorney General there, his name is Brian Schwalb, S-E-H-W-A-L-B.
He invokes that law.
He says that the federal government has control of the District of Columbia
But the district is granted local governance rights, some authority, some discretion with respect to how things are operating there, giving residents the power to elect their own mayor and a local council.
And in mid-August or so, the president cites the Home Real Act and it takes control of the District of Columbia for 30 days.
You saw this well in the news media, a lot of coverage there.
About 800 National Guard troops to address what the president called a crime-infested waste
land in the nation's capital.
The attorney general sued the administration over that.
The case was basically settled after lengthy negotiations with the attorney general.
Pam Bondi, she agreed to allow the city's police chief, the domestic law enforcement there, to maintain control of the department's day-to-day operations on the streets.
while taking orders from the mayor.
And Attorney General Bondi also directed the mayor to order the police department to help with immigration enforcement, kind of a stalemate there in the end.
In the end, Mr. Schwab filed a lawsuit again this time over the deployment of more troops whose numbers peaked at about 2400.
arguing that the deployment without the mayor's consent based upon their agreement had violated the U.S.
Constitution and Washington's own prerogatives under the Home Rule Act.
U.S.
District Court of the District of Columbia has taken that up, the issue of that deployment.
A hearing is scheduled in that case for October 24th in the very near future and so once again a federal district court likely going to be wrestling with this issue of the need for this kind of responsive
conduct and behavior by the federal government in Washington, DC.
And finally, there's Memphis, late breaking news from Justice, past week.
a president announcing that he is going to send National Guard troops to Memphis.
He was citing concerns again as he has in Portland and Chicago, Washington, DC, Los Angeles about safety and security in the city.
Interestingly there, the state of Tennessee and the mayor of the city of Memphis have indicated they are not going to file a lawsuit.
They're going to try to work with the administration and determining whether or not the situation is such that it requires this kind of
very much a breaking story there in Memphis.
This is just breaking fairly late here about the position of the mayor and of the governor there.
And it's entirely possible that some of the soldiers, some of the National Guard will be deployed there in Memphis.
Again, without litigation, maybe, maybe initiated by the governor, by the mayor of the city of Memphis, all of that, all of that in the midst of this nationwide focus upon National Guard.
in our nation cities of course the much related issue ice and other federal law enforcement authorities in many of these if not all of these cities as well it underscores what we have talked about before which is the great challenges of mixing
Domestic law enforcement, people who are trained to keep us safe and secure with military operations, which have, by training and by experience, a very different function.
And the challenges that go along with that, and the reasons why the law in the end says you can mix them if you have a rebellion, that's the Insurrection Act.
And the Posse Comitatus Act saying that until you've got that kind of true disruption,
Pasico Matatasak saying that you should not mix those two.
Different purposes, domestic issues addressed by domestic law enforcement.
military operations addressed by military staff and military soldiers.
That's the basic controversy that's now in our courts, in the federal appeals courts, in the Ninth Circuit, in the Seventh Circuit, also in the district courts around the country as well.
We'll continue to monitor and talk about all of those as rule of law issues here on our broadcast.
we always talk about the united states supreme court last week i told you about the initiation of its new term which began at just on monday of this past week six different oral arguments entertained
by the Supreme Court, cases ranging wide and far on a number of different issues, six different cases altogether.
Let's talk about some of the tea leaves in two of those, one of them coming out of the Seventh Circuit.
On Tuesday, on Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court entertained argument in this case called, Chiles versus Salazar.
It's probably going to be one of the major rulings of the Supreme Court come June of this coming year.
It appeared.
Here's the top-line takeaway.
It appears again reading some tea leaves.
We don't know for sure.
We're gonna have to wait months until the decision is made that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court appears to be somewhat inclined to rule in favor of a Christian therapist
who says, who claims that her free speech rights, that her rights to religious liberty have been violated by this Colorado law that we've talked about at great length, the Colorado law bars mental health professionals.
from seeking to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity.
Now there's a lot there to unpack.
Yes, that's right.
This is the conversion therapy ban that in ways big and small has taken hold in about 20 different states in the union, including to some extent right here in Wisconsin.
