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'm your host on this broadcast of Civic Media, this hour and next hour, talking as always through an ambitious but achievable agenda
about the major issues in the rule of law, the administration of justice, and government operation in the United States of America, and occasionally beyond our borders as well.
I appreciate, I value, I thank you for your decision to spend some time in discussion with me and my producer Max about these major issues.
As always, the name of our broadcast taken from the Latin also the legal term amicus.
meaning friend, amicus curiae, friend of the court, the notion that by providing facts and information, you can make decisions about policy issues, your own perspectives on issues.
Here we are focusing on the things that have happened.
for greater understanding and appreciation of the world around us.
Our lives are livelihoods animated by an understanding, yes indeed in 2025 and probably beyond, about how the law works, how government works, how civics works.
Again, an important part of our lives in 2025 in this important and challenging time in American history.
Today, today is always inviting your questions, your inquiries, your comments, your observations,
as always here on Civic Media.
That phone number is 855-752-4842.
That's 855-752-4842.
My producer also reminds me that you can drop.
a comment, a question, an inquiry into our discussion box here on the broadcast stations of civic media.
Be a part of our engaged discussion about these major issues in the areas of law, government, and the administration of justice.
This weekend's program, no exception, as a matter of fact, chock full.
As always, with important information that has come from the major news stories of Justice Past Week, let me identify those for you and tell you a bit about the subject matters that we are going to be discussing this hour and next hour as well.
We begin what is, from my perspective, the most significant news story in the era of rule of law this past week, and that is
the likelihood that the United States Supreme Court at some point in the near future is going to find a major portion, the remaining significant enacting portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, either unconstitutional or in some way inapplicable in the early portion of this, the 21st century.
We'll talk about a case that the Supreme Court had before this past Wednesday
called Louisiana versus Kalei.
That's the name of the case you need to remember that.
It will stand very likely in American history along with other cases which we will discuss.
Kalei, C-A-L-L-A-I-S, a major two hour, two hour oral argument before the Supreme Court this past Wednesday addressing, yes, on the surface, a very important issue for the state of Louisiana and other states around the country.
That is how you go about...
drawing lines for congressional districts.
Can you in fact use race as a means of accomplishing voting, ensuring that everyone of all races, of all immutable characteristics has access to the polls?
Can you do that?
That's the fundamental question.
Or, or as the challengers maintain, do the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution prevent section two of the Voting Rights Act from being implemented?
Have we been wrong?
since 1965, is that section two, which again, as we will discuss, is this major implementing portion of the law, this jewel of civil rights law coming from 1965, the pen of Lyndon Johnson, a bipartisan cross-partisan decision by the United States Congress to enact the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Already the subject of some major hits by the Supreme Court in cases called Shelby County,
And Bernovich will talk about that, give you some history on where the Supreme Court has been in the past, and then also analyze what the Supreme Court will likely do based upon significant portions of that oral argument of just this past week.
Shelby County, Bernovich, and now probably Kelly.
the third in these major Supreme Court cases, likely affecting dramatically, and that may be understating it dramatically, the future of the Voting Rights Act, and we'll talk not only about what the justices seem to be focusing on, which is once again time, and the passage of history, and what we're going to call, as they have called, durational limits.
Durational limits, time limits on the applicability of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has the time, comma, in America to abandon the broad and ambitious goals of the Voting Rights Act and instead rely just on the 14th and 15th Amendments, no small things in and of themselves, but basically discard this notion under section two that people of color and of other immutable characteristics including language
and other things prohibited by the Voting Rights Act, those kinds of things are anachronistic and should no longer be part of our legal analysis of voting and line drawing and gerrymandering.
All those are the things that are so incredibly important in 2025, especially important coming up in 2026, 2028, and for the years to come.
in our nation.
We're going to hear actually from a part of the exchange between the attorney for those people who are advocating to retain Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and you're going to hear from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Katangi Brown Jackson as they're in exchange in communication with the attorney
Testing the merits of this notion that maybe, just maybe, section two should be time limited, that the durational time limit of the Voting Rights Act has come and maybe gone.
And so we'll talk all about Louisiana versus Calais, sometimes called Robinson.
There's a second case there.
And that will occupy a major portion of the first hour of our broadcast this weekend on Amicus Law Review.
Then we necessarily go back and talk, as we always seem to do, about the work of federal
district court judges, and federal appellate court judges as well.
A major thesis of this broadcast has long been.
that it is the federal judges at those lower court levels who are the bastions of liberty, the bastions of supporting a republic, not pushing back on the president or other branches of government because they can, but because it is right to do so, because the Constitution contemplates that, and because Congress has passed laws that the judges of America, especially the federal judges, are obliged to implement and follow and enforce.
We'll talk
about the latest coming out of yes, both Chicago and Portland having to do with that continuing issue of the presence and maybe, maybe the activity, the involvement, the deployment into those cities, those major American cities, Chicago and Portland, of the National Guard.
We'll tell you all about what the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals did just this past week in affirming a lower court judge who had said,
That the deployment of those National Guard forces could not be accomplished even while they could remain in place We'll talk about the 7th Circuit did to affirm that fundamental notion some very important language About whether or not there is truly a rebellion afoot whether there's insurrection whether this is complete dismay and disarray and discord
in the city of Chicago that would justify, under different circumstances, maybe the president's activity, the Seventh Circuit, telling us unequivocally, decisively, that no such thing exists, and therefore the decision by the president to deploy and to attempt to place into the streets of Chicago members of the National Guard is unsupported by the law, unsupported by the Constitution.
We'll also talk about what's going on in Portland.
There, a judge named Karen Immigut that we have spoken about before, she has not only re-upped her lower court order as the world is waiting for the Ninth Circuit to decide on legitimacy, what she has said previously, much like Judge April Perry in Chicago, waiting on the Ninth Circuit sometime soon to issue its dispositive ruling, even though it has said already that it's not going to upset Judge Immigut's basic core ruling.
Again, not having
having the deployment of
National Guard into the city of Portland.
We'll talk about those two significant updates in the rule of law and the likelihood, as promised by the administration already, to appeal those decisions, coming out at least now from the 7th Circuit, maybe from the 9th Circuit, to wear to the United States Supreme Court.
It may well be that on the docket of the Supreme Court, about 33 cases right now pending.
