Transcript
The State of the Judiciary Amid The Federal Shutdown
Amicus: A Law Review · Sat Nov 1, 2025
Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel, Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant new stories in the areas of law, government, courts, and the aspiration for justice.
And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.
This is amicus a law review our weekly weekend review our analysis a reporting on those major stories in the area of government operation rule of law administration of justice all of those things that animate and make real our lives and our livelihoods here in the United States of America I am as always honored and delighted that you have chosen to spend some portion of your precious weekend hours in discussion with me a
about these and related issues here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
As always, this weekend, you can be a part of that discussion by calling in.
That number is 855-752-4842.
You can call, you can text, or you can use the Civic Media app.
to call, text, or send a voice note, be a part of our discussion, or part of our presentation, or reporting our examination of all of these major issues in the area of rule of law, and yes, indeed, as always, we have got a lot of them on this, our weekend broadcast.
Let me tell you a bit about what is on our ambitious, but yet achievable agenda for this broadcast, this installment of Amicus, a lot of you.
We are going to begin necessarily
with another installment of our recurring aspect of our show called Injunction Function, and that is the work of federal district courts around the country in joining various actions, compelling various actions of the government when it comes to the operation of the Constitution, of statutes of laws in our nation.
We are going to be going from Rhode Island to the District of Columbia to San Francisco to Chicago
other places around the country including Massachusetts all of those are places where federal district court judges just this past week have entered major orders that decide on major challenges major issues pending in our time we'll talk about all of those and yes indeed they do include everything from the top of the list those issues grabbing the headlines this weekend having to do with snap funds food for America
America, keeping Americans alive and fed.
We'll talk about what two federal district court judges did late this past week, but we're also going to go back to Chicago and talk about what a judge has done there, what an appeals court has done there with respect to the court's interaction with a major.
presence on the streets of Chicago.
That is the border patrol and individual in particular responsible for the ICE and other federal operations.
We'll talk about that engagement.
We'll talk about what another judge in San Francisco, that is the Northern District of California has done with respect to confirming, reaffirming her position that the government's attempt, the administration's attempt to fire about 4,100, 4,100
employees of the federal government.
Civil servants cannot go forward.
Unconstitutional, illegal.
We'll talk about that as well.
We're also going to talk necessarily again about voting in America.
an issue that you may have not noted falling somewhat under the major headlines of late this past week and that is a federal district court judge in the District of Columbia slapping down the president's attempt to become involved in the trappings of how we vote and in particular voter identification and the notion of citizenship when it comes to polling in America.
A major decision coming out of a district court judge in the District of Columbia just late this past week.
It is a lot.
We're going to span all
the country addressing once again the function of federal district court judges and joining which can be both stopping but also guaranteeing and ensuring and requiring action the injunctions of these federal district court judges around the country animating once again our day-to-day lives affecting things large and in between virtually none of these is a small matter all of them all of them in the broad ambit
the rule of law and the ways in which, once again, our federal judiciary, our district court judges, to some extent, our appellate court judges as well are the Bastions.
They're the guardrails who are the bulwarks these days against the autonomy, the authoritarian government that is in place from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue addressing, addressing in major ways these attempts by the Department of Justice, by your government to under
mind the connection between the people.
and justice in our nation.
We'll talk about, once again, the constitutional crisis that comes from that lack of confidence that the people have in our government, and in particular, the recurring decision by the Department of Justice to say no, to tell federal district court judges, we're not going to do that, or at least to dissemble, to lie, to misrepresent things that are going on, and we're going to begin with a story about all of that in just a moment or so.
We are necessary
going to turn once again to those major prosecutions in America that underscore not only the constitutional crisis, but the authoritarian nature of the government in which we are now living.
That is the prosecutions
of Letitia James and also James Comey.
We'll talk about some major updates in those cases going not so much to the authority of the U.S.
Attorney to prosecute, although that issue in both cases is still pending.