The court's ruling on this basically whether conversion therapy can be banned or not, that's the overreaching issue if the Supreme Court gets to that large issue.
Courts ruling
could have an implication of about 20 different states with similar laws around the country.
And this particular argument on Tuesday lasts about 90 minutes.
You can go online, you can hear it.
The justices debating whether the conversion therapy concept covered by Colorado's law causes harm to minors.
Again, the great majority, overwhelming majority of the medical authorities out there for many years now has been this.
That is ineffective, not productive in its claim to changing a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity.
And in fact, in many instances, if not all of them is affirmatively destructive.
Here's for the therapist and also for the Trump administration have said that there's no reliable study indicating that that therapy causes harm.
The state's lawyer on behalf of Colorado, again, defending the conversion ban in Colorado said, no, no, no, no, no, no, there's an overwhelming amount to describe it as a mountain of evidence that conversion therapy is both ineffective
and also potentially dangerous for young people.
We know as well lots of amicus briefs written in this case as there are in others as well.
Medical organizations across the board have been condemning this practice since the late 1990s for about 25 years or so.
A growing and very strong body of evidence to suggest that this particular therapy
harmful, potentially, and certainly ineffective.
A central question, again, is whether Colorado's law interferes with the free speech rights, the freedom of religion rights of this particular therapist.
She's raised this as a first amendment issue and an inhibition, a restriction on her own professional capacity to speak with her clients, to engage with them in the therapies that she has contemplated.
If the Supreme Court does
does indeed rule that Colorado's law somehow infringes on free speech and is violative of basic religious liberties that is contemplated, again, by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The court has a couple of options here.
They could send this back down to a lower court, or they could simply declare the law unconstitutional and strike it down.
They've got a number of different options here.
The law itself, what does it say?
the law in Colorado prohibiting any practice or treatment that tries to change a minor's gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.
What did some of the justices say?
Sam Alito said that the voluntary talk therapy, the law bans, he said, looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination by government officials in violation of the First Amendment.
He says clearly that's a problem here.
He asked about medical consensus.
If the consensus could be wrong or colored by ideology, Amy Coney Barrett picks up on that theme.
She also
oppressed Colorado's lawyers about whether the ban truly causes harm.
She's asking about whether or not this ban does the harm that the authorities say it does.
The state solicitor general, again representing the Colorado position here, told the justices, the harm comes from this, said this.
From telling someone that there is something innate about yourself, you can change and then you spend all kinds of time and effort trying to do that and you fail.
Interestingly, Colorado officials have never enforced this measure, prompting an awful lot of people, including some liberal justices, to wonder whether or not this particular therapist has standing.
whether she indeed has a claim of some affirmative damage as to her particular position, her professional position.
And again, Justice Sotomayor, comparing conversion therapy to a dietitian or a counselor telling a client to do something that would harm their body.
Lots and lots of disagreement about that one.
Likely, likely the Supreme Court weighing in favor of the therapist and maybe striking the law down come June, we'll see.
When we come back,
I'll tell you about another case argued before the Supreme Court, and then give you a highlight of what's coming up this coming week.
You're on Amicus, a lot of you.
This is Amica Solaroview.
My name is Jim Santel.
Spending this last segment of our broadcast, giving you some sense about what the Supreme Court did in a couple of the oral arguments that it entertained this past week.
In this conversion therapy case coming out of Colorado, the majority seemingly supportive of the position of a therapist who's claiming to ban in Colorado by virtue of its language prohibits her from exercising her free speech rights for religious liberty rights, seemingly suggesting
that maybe the Supreme Court will overturn the ban in Colorado or at a minimum imposing a strict scrutiny standard, sending the case back to the lower court.
And again, which would be something of a win for the therapist herself.
We'll see what comes of that in June of this coming year.
Plainly a split court once again on this conversion ban therapy case.
A split court, although, again, some disagreement, even around the edges.
In a second case, this one coming out of Illinois, coming out of the seventh circuit, it's the one case coming out of our circuit before the Supreme Court, up to this...
point.
Lawsuit is brought by a representative, a U.S.
representative named Mike Bost, B-O-S-T.
He's a six-term member of the House of Representatives coming from downstate Illinois.