At some point, they may add these issues related to the authority of the president to deploy
the National Guard in major American cities, upon a finding that there is indeed this insurrection, that there is indeed so much calamity, that there is indeed a rebellion afoot in these cities that would justify that kind of action.
That issue may in fact get to the Supreme Court even in this current term as the court begins to entertain issues and challenges before it.
All of that coming up,
here on Amica Solar Review, as are other discussions about decisions of district court judges.
We're gonna go back to Chicago and talk about a decision made by Sarah Ellis.
She is yet another district court judge.
She is talking about how language is important.
She has been trying to tap down the level of animosity, the level of danger, the level of confrontation that has been happening in some areas in the streets.
of Chicago based not upon the National Guard but based upon ICE engagements with the people there.
She will talk there again about the extent to which she has said that we need no longer from ICE and other federal law enforcement to do things that not only animate but aggravate
the disarray there in the streets to some extent in Chicago.
And then we're going to talk about some things that she said recently in which she is identifying ways in which the government, as we have seen in the past, is apparently not following her orders.
We've seen that before.
This is the constitutional crisis about which we have spoken at great length on this broadcast.
From the pen, the words, the voice of District Court Judge Sarah Ellis, also in Northern Illinois, frustration about the failure of the United States government to follow her directives, telling those law enforcement folks to follow the rule of law, to follow her orders, ensuring that there are not be these kinds of confrontations.
And we'll discuss with all of you.
the focus, the meaning, the import of what Judge Sarah Ellis is saying these days, and then also another judge going back out to California, that having to do with a decision by another judge we've heard from her before.
Her name is Susan Ilston, Federal District Court Judge Susan Ilston
entering this order, telling the administration in a completely unrelated or maybe somewhat related area that the president simply cannot fire somewhere around 4,100 federal workers using the present shutdown, the federal budget shutdown as a premise, a predicate for doing just that, saying those things
while related in some distant way.
One does not depend upon the other and that is an it is an exercise of inappropriate authority by the president to fire as he has begun to do some 4100 workers Susan Ilston saying stop it can't do it and the judge there also entering an injunction against the government.
with respect to some union representatives, but also having an impact around the country on federal workers generally.
Finally, necessarily talking about that other portion of the news that is the indictment of John Bolton just this past week, the third in a series of indictments against people who have run afoul of the president.
We'll talk about what the Bolton indictment says, why it is different, different from the Comey and James indictments, and what we can learn about it in connection with the rule of law in America.
My name
is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, Halara
We are now talking once again about the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 60 years, 60 years since President Lyndon Johnson signed off on that major civil rights legislation during the civil rights era in America in the company of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., other major civil rights leaders.
A law passed with bipartisan support back in 1965 to do a number of things related to ensuring that the franchise that voting is permitted and is enforced and supported and given and otherwise protected for all people in America, including people of color and others of immutable characteristics.
Premised upon the 14th and 15th amendments of the Constitution, you know well what the 14th amendment says.
We talk about it a lot here in part.
because of the president's invocation of some first language in the 14th amendment talking about the jurisdiction.
of the United States of America.
That's the predicate for his birthright citizenship order.
But there's another major, major portion of the 14th Amendment.
It's the big portion, actually a number of sections of it, that ensure that the government will not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens, nor deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor any denials to any person.
of equal protection of laws.
That's all 14th Amendment language.
Lots and lots of cases, lots and lots of lawsuits under that.
We tend not to focus nearly as much on the 15th Amendment ratified in 1870.
The 15th Amendment says the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state.
On behalf of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, talking plainly about slavery, all of those 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments passed in the wake of the Civil Civil War.
And so we also have then in 1965, the passage of this landmark United States federal statute that prohibits racial discrimination in voting.
That's the fundamental way of thinking about it.
It joins, of course, things like the Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act, but it has been called, the Warning Rights Act of 65, the Crown Jewel.
and has had tremendous impacts in the 60 years of its existence, its invocation in and outside of courtrooms on ensuring that people have access to the polls, the statistics are clear, and the litigation has been important.
By the end of 1965, a quarter of a million new black voters have been registered, one third by federal examiners.
By the end of 1966, only four out of 13 southern states had fewer than 50%
of African Americans registered to vote, but after its enactment in 1965, the law immediately decreased racial discrimination voting in ways documented by historians, by statisticians, by civil rights folks.
Its impact has been huge since 1965, this past week.
before the United States Supreme Court, the specter that maybe, just maybe, a major portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may no longer be accessible.
Let's talk about what the law says, what is happening now in the United States Supreme Court.
As I said, signed into law by President Johnson in August of 1965, amended five different times, supported over the years,
endorsed over the years by the United States Supreme Court in a number of different cases affirming, affirming the capacity of the Congress to do just this, a major case called South Carolina versus Cassinback, 1966, holding that Congress does in fact have the power under the 14th and 15th Amendments, its enforcement powers to enact this legislation.
The Act, of course, contains numerous provisions.
And that includes significantly, I think called section two, it's the general provision.
It prohibits what?
It prohibits state and local governments from imposing any rule according to the statute that results in the denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color or membership in a language minority group.
Other provisions of the law also prohibit literacy tests, other devices that were historically designed
prevent and to stop voting of racial minorities.
Lact also contains some special provisions that apply only to certain certain jurisdictions and that's where we get to two of the earlier Supreme Court cases that also had a dramatic impact upon the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
You may recall these well.
Shelby County versus Holder.
Yes, that's the Holder.
My former boss, the Attorney General of the United States of America in 2013, the United States Supreme Court struck down in what's called a coverage formula as unconstitutional, basically finding that it was obsolete.
The court did not strike down section five, but it did strike down section four.
And what this was all about was the provision between sections four and five that required that if certain jurisdictions that had a history of engaging in discrimination, if they did that kind of thing, they were required to go to the United States Department of Justice to get permission.
It's called the pre-clearance procedure.
In 2013, the United States Supreme Court strikes that down and shall be
county versus holder, an amazingly written piece of jurisprudence at the pen of the Chief Justice saying, you know what, it's been long enough.
And things have changed since 1965.
And for that reason, we no longer need this particular coverage formula.
And therefore, while the application of the process itself remains in place, the coverage formula itself is too broad, needs to be revised, Congress can do that to this day, hasn't remedied the holder.
case involving Shelby County.