Not so much, not so much to the issue about whether or not the cases themselves must necessarily be dismissed because of that concept that we have talked about a lot called vindictive prosecution that is not based
based upon the facts, but based upon an animus that this President and this Attorney General and this Department of Justice have toward particular people on the so-called enemies adversaries list of this President, those things are still pending just this past week more.
more damage to these lawsuits by virtue of motions and positions and revelations made about the lack of merit in at least two of these.
We'll talk about why it is the Latisha James prosecution is almost certainly doomed on the substance of it and likewise talk about how the prosecution of James Comey likewise undermined as well by the clear lack of precision in the indictment things raised by James Comey and
his attorneys just this past week attacking the substance of those cases as they go forward there in eastern Virginia.
And then anticipating, anticipating some of the major news of this coming week, and that is, yes, the Supreme Court, your United States Supreme Court, nine justices back on the bench this coming week.
They're going to be entertaining five different cases, actually six.
two of them consolidated into one major oral argument on Wednesday, November 5th, calling your attention to calendaring, depending upon what you're doing, your jobs, your lives, your families, your other commitments during the course of the week.
on Wednesday, one of the most significant oral arguments of recent time taking place, that having to do with tariffs and whether or not the nine months that we have experienced in which our president has been negotiating, rescinding, imposing, withdrawing tariffs is at all constitutional.
We know from previous courts to major courts, lower courts that deal with trade and commerce and these kinds of things all the time, both of them have declared unequivocally
decisively that this president is engaged in unconstitutional behavior by working in this area without the involvement of the branch of government established by the Congress, by the Constitution to work on these areas, these tariff issues, and that of course is the House of Representatives, the United States Senate as well.
It is the legislative branch.
according to our Constitution, written by James Madison, that is the place where tariffs and like issues are resolved and addressed, not without the involvement of the presidency, but not in this way.
This coming Wednesday, our United States Supreme Court, in one of the cases that will test the extent to which this Supreme Court
We'll continue to give this president basically carte blanche to do what he wants to do, notwithstanding the law, notwithstanding congressional mandates, notwithstanding the Constitution.
Will they go this far and give the president the capacity without the Congress?
absenting the Congress from this involvement when it comes to tariffs.
We'll talk about in detail that case, where it comes from, what the arguments are that you're going to be hearing about, what the merits and demerits are of both sides, and then also talk about very briefly the other four cases pending before the Supreme Court, also the subjects of oral arguments this coming Monday and Tuesday, a lot of activity going on there on Capitol.
Hill, not inside the Congress, as we know, which continues not to be in operation this coming week.
Neither House of the Congress, the Senate, has been sent home.
The House entering now is sixth week of absence from any legislative involvement, that by design of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Beyond that, of course, as we have talked in great detail, we have got a very active Supreme Court that seems to grant the president carte blanche authority
to do what he wants to do in all of these many areas.
And we've got a president that in the midst of a legislature that does not act, that does not take up the
work of the people of the United States of America, a president that is legislating from the West Wing, from the Oval Office, issuing all of these executive orders, all of these mandates that under normal circumstances in normal times would be within the purview of the legislature itself.
And that, of course, is not only, once again, a reflection of the constitutional crisis that we have been in since mid-March, but also of the authoritarian government that we have been in since September 25th.
That's the date on which the president began to prosecute his political enemies and change forever, at least during this term, as we go forward, the dynamics between the people and the presidency, the people, and the government of the United States of America.
All of that is a lot, as we often say.
But again, you can be a part of that by calling or texting into 855-752-4842.
You can also use our civic media app.
to call, to text or to send a voice note to Max and me will be taking your questions, your inquiries during the course of this weekend's broadcast.
We are beginning, however, necessarily once again with the United States Department of Justice.
Let's go back to Portland.
You recall that reporting that we have done as have virtually every other major news outlet about what's going on there and the decisions
earlier by a district court judge there named Karen Imergut to tell the president that he cannot fact invoke cannot deploy the National Guard in Portland that this is not an insurrection.