He's sued in May of 2022.
He's challenging an Illinois law that allows ballots to be postmarked, that are postmarked by Election Day, to be counted
if they're received up to 14 days later, and they've got to be postmarked by Election Day, but they can be counted for that period of time two weeks after Election Day itself.
The congressman arguing that the late ballot rule is superseded by laws that were enacted by Congress establishing a specific day, election day, and that if the ballots are not counted on election day, they cannot be counted at all.
Lower court found that he did not have standing because he failed to show that he was directly harmed by the mail-in ballot rule.
Why?
because he actually won that election.
He was successful in doing this.
And so the issue in the case comes around to whether or not this particular successful representative in the election has standing to challenge the ways in which the ballots, the absentee ballots were counted in that very election.
Chief Justice John Roberts appeared receptive to the idea that candidates, regardless of their chances to win,
In election, regardless of whether they're successful or not, should in fact be able to bring these lawsuits.
Chief Justice says if that's not the case, it could be a potential disaster, his words, if the courts felt required to weigh whether a candidate might win or lose a case.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh seems to be in line with that, talking about reliance on a rule requiring prognostication in election outcome.
The legal challenge has led to some unusual alliances,
between the Republican congressman and civil rights and voting groups because of a shared concern that they have about a rule that would make it more difficult to bring election law challenges, how that could affect cases much beyond this particular one.
Legal women voters, the ACLU, among others filed a brief in support of Mr. Boss' right to bring his legal challenges and vehemently opposed the substance of...
of the of those who would seek to shut him down again that case coming out of the supreme court's oral argument of justice past week six all together and for more for more promised for this coming week those include cases involving habeas corpus case called bowie versus united states has to do with successive petitions
to the federal district court and whether or not the courts have jurisdiction by prisoners who are filing petitions for habeas corpus.
There is also a case involving restitution and the circumstances under which a defendant released from prison has a continuing obligation under some federal laws requiring restitution.
Case is called Ellenberg versus United States.
It's a major restitution case.
This case called case versus Montana.
It's gonna be argued on Wednesday of this week.
Very interesting having to do with whether or not law enforcement officers who are in hot pursuit going into a home, what kind of probable cause do they have to have, again, without a warrant to determine whether there's truly an emergency that requires them to go in.
You'd think that kind of thing has been resolved by now after all these years, well, in the particular circumstances, Case versus Montana once again raises issues about Fourth Amendment and privacy rights inside a home, the conduct of law enforcement officers,
And yes, once again, that major issue involving probable cause to justify the entry of law enforcement into the home.
The most significant thing happening next week is Wednesday.
Louisiana versus Calais.
This is this major voting rights act case.
We've talked about it a lot.
This is the case in which the Supreme Court last term decided not to decide.
Curiously, took briefs on it, had some oral argument, a case coming out of Louisiana in which there were attempts starting and stopping to draw and then not draw two majority black districts coming out of the congressional districts, all of them in the state of Louisiana.
Courts
involved, legislatures involved, in the end the allegation that because the ultimate maps drew to
majority black districts that that decision and its reliance upon the Voting Rights Act is violative of the Equal Protection Clause, that the Voting Rights Act itself that provides protections for people of color and who are speaking different languages other than English, that that elevates somehow their rights to vote.
And for that reason is in violation of the Equal Protection affording to everyone.
It is a curious argument.
at best, but it's advanced before the United States Supreme Court that has taken on this case.
It is curious again procedurally because the Supreme Court began to address this and then put it on for oral argument.
That happening again on Wednesday.
The reason why this is so significant is because it comes in the wake of that Bernovich case under section two, that Shelby County case under sections four and five of the Voting Rights Act that together chipped away at the legitimacy of the Voting Rights Act.
This is the case.
in which section two is number one, again, on the docket, not only in its application there in Louisiana and the line drawing, but also because it may raise the specter.
It may give the Supreme Court an opportunity to take another shot at the Voting Rights Act and determine the legitimacy of this decade's old law.
And we come back next week.
I'll tell you about the oral argument there in Louisiana Calais and other things in the life
of our nation, rule of law, delivery of justice and government.
Have a good
weekend everybody.
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.