That was strike one back in 2013, limiting the capacity of the Department of Justice to stop.
discriminatory actions, rules, regulations by state and local officials.
There was a second case in 2021, a little bit more recently called Bernovich.
And in that case, the Supreme Court also strikes against the Voting Rights Act, substantially weakening Section 2, ruling that the totality of circumstances, language of Section 2, that is where you examine everything in determining what is happening here, does not prohibit some voting rules that have
disparate impact on groups.
And again, a second strike there, Bernovich versus DNC.
When we come back, I'll tell you more about those cases, and we'll tell you more about Louisiana versus Clay, which will be the third of these cases before the Supreme Court here on Amicus, a law review.
This is Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Santel.
We are talking in this segment and next segment all about this major oral argument before the United States Supreme Court this past Wednesday in a case called Calais sometimes called Robinson coming out of Louisiana.
In the wake and previous years of the Supreme Court, striking down major provisions of the Voting Rights Act section four in Shelby County, the pre-clearance provision, section two, limited dramatically in terms of its impact to change bad voting rules and processes.
That case is Bernovich.
Now we have Calais and will this be the third strike by the Supreme Court to bring the Voting Rights Act to its knees or at least close to that?
Where do we get this case from?
Does come out of
Louisiana, as we have talked about before, comes in the wake of the 2020 census, of course, as we did here in Wisconsin.
Louisiana's legislature adopts a congressional map that included only one majority black district out of six in the state.
even though about a third of the state's population is black.
So what's happened, what happens is a group of black voters go into federal court.
They invoke section two of the voting rights act saying our vote is being diluted, it's being abridged.
And in particular, this particular decision about drawing the lines in this way without two majority black districts,
is an abridgment of the right to vote based on race because of the dilution of the votes of those black residents.
Federal District Court agrees, throws out that map and orders that a second map with a second majority black district be put in place.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds that ruling.
Orders Louisiana to draw that new map by January of 2024 or face the prospect of a trial, the legislature does that.
In response, the legislature then has in 2024 a new set of maps in Louisiana with two majority black districts.
The adoption of what's called SB8, that's the legislation that does that, leads to a lawsuit.
And this lawsuit contesting the creation of those two majority black districts is brought by a group of
voters are self-described as non-African-American voters, they contend that this new map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, following all this, that it's sorted voters based primarily on their race, and that that is in violation of the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, basically that the Constitution provisions about voting supersede Section 2 are in conflict with it, and therefore,
for the directions of the federal court below to create the second majority black district in Louisiana cannot stand.
And most importantly, most importantly, maybe, maybe also the section two can't stand because it's in violation of the Constitution.
And that brings us to the oral argument of this past Wednesday.
What you're going to hear now in just a moment or so is a discussion among Janai Nelson, who's the NAACP Legal Defense Fund lawyer
who's arguing in favor of Section 2, you're also going to hear some questions of her by Associate Justice's Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and then also Katanji Brown Jackson.
Listen to what Justice Kavanaugh says about time limits, durational limits, and whether or not it has come time for the Voting Rights Act, Section 2, to be abandoned.
Listen to what Katanji Brown Jackson says in the other extreme about what Section 2 is meant to do,
remedy in and of itself but a tool.
This happening this past Wednesday here now a portion of the oral argument in Louisiana versus Calais on the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
That was the United States Supreme Court, about seven minutes of oral argument fairly early on in a two-hour oral argument this past Wednesday on the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in America in 2025 and beyond.
Who you heard there principally once again is Janaye Nelson.
She is the lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
You heard Brett Kavanaugh significantly define a portion of the argument
actually overcame many of the other arguments during the course of the discussion.
He said, this court's cases in a variety of contexts have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a long period of time, but they should not be indefinite.
That's Brett Kavanaugh speaking and asks Ms.
Nelson, what exactly do you think the endpoint should be or how would we know for the intentional use of race
to create districts.
How should that end?
When should that happen?
You had Amy Coney Barrett briefly interceding there as well to ask about some issues.
And then you had this at the opposite end of this spectrum, this exchange between Katangi Brown Jackson and Ms.
Nelson, again the attorney for those who want to support Section 2, want to keep those two districts in Louisiana.
Khatange Brown Jackson articulating this notion that Section 2 does not have to go away, that it is a mechanism, it is a remedy, it's a bridge, if you will, it's a tool to accomplish something, but the law itself does not need to go away and should not go away because not only do you have Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act enacted pursuant to the 15th Amendment, but the 15th Amendment itself prescribes equal rights under the law.
in the voting setting.
And so, and so we have in this oral argument, in that seven minute period, a codification of what the Supreme Court is wrestling with right now.
And when we come back, some final comments about this oral argument in Louisiana versus Gale, where the Supreme Court may go, and what it means, what it means for the future of voting in 2026 and beyond in the United States of America.
All of that here on Amicus, a lot of you.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.
This is Amicus.
A lot of you has always, in the remainder of this hour and in the next hour, taking your comments, your questions.
I suspect they're out there in the wake of this.
Very important, historically defining oral argument of this past Wednesday before the United States Supreme Court, our number here at Civic Media 855-752.
4842, what did you hear?
What did you hear in that brief seven minute exchange among the attorney advocating?
Yes, on behalf of those people who believe in the future of the Voting Rights Act in section two, Janae Nelson NAACP arguing that section two has a mechanism to pursue not only problems in connection with voting, but also does not need to be and should not be discarded.
in the midst of this lawsuit coming out of Louisiana.
Louisiana, again, having drawn two majority black districts, being challenged by this group that maintains that that decision, race-based, is in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution that talks about equality, and maintaining that the Voting Rights Act, section two,
is inconsistent with that, and therefore the voting rights act needs to be stricken.
And section two in particular needs to be stricken from the laws of our nation.
What did you hear during the course of that seven minute exchange?
You heard very likely how this case is going to be decided perhaps soon, certainly no later than June of next year, which we will talk about as well.
On the one side, we heard once again, as we have heard before,
This reference to the notion that we no longer need to be focused as we had to in 1965 on race Recall well that in the case of Shelby County versus Holder that was 2013 the Chief Justice himself said You know all of this is based on 40 year old facts that have no logical relationship to the present the time has moved on but
passage of chronology here, and therefore we no longer need these kinds of remedies.