There's no rebellion going on that we justify that under the language of the law, the constitution, the statutes that apply to this.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned that decision at least in principle part and said that in fact while the
National Guard should not go into Portland.
Their presence there is not illegal.
basically reversing a major portion of what Karen Immergut had done, interestingly, very much opposed to what the 7th Circuit has done in Chicago, that case coming out of the District Court of April Perry, who had made a similar decision with respect to what's going on in Chicago and the National Guard.
That matter, that matter affirmed by the 7th Circuit now before the Supreme Court.
But while all of that is going on and yes indeed once again, it is a lot to keep track of we know about something else that happened just this past week having to do with the record before the Ninth Circuit recall once again the Ninth Circuit the Ninth Circuit this this appellate panel that had said that indeed there's something to the president's arguments about the presence the deployment of the National Guard there well it turns out that much of what the Department of Justice said to the Ninth Circuit upon which it
Thomas' decision was wrong, was misleading, mistaken, arguably a lie.
When we come back, I'll tell you about exactly why that's so important, about why it should prop the Ninth Circuit to revisit its decision on this issue.
All of that coming up in this edition of Amicus, a lot of you, on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a lot of you on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
Once again, on my behalf, on Max's behalf, we thank you for being a part of our discussion this weekend.
And once again, we've got lots and lots of things to talk about.
We're gonna begin with the Department of Justice, a continuing theme on this and other broadcasts on Civic Media.
This notion that as a part of the constitutional crisis in which we are in right now, we have a Department of Justice, lawyers.
were paid by your tax dollars going into court either not being honest with the court, not responding to the court, in some cases overtly misstating things to the court, lying things to the federal courts of this land.
not only in contravention, in opposition to their oath of office, but also undermining the very administration of justice, upon which decisions are routinely made, and so we've got an instance of that once again in a matter involving nothing less than the authority.
of the National Guard to be in and be active in the city of Portland, Oregon.
Here we go.
The Department of Justice this past week has admitted that it misled, that may be a diplomatic way of describing this, federal judges and their federal appellate court judges in the Ninth Circuit about the size of the security surge in Portland.
And that particular misrepresentation, whether it was intentional, probably so, or not, maybe not,
has a dramatic effect upon what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did with respect to the authority of this president to send the National Guard into Portland.
Government lawyers this past week acknowledging that they materially, substantively, graphically overstated how many federal protective service officers had been diverted to Portland.
telling the court that they deeply regret those errors and stressing their obligation, you bet your obligation, to provide the court with accurate and up-to-date information.
It is good to hear us to hear that coming from federal lawyers in the courts.
It is a bit belated, a bit late in this instance, because this is a significant misrepresentation.
Why?
This is the reason why this is not just about numbers, a collateral issue.
It goes right to the decision by the Ninth Circuit to support the presence and perhaps even the activity of the National Guard in Portland.
Because when that Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel.
cleared the way for federalizing about 200 guard soldiers.
That happened about 12 days ago.
The majority of that panel relied upon, they depended upon the accuracy of the Department of Justice's claim that about a quarter of the federal protective service personnel had been pulled from around the country to reinforce the Portland authorities.
A sign, why is that significant?
That's a sign once again of some serious stress, some strain on federal
resources, and that, therefore, was the reason in part for the Ninth Circuit to justify the presence and the movement of the National Guard.
Reporting and court records now show, as the government has now gone back into court and said, I'm sorry, we goofed, we aired, we misled you, those records now show that the real figure was far lower, about 13.1%.
and that at any given time, any selective time in the course of recent days and weeks, only about 20 to 30 FPS officers were actually in Portland, not the 115.
Yes, I'll say that number again, 115 that were previously asserted by government lawyers on your behalf, representing you and the United States of America.
Department has called that discrepancy a material factual error.
You bet it is.
It's a big deal because it was based upon that once again, that the court of appeals said.
will permit this to go forward.