We no longer need these kinds of formulas to address racial discrimination in voting.
And you heard Brett Kavanaugh articulate that admittedly in a very diplomatic way when he said that these
these statues should not be indefinite.
They have to have an endpoint, he said.
What is the endpoint?
How do we know when we've gotten there?
That is going to be one of the central features of whatever the Supreme Court decides here.
with respect to section two at the other extreme you have plainly Katanji Brown Jackson and presumably Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor saying just the opposite that indeed section two is a means to an end it is the mechanism it's a tool it's doing the work if you will of determining whether there is discrimination and if so then the courts need to fashion the remedy it's the remedy itself that may at some point
go out of style, out of fashion, out of time.
But this notion of establishing a time limit, this notion of establishing a time period by which the Voting Rights Act in its very nature is now obsolete,
that it has come to that point in American history that we no longer need this kind of protection.
Catanchee Brown Jackson obviously joined in by Janaye Nelson, arguing for the future of the Voting Rights Act, saying, no, no, no, no, no.
We have many statues out there that can be invoked.
in appropriate circumstances, not every day, not every week, not every year, but they're there to remedy situations.
She talked about the family medal at Kaleevok.
She talked about other employment discrimination statutes.
all of those available in the circumstance where there is discrimination of some kind, and then can be invoked.
Doesn't mean you throw out the statute itself.
That's what Ketanji Brown-Jackson was arguing about and pushing back on this notion of, and here's the concept, temporal or durational limits.
that somehow the Supreme Court is going to say that Section 2 has outlived its usefulness, a durational limit should now be imposed, a temporal limit, a deadline for its removal.
Those are the two competing views, and frankly, throughout the remainder of the two-hour oral argument on Wednesday, that animated much of the discussion.
And here's the rub.
Here's the takeaway from all of this and that is it appeared difficult to say with certainty.
It appeared that a majority of the Supreme Court on Wednesday was inclined to side with Justice Kavanaugh and presumably also
the chief justice in finding that indeed, directional limits require that something be pushed back.
Maybe rescinded entirely section two, maybe, maybe limited in some defining limiting way.
We don't know.
But it appears that the minority, the three, the three justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan and Katanji Brown Jackson will be in the minority arguing for the future of the Voting Rights Act.
Whenever this case is decided, and that brings me to the last point, which is the Supreme Court now has this.
advisement, presumably engaging at some of its decision conferences about what to do on this matter, could issue the opinion on Monday, could issue the opinion in four weeks from Monday, in four months from Monday.
We assume often that in these major cases they will wait until June.
They could, but the other portion of this case is so important is that it could also have a dramatic impact upon the 2026 elections plural, including the November midterms.
And if in
the Supreme Court waits until June to decide, maybe, maybe to amend to discard a major portion of the Voting Rights Act doesn't give states a lot of time to draw new lines, which they could do absent, absent the prohibitions of the Voting Rights Act.
If race is no longer a consideration, states, as they have done in the recent past, even recently will move quickly to redraw lines.
for political purposes, maybe for racial purposes as well, depending upon how they are described, will be given the latitude to do that, but have to have those in place in time for people, candidates to know what the lines look like in anticipation of November of 2026.
Not a lot of time between June and November has to happen very quickly, which leads me to the possibility that this case may well be decided.
may well be decided before June if the Supreme Court does indeed want to give states around the nation that capacity to change the future of voting, change the future of America.
When we come back, we're going to go back to other federal courts, including district courts in the Midwest, out West as Amicus.
A lot of you continues.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel, your host for this remaining hour of our weekend broadcast on all things related to justice and the administration of law in America.
Appropriately devoted all of our first hour to the discussion of this major oral argument of this past week in front of the United States Supreme Court that has before it this huge challenge to the future of the Voting Rights Act Section 2, which is the major implementing piece of the legislation from way back in 1965.
Responsible Section 2 is for ensuring voting access, polling access to
The polls around our nation by people of color, people of language, and prohibiting other forms of discrimination at the polls question before the Supreme Court is whether or not it is outdated.
and people like Brett Kavanaugh, people like the Chief Justice, John Roberts indicating that maybe the time has come for this to sunset, as he said in the case a number of years ago, Shelby County, maybe those concerns back in 1965 are no longer ours.
Mark writes in on our chat box that with the recent revelations of what some young Republicans are chatting about online, it appears that racism is still endemic, still out there is still a part regrettably, horrifically a part of our national consciousness and in some ways our national behavior.
And so Mark obviously taking the position that this notion that somehow
racism, or at least in the way it was in the past, is now a thing of the past is simply a bad argument, not premised upon good law, not premised upon what's going on in America today.
We will continue to monitor, of course, anytime that the Supreme Court
issues its major decision, probably the most significant decision in its docket of this term, could do it as late as June, could do it at any time prior to June again, depending upon how sensitive it may be to the effects of that decision in Calais and Robinson on the possibility of doing more line drawing as late as months before the November election, very, very tight, maybe impossible to do.
but certainly going to have an impact if indeed the Supreme Court says you can no longer consider race when it comes to drawing lines and being concerned about disenfranchising people of color.
If that becomes the law of the state of the land, our republic.
our voting options, the ways in which we elect our representatives have changed dramatically.
And yes indeed, yes indeed, 14th and 15th amendments are still there.
But the enforcement mechanisms, as the attorney for the NAACP said, Congress does and often has enacted things like Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to implement the Constitution.
That's what's going on here, to provide that mechanism, that tool, as Katangi Brown Jackson said, in those instances where discrimination
discrimination is identified, not to say that it's everywhere, but in those places where it does occur and can be supported.
It is not an easy thing to show, as she also notes.
There was a reference in that oral argument to a case called Jingles, which is the case establishing the very high bar that you need to establish in court to show the test for racial discrimination in voting.
That's the Jingles Analysis, the Jingles Test, G-I-N-G-L-E-S.
Not easy to do it.
But because of where we are in America and because of the continuing concern, wherever that may be, wherever it may be, whenever it may come about, the advocacy on the other side for the continuation of section two of the Voting Rights Act could, in fact, go away sometime soon, a major case not only in this docket.
in this term of the Supreme Court, but in recent American history, maybe the third case in the series of three that brings the Voting Rights Act to an end.