The admission matters in a big way.
The accuracy of that was the administration's best argument in support of the National Guard being there.
The panel majority, these three judges who looked at this, accepted, relied upon that information that federal resources were tapped out.
couldn't find anybody else to handle this, and they cited the alleged nationwide drain on federal protective service officers staffing to do what to justify deference.
We're going to go along with the president's decision.
If you are strained, therefore you can do this.
Turns out that representation not real.
By contrast, the dissent, and we talked about the dissent among one member of that panel, she warned that the ruling erodes court constitutional principles
It turns out she was right.
Including, including she talked about the state control of militias and the public's right to protest, with the numbers now reduced to a fraction of what the Department of Justice first told that federal panel that deference should no longer be present.
And there are an awful lot of people, including me, who would say the government's own correction now requires the Ninth Circuit to go back, even as it determines whether to have this en banc hearing, this review of the three judge panel, requires them to go back and determine whether this narrative plainly flawed about the required military backup that was needed, that that requires that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reverse, rescind, amend.
Choose your verb.
Go back and change this order.
Why?
Because it was premised upon misrepresentation.
Again, a charitable way of describing what the Department of Justice has done in this matter.
The Ninth Circuit will decide again soon whether to grant a full re-hearing.
That's the en banc proceeding with about 11 of the judges altogether.
And if it does, then plainly this decision, this revelation about the
in validity of the previous decision will loom large.
Why?
Because the Department of Justice once again went into court, arguably made things up.
and told them to a federal district court, a district court, and a federal appellate court, and now the revelation of the deception made clear.
A couple of other things to note about the Department of Justice, and that is that the federal district court judge, his name is Waverly Crenshaw, who's presiding over Kilmar-Abrego-Garcia's criminal case there in Nashville, has also this week admonished both Christine Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General for
statements that they have been making recently about Kilmar-Abrego Garcia in the public domain.
He has admonished them that their statements in the public domain are contrary to the rules that he has established, contrary to the interests of justice, that coming out of the Nashville court.
And when we come back, we'll talk not only more about the Department of Justice this past week, but also, also those major decisions when it comes to the injunctive functions of federal
district courts around the nation.
Stay with us for all of that here on Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a lot of you on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
We are beginning our weekend broadcast this time around by talking a bit about the U.S.
Department of Justice once again.
It's misbehavior, it's misconduct in federal district and appeals courts around the country.
Not only these representations made wrongly by your Department of Justice to support a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
having to do with whether or not the National Guard should be in or out of Portland.
Also some concerns about another issue that we have not chatted about a lot recently, and that is the continuing criminal prosecution of Kilmer Abraigo Garcia, you recall well.
He's a Salvadoran native who was illegally deported.
Administrative error there once again by your government to deport him from the United States among those 238 people deported from this nation back in March, brought back.
by the Attorney General after a grand jury indictment against him for immigrant smuggling charges.
That case still pending as is the matter involving him's immigration status.
The civil immigration case pending before Paula Zinnis in Maryland.
We have talked a lot about her.
Again, one of the federal district court judges holding the line, representing justice and representing the rule of law in America.
Just this past week, some additional
things coming out of the courtroom of Waverly Crenshaw.
He is the federal district court judge in Memphis, Tennessee.
Another federal judge, another federal district, and he is the one who's presiding over those criminal charges.
Not the immigration matter in particular, but the
federal immigrant smuggling charges brought by the Department of Justice.
And along the way, the judge has established a rule.
He has said that because this matter is getting so much local and especially national attention, I don't want the parties or the representatives out there speaking about this in the public domain.
You speak in court.
You can speak through your pleadings, which all the attorneys and the parties can do, but nothing more public than that.
And he has chastised major representatives.
of the administration just this past week for violating that order.
He has said that Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, has declared
that the defendant is an MS-13 gang member, a human trafficker, a serial domestic abuser, and a child predator.