Let's talk about other federal judges and revisit some of the concerns, some of the challenges that they have had in connection with, number one, the National Guard, secondarily, the conduct of law enforcement in our cities, and also this notion of firing federal employees in the midst of the shutdown, somewhat unrelated, but yes, related in many ways.
big and small.
Let's begin right here in our own 7th Circuit, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
You may recall well as we have discussed in the past that previously.
Judge April Perry, she is a district court judge in the northern district of Illinois has entered these orders finding, finding no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois.
And so rejecting, rejecting outright with very strong language, looking around saying there's no support for that, that there are no reasons for the deployment of the National Guard.
What happened initially about a weekend ago when we were on the air as the seventh circuit said,
Well, you know what?
We're not going to direct the National Guard to go away, but also they're not to be deployed.
That was the order from the 7th Circuit at that time, sort of to maintain the status quo, to support pretty much what the lower court judge had done.
Maintain that status quo until we have a chance to review this entirely.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has done that since that time, and they have issued their order.
On Thursday,
They decided to continue, yes, continue to block President Trump's deployment of the National Guard in Chicago amid these ongoing protests, some of which have indeed become violent, but allowed those service members to remain under federal control.
And so again, affirming that, but along the way, affirming completely what Judge Perry has said about the lack of any support
Any facts to indicate that indeed a rebellion is afoot this three-judge panel, which is normal, three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit meeting on the 27th floor of the Dirksen Building in downtown Chicago saying unanimously everybody agrees that the facts do not justify the president's actions in Illinois
under the section of federal law that's known as Title X. That's the provision that the president and his advisors, those others in the White House, have invoked to federalize National Guard troops to protect immigration personnel and government facilities as he has described it in Chicago and other places.
He's invoked that, but it's premised upon the notion that there is an insurrection, a rebellion.
and the Seventh Circuit rejects that out of hand.
No lack of clarity whatsoever.
Here's what the Seventh Circuit says.
At this stage, we cannot say the administration is likely to succeed in demonstrating that the president lawfully federalized the guard under the provisions of Title X. The judges in particular, Judge Elena Rovner, David Hamilton, and Amy St.
Eve,
They are a combination, they are a combination of yes, Democratic and Republican appointees, two of them from Republican presidents, one of them from a Democratic president.
Again, we regret the fact that we've got to identify that, but an awful lot of focus is on that notion because the president has made that an issue.
The reality is here, as in so many other cases, we have nonpartisan, apolitical decisions being made by federal judges who happen to be nominated and confirmed by
Presidents and Senates, very different parties, but all saying the same thing.
You don't have the authority to do this, Mr. President.
Again, Title X, which is what the President has invoked, allows the President under appropriate circumstances to call the National Guard into federal service when there is, here is the language, rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the U.S.
government, or if the President is somehow unable, according to the language of the statute,
to in his normal course of business, unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.
Judge Perry had said decisively as we have reported and talked about in the past, neither one of those in place, no indication, no evidence whatsoever in the evidentiary hearing that she had, that there was any showing by the Department of Justice that either of those is the case, there's no rebellion, no incapacity of the president to serve.
as the chief executive of the laws of the United States of America.
And the court goes on to say that the authority invoked under Title X is simply not supported by the facts on the ground, and that the federal facilities somehow have come under coordinated assault by violent groups intent on obstructing federal law enforcement activities.
Seventh Circuit pretty much rejects all of that kind of exposition for justifying it.
Instead, instead,
the courts says that the decision by the Trump administration to try to do this, to effect the conduct of what's going on in the streets of Chicago, simply insufficient evidence of anything to suggest there's a danger that there is a rebellion afoot or that one will likely occur in the city of Chicago.
Here is what they write.
The spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators, they're acknowledging that there have been those instances.
And yes, indeed, there have been them.
There have been instances of violence on the streets of Chicago, but the spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent activities and demonstrations in protest of the federal government's immigration policies and actions
Without more, this is the Court of Appeals writing now, does not give rise to a danger of rebellion against the government's authority.
As to whether Mr. Trump is unable to execute the laws of the United States they write, with regular forces as described in Titles 10, the court says there's insufficient evidence that the demonstrations have tampered the ability.
hampered the ability, anyway affected the ability of federal officers to execute immigration laws.
Federal facilities, the court goes on to say, federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, where there's been an awful lot of focus.
You have seen that on the news.
Federal facilities have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration's immigration policies, and though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities.
That's the word.
That's the definitive word from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Again,
Keeping in place the prohibitions established by April Perry now reaffirmed in very clear language by the 7th Circuit that again the National Guard can remain there but cannot be deployed.
There is no basis to believe that
There is an insurrection that there is a rebellion afoot.
The court plainly, April Perry will have more proceedings.
Indeed, based upon what the Seventh Circuit has just done, she is ordered that her present order, affirmed now by the Seventh Circuit, remains in fact for a number more days.
Scheduled a hearing for October 22nd to determine whether to extend that temporary order, which has been affirmed by the Seventh Circuit, basically turning that into a permanent injunction and permanent finding.
Very likely will do so
but once again, we'll take evidence to see what the situation is in just a few days here in the future.
We'll determine whether or not the circumstances have changed or whether there is support at all, if any, for the notion that there is an insurrection, a rebellion afoot in Chicago.
The second highest court in the land, the seven circuit court of appeals have said, no, that's ridiculous.
Take a look.
We have looked around and there's nothing to support that at all.
So things remain in Chicago as they have been.
We'll get back to something else related to Chicago in just a moment from the pen of Sarah Ellis who has tried even apart from the National Guard to affect the ways in which ICE authorities different from the National Guard are doing their jobs.
We'll get to that in just a moment and her frustrations with the government in terms of apparently not following her directives about how they are to do their jobs in Chicago.
So before we get to that, however, let's go back and turn to one of the other major cities that we've also talked about.
And that, of course, is Portland.
Recall well that Judge Karen Emmergut did something similar there in Oregon.
When we come back, I'll tell you what she did.
I'll tell you what the Ninth Circuit has done or not done recently and what Judge Emmergut has recently done to extend her own order with respect to the National Guard in Portland.
All of that when Amicus, the Law Review, continues.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amica Salaro.
We are talking as we so often do on this broadcast all about federal district court judges imposing injunctions after evidentiary hearings getting witness testimony looking at documents looking at other things presented by lawyers in the adversarial system of the proceedings in their courtrooms and determining in the end in so many ways big small and in between that the president does not have the authority to do what he's doing in this case involving the
National Guard finding unanimously, at least up to now, that there is not an insurrection.
There is not a situation in America and Chicago and Portland that is in the nature of rebellion to justify the entry of the National Guard.
And oh, by the way, the president not impeded, not prevented from enforcing the laws.
of the United States of America.
That is what, that is what the Seventh Circuit of the Court of Appeals here in Chicago, in our circuit, here in our Seventh Circuit has said.
And now we go to Portland out west, where we know well what Judge Karen Emmergut, I-M-M-E-R-G-U-T, has done in the past.
She, like, just like Judge April Perry, has also found
No, no insurrection.
There's no rebellion here to justify the entry of the National Guard.
She has in the past, as you know well, said that there was some sporadic evidence in Portland, but any evidence demonstrating that those episodes of violence were part of an organized attempt to overthrow the government in a rebellion type mode simply doesn't exist.
Therefore, National Guard do not go in.
That has been her order.
As you know, the
President, the administration appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Ninth Circuit ruled, as we reported last weekend, that Oregon National Guard members could stay under federal control until they issued a broader ruling, but they left in place.
Judge Emberg gets a temporary order that barred the troops from being deployed.
At the hearing, as we know well, that panel of the Ninth Circuit seemed to take very seriously the arguments by the administration that the deployment would be legal.
And they questioned Judge Emmergut's conclusion that a military presence was not needed.
We'll see what the Ninth Circuit does with all of that, but that's the status of things in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, even as Judge Emmergut, based upon what the Ninth Circuit has done up to this point, has also done something else, just like the Judge April Perry has done in Northern Illinois.
She has extended her previous orders, preventing
the administration preventing the president from sending National Guard into Portland, Oregon.
Judge Imragat on Wednesday extending two temporary restraining orders that would have expired very soon.
The extension applies for another 14 days.
Case scheduled for trial.
Again, more evidentiary hearings at the end of this month on October 29th.
The judge once again writing, this is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.
and justifying her decision to extend this injunctive action until that time.
Emmergut had ruled that deference is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground and indicating that the president's idea of the situation in Portland was simply untethered to the facts.
All that coming out from Judge Emmergut as she extends the injunctive action with respect to the National Guard there in Portland.
And again, all of this a part of a linguistic interpretation, which is important, but also as both judges, at least one court of appeals have set up to now premised upon the facts.
And that is to be underscored.
These are not judges who are simply responding, need your analysis to a petition put in front of them and entering an order.
They're having evidentiary hearings and they're hearing about, they're learning about, they're seeing what's going on in the streets.
You have also
seen some of the various memes and videos posted indicating in a humorous way the mayhem, the rebellion, the insurrection that's going on in Chicago and in Portland, obviously just the opposite, including one by the mayor of those cities and the governor of the state of Illinois.
ridiculing the notion that there is a rebellion afoot in Illinois.
Those things meant to underscore in a silly but humorous way, but nonetheless very serious way, the notion that the factual predicates for national guard intervention are simply not there.
And that has a legal implication and also a practical implication of what happens in the streets of America.
in the same streets of America, going back, going back to the city of Chicago, bouncing around our nation in this second segment of Amicus, a lot of you.
Let's go back and talk about what is going on in the streets and the work and the activities of another judge.
Her name is Sarah Ellis, E-L-L-I-S.
She once again, like, like Judge Perry.
She's a federal district court judge in the Northern District of Illinois.
And she
has been wrestling with the behavior the conduct of federal agents on the streets of Chicago and not National Guard federal agents you have seen a lot of this in the videos.
Ellis issued a temporary restraining order.
Several days ago, last week, after a coalition, a group of people, their principally journalists and some protesters got together, sued in federal court, brought a civil complaint into her court, saying that federal law enforcement agents were targeting people engaging in peaceful activity.
And that included, they identified themselves, including multiple reporters who said that they had pepper balls fired on them despite being identified as the press.
And the court, that is Judge Ellis, in the wake of that, entered certain orders saying, you've got to behave.
You can engage in law enforcement, legitimate law enforcement, pursuant to the regular practices and procedures that we know well in America.
But she required, among other things, all agents to wear cameras.
She agreed that some flexibility was required.
but has required that the law enforcement officers of the federal government need to follow the rules.
They need to be very mindful about the ways in which they engage with the public, can't use tear gas indiscriminately, can't drive cars into crowds, can't do other things that are not consistent with law enforcement America.
When I come back, we'll talk more about what Judge Sarah Ellis has said to the government.
Languages once again important and what's going on in Chicago here on Amicus a lot of you This is Amicus a lot of you on the broadcast stations of civic media.
My name is Jim Santel focusing on these various decisions by federal district court judges and appellate court judges Responding to the initiatives the attempts the movements of this administration to place yes in one area
the focus on National Guard, premised upon the ridiculous notion there are insurrections and there are rebellions afoot in major American cities.
The judge is rejecting that to this time.
And then we also have district court judge Sarah Ellis.
She is a district court judge, a trial court judge in the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.
And she is wrestling with a related but somewhat separate issue, which is what do we do about all of this violence in
some areas in Chicago.
being accomplished at the hands of the initiative of federal law enforcement agencies.
And what she does is she responds after some journalists and some protesters claim that the federal law enforcement agencies there are targeting people involved in peaceful activity, doing things of a violent nature.
Multiple reporters said they were subject to pepper balls, fired on them, other things going on.
And initially, she says, that is the judge, says that
Federal agents cannot target journalists who are not interfering with them, cannot simply shoot pepper balls, other things at them with the structs, their particular work, their mission as journalists.
She also says federal agents are prohibited from using tear gas and less lethal munitions on anyone who does not impose an immediate threat to safety.
In other words, stand down.
You can keep things safe and secure,
law enforcement knows how to do that, they're trained how to do that, but you can't be an aggressor in this area.
And she went on to say that the issue is that the Department of Homeland Security, using force in a manner that violates the constitutional rights of peaceful protesters, journalists, and essentially clergy members.
that all from the pen of Sarah Ellis.
Now it gets more complicated and much more troubling because at a hearing of just this past week, Judge Ellis takes the bench and she says this, words that no one wants to hear from a federal judge before whom you are appearing.
She says, I'm not happy.
She says, I'm really not happy.
One week after she issues a sweeping order trying to calm these intense responses of federal agents to these protests against ICE enforcement and Border Patrol activities in Chicago, the judge tells both sides to come back to her courtroom for our own intensive discussion.
She says this, she says, I live in Chicago.
If folks haven't noticed and I'm not blind, right?
So I don't live in a cave.
I have a phone.
I have a TV.
I have a computer and I tend to get news.
She goes on to say once again, Judge Sarah Ellis, that news reports were leading to believe that the Trump administration is not following her instructions.
Gosh, have we seen that before?
The answer is yes.
Is this a situation where once again,
in the context of the continuing constitutional crisis that we are in, we've got one branch of government simply looking at another one and saying, no, we're not doing that.
The judge says, from what I'm seeing, I'm having serious concerns that my orders are not being followed.
She's announcing that she is expanding her restraining order.
We're acquiring all federal agents who are part of this Operation Midway Blitz.
who have body cameras to have them on during encounters with protesters.
That's a part of her initial and expanded order as well.
Partner Justice still is opposing her on that, and she is going on to say that she is upset.
by what she is seeing in the wake of the directives that she has issued to stop this kind of confrontational aggressive movements of federal law enforcement officers.
She says this, there's a reason the Chicago police department has policies about car chases and where they occur and where they need to stop.
She suggests, of course, that this situation resulting from border patrol agents using tactics not appropriate.
under traditional law enforcement means, including of the Chicago Police Department.
She says this, and here's the great lesson coming out of Judge Ellis' courtroom just this past week.
We're not on the border, she says.
We are in an urban, densely populated area where crowds are going to converge when there's a commotion.
Where appropriate crowd control is important, she acknowledges that.
Trying to apprehend and detain people is very, very different when you're in an urban setting than when you're out there on the border.
She is upset.
She is not happy, as she says, on the record to the parties in this case, and she's not happy with the government.
She has demanded that an ice field director appear in her court.
As she said, to explain to me why I am seeing images of tear gas being deployed and reading reports that there were no warnings given before it was deployed out in the field, unclear whether that representative, that ice field director, will appear in her court.
Basically, this is what's called an order to show cause, why contempt should not be found.
She is not happy.
That is an understatement, a diplomatic understatement of hers.
statue right now, her position on this, and it is significant again in two ways, which is, once again, the courts are trying to maintain this balance between legitimate law enforcement, which there is, law enforcement that does have the obligation, yes, to keep us safe and secure in service to us, but to do it consistent with the policies and practices that have been a part of our traditions in America for decades long.
And even beyond that, we train all the time, state, local, federal law enforcement officers, about accomplishing that balance.
Is it easy?
No, not at all.
Because sometimes very important decisions, snap decisions, need to be made in the midst of the commotion that the judge is talking about.
Sometimes, most often, those decisions can be justified, but sometimes they're wrong.
And afterwards, there is analysis about those and hopefully remedies to them.
What the judge is
saying, when you're going in from the start and doing the very things that I've directed you not to do with tear gas and driving cars into crowds and not wearing body cameras, when I've told you to do just that, that is of a different piece.
And that is what she is upset about.
It is significant as well.
Another rule of law issue here in the courtroom of Sarah Ellis.
This administration through the ICE authorities and through the federal government apparently saying, no, no, we're not doing that, Judge.
That's the constitutional crisis that we have been in since mid-March of this year that continues to grow and to be illustrated on a regular basis.
There is another case, yet another one involving yet another federal district court judge.
And it does not, in this instance, have to do with violence or law enforcement on the streets of America.
Instead, it has to do with the shutdown.
Day 18, going into day 19 soon of the federal shutdown, as I have commented before, one of the basic things that we need to anticipate, need to expect of our representatives, Republicans and Democrats both.
The most fundamental thing is to keep the government in operation.
during the long period of time that I served as an assistant U.S.
attorney and then a U.S.
attorney, one of the great challenges was keeping the operations locally.
up and running in law enforcement, in prosecution, in civil litigation, the criminal, the civil cases that we do, investigations going on on behalf of whom, the people of the Eastern District of Wisconsin and beyond, keeping that operational when you're sending people home who have the responsibility to do just that.
That is a default by our United States Congress, the House of Representatives, United States Senate, and yes, indeed, the President.
And we can point fingers at politics and describe the reason
and it's important to understand the reasons why, but the upshot is that government is failing us right now in doing what it's most fundamentally supposed to do.
That's James Madison saying you put a budget together and you keep us operational.
In the midst of that, because of the problems as we go in today's 18 and 19 here, the president taking advantage of that situation in ways that are also unconstitutional and inappropriate and illegal.
that some 4,100 workers, perhaps more, are being laid off because of what?
Because of the...
suspension in budgeting because of the suspension in the federal budget, the fact that we do not have a budget, that's how he describes it.
But in fact, those two things as another judge, Susan Ilston, we've heard from her before, she's in California as well.
She's in San Francisco has said that these things are for the most part unrelated and you can't do them.
Federal Judge Susan Ilston, just this past week, ordering the Trump administration once again to stop doing what you're doing.
There's no legal, no
constitutional basis for pursuing the layoffs of about 4,100 federal employees during the government shutdown.
Susan Ilston saying this during a hearing on Wednesday, once again, evidence presented to her witnesses, evidence in front of her said that she was granting a request from unions, unions representing federal workers for an emergency order pausing the layoffs that began about a week or so ago.
The judge says this, as of right now,
The temporary restraining order that I am ordering is in effect the order she said bars the administration bars Donald Trump bars this administration
From now, from moving ahead with layoff plans for members of several unions that sued over these plans announced by the president, announced by the White House, or issuing any new layoff notices for those unions members.
It will remain in effect while the union's legal challenge plays out.
The unions, the groups that got together to bring this lawsuit in front of Judge Ellis,
had said that the government is unlawfully using the lapse in funding as justification for the layoffs that the one does not correlate to the other.
And Ilston said she saw evidence suggesting the administration was indeed consistent with that disconnect that she had seen evidence that the administration had taken advantage, her words, of the lapse in government spending, in government functioning to assume that all bets are off.
that the laws simply don't apply to them anymore.
She went on to say that she believed that the plan layoffs were impermissible in part, and we have seen this from the words of the president himself, because as she said, she made the finding based upon her evidence in front of her, that they're politically motivated, politically motivated.
Presidents talked about Democrat programs and things that are partisan in nature and targeting
Democrats in particular.
She pointed to statements by the president saying just that, that officials are targeting programs
and agencies favored by Democrats.
Now, you'd like to think that those programs and policies that are in place, they're passed by Congress, majorities in Congress recently and in years past, decades past, by in most instances, some bipartisan coalitions, the president once again politicizing even this and deciding to, what, punish
employees in the federal service civil servants who do not day in and day out bring to their important jobs a partisan perspective they leave those at home in their cars at the door nonetheless invoking some partisan views about the fact that there are democrat programs democrat initiatives democrats who want these things done therefore i'm punishing them
by terminating employments here.
It is the latest instance of his politicizing his actions there.
And again, Judge Elliston there in California having none of it.
And saying, it is the politics that infuses what's going on being trumpeted out loud in this case.
Political motivation cannot be a part of this.
And she adds, these activities are being undertaken
Contrary to the laws, you're acting in violation of the law, Mr. President, and they do in fact have governing force here.
That's what Judge Susan Ilston has said this past week.
Undeniably, that's going to be taken up once again to the appeals court.
More of that litigation in the future.
We come back for our final segment.
Some comments upon the recent indictment of John Bolton and the ways in which it's different from some others that are out there.
All of that when Amicus Law Review continues.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a lot of you in the final segment of our weekend broadcast, focusing now upon one of the other major rule of law stories, justice administration stories of the week.
That is the indictment by a federal grand jury of former national security advisor, John Bolton, no longer in government for a long period of time.
But the national security advisor in the, in Donald Trump's first term, became one of his most outspoken critics, and that's an important issue.
He was indict-
just this past week by a federal grand jury in Maryland, in Maryland, based upon the fact that the charges, that is including retention of documents at his home there in Maryland, the indictment against John Bolton, 18 counts, an extensive indictment, accuses him of using his personal email and a messaging app to share about 1,000 pages of what are called diary notes.
about his day-to-day activities as Donald Trump's National Security Advisor way back in 2018 and 2019.
The notes, which according to this very extensive indictment, were sent to two family members who did not have security clearances and they included apparently national defense information, details about things were classified as top secret,
The allegations again go on to note that they were not identified, that two members of the family were not identified, but plainly, plainly indicating, according to the indictment,
that John Bolton understood the nature of what he is doing when he's sending these on.
One entry begins, the intel brief first said, while in the situation room I learned, all of that indicating that he is disclosing things that are of national securities in nature, and also indicating in exchanges with his family members that they're using the app.
and they're supposed to be involved with encryption, supposed to be not talking about things.
One of the recipients wrote back, shh.
All of this indicating that they knew that these pieces of information were not to be disclosed lots and lots of information in the allegations in that omnibus indictment 18 counts using personal email messaging and Also also engaging plainly the theme will be some violations of our national security lots of accounts inside What is in many ways a talking indictment with respect to John Bolton you recall?
Well
We talked about this earlier that he was previously the subject of an FBI search as Marilyn Holm in August.
They removed computer files and documents and papers, not at all surprising that in the wake of that.
Probably a lot of that, the basis for the grand jury indictment now.
Significantly, significantly this one, this one appears to follow some normal department channels.
We know the investigation was initiated during the Biden administration.
It was not pursued at that time.
But we know that Kelly Hayes was the US Attorney in Maryland, among the career prosecutors here who reviewed this, signed off on the charges in conjunction with Justice Department's National Security Division.
It is unlike those other investigations, those other prosecutions involving James Comey and Letitia James that are out there where the investigations lead to indictments only after the career people, the people who are doing these investigations decide they can't indict, they cannot seek charges from the grand jury and they leave or they're departed.
Here you've got some legitimacy in the process.
And for that reason, while we are always quick to note that any defendant,
John Bolton is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury.
He has pleaded not guilty just just this past late this past week.
The reality is that that regularity underscores the problem here with what the president has done in the wake of this indictment.
The president has said oh he's a bad guy about John Bolton.
He has celebrated the fact
in the wake of his incredible criticism of John Bolton.
And to be fair, John Bolton has focused on the president as well, criticized him in a book.
scathing allegations about the president, the president returns those in kind, and the president says, well, that's the way it goes.
All those statements, once again, indicating that the John Bolton indictment partakes of two things, two things.
One is entirely possible, maybe even likely, that the probable cause set forth in this indictment is valid.
It may well be, we don't know, that a jury will find that John Bolton is guilty of these violations of retaining these classified pieces of information, national security information, sending them on as a part of his work on a book, exchanging them, sending them to family members.
That's a violation of the law, and if it's true, it stands on its own, and he should be convicted of that, again, assuming that there's sufficient evidence for that.
At the same time, and this is the problem, this is the problem,
The problem is that he's also on the list of the president's enemies.
And when the president identifies anyone as an adversary, an enemy of his, it raises the specter of a vindictive prosecution.
We know that Letitia James, we know that James Comey, and now, now also.
John Bolton will raise the specter that this is not a real prosecution, not based upon facts, but instead like those others based upon vindictiveness.
This is retribution in action.
And the problem with what the president has done in speaking aloud about all of these people is both of those things could be true.
John Bolton could be in fact guilty of these offense conduct behaviors described in the indictment and also an adversary.
And for that reason, that reason underscoring the inappropriate nature of the president's talking about any of these people, and therefore potentially compromising the very investigation, maybe a legitimate investigation, legitimate charges against someone that the president would like to see convicted.
That is the jumble.
That's the mess caused by what the president has done in all of these cases.
the cases involving Letitia James and James Comey and John Bolton.
They are different in nature and John Bolton's case partakes of both some legitimacy and both some illegitimacy.
It is up to a federal district court judge to sort that out as that case goes ahead, as the evidence is exchanged between the prosecution and the defense.
And as this problem, this problem continues in the
destruction of the wall between the Department of Justice and the White House.
We'll talk more about the Bolton indictment and other things in the rule of law in our nation next weekend on Amicus, a lot of you.
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.