All of that, according to the judge, in overt violation of his role, not to be saying things like that in the public domain.
Why?
Because it taints the jury.
It compromises the system that he is responsible for insuring.
And then he went on to talk about the attorney general herself.
Her name is Pam Bondi and said that she too has
violated the rules of the court.
This is no small thing.
She runs a foul of the rule by stating that Abraigo Garcia played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring, that that was his full-time job, not a contractor, that he was a smuggler of humans and children and women, things not described in the indictment, and that he made over 100 trips.
All of those things outside of the courtroom, all of those things in violation.
of the judge's admonition not to be talking about this at all and laying down the rule once again as proceedings.
Renew this past this coming week following up on past proceedings about what happens next in the criminal trial of a break of Garcia Already his attorneys are waving the red the flag here saying that not only are these statements tainting the jury making it impossible for the defendant to get a fair trial when the pool of prospective jurors is sullied is damaged if you will by these representations made by the
attorney general by the secretary about how bad a person this is, and about how he is already effectively convicted for these crimes.
That is not our system in America, and that's what the judge is concerned about.
Defense counsel also, again, waving this flag, saying, Judge, not only is this inappropriate, it undermines the capacity of our client to get a fair trial.
Dismiss this case because it too, like those other more recent prosecutions involving people
like James Comey and Letitia James is also the result of a vindictive animus by the Attorney General, by this President, to get Mr. Abrego Garcia inappropriately.
That is all happening in Nashville.
Coming up this week, more criminal proceedings with respect to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, even as Paula Zinnis continues to wrestle with the immigration issues back there in her court in Maryland.
A final comment about the Department of Justice this past week, this one having to do with the decision to put two prosecutors on leave, likely anticipating their out and out firing by the Deputy Attorney General.
After they signed documents that describe the January 6th event,
as a mob of rioters, Justice Department placing two prosecutors on leave in connection with a case involving a fellow named Taylor Taranto, T-A-R-A-N-T-O.
He was pardoned by President Trump on Capitol riot charges, but he was later convicted of live streaming a bomb threat.
That's right, he was arrested in 2023, live streaming himself driving around Barack Obama's DC neighborhood while he was armed.
And along the way,
And filing in connection with that subsequent prosecution of Mr. Toronto, the attorneys for the government accurately say that Mr. Toronto's previous charges, the subject of the pardon against him, in favor of him, charges against them previously brought by the Department of Justice, they describe the events of January 6th.
They wrote the thousands of people comprising a mob of rioters attacked the U.S.
Capitol.
That's an accurate
statement, not only based upon what judges have said, reporters have said, basically anyone who's looked at what happened on January 6 would regard that as an accurate statement.
It is actually somewhat collateral to the issue in front of the court on the Toronto matter presently in the wake of his pardon.
But along the way, this matter comes to the attention, of course, of main justice.
And the unsparing description of the Capitol
It is graphic, it is clear, it is truthful.
Recall as well that the president has called January 6th a day of love.
And he's referred to some of those writers, presumably including Mr. Toronto as hostages.
All of this gets the attention of Maine Justice and these two prosecutors writing in the sentencing memorandum.
with respect to Mr. Toronto's case, they're suspended.
They're placed on leave, likely being fired.
Why?
Because they wrote something in these pleadings that's inconsistent with the president's view about what happened on January 6th.
Inconsistent.
She takes responsibility for this as well, for what the Attorney General may view as what happened on January 6th.
And those prosecutors likely being shown the door.
That is not the Department of Justice that all of us who worked there for many decades recall
That is not the reason that one terminates anyone inside the Department of Justice It is a basis if indeed you want to establish a new history want to rewrite history even inside the halls of the Department of Justice and you want to describe January 6 as something other than what it was which was a mob of riders attacking our capital trying to undermine the Proceedings there to count the votes for the presidency of the United States of America the insurrection
the near rebellion on that date, and yes, there is the situation where you can use that phrase, all of that, all of that, when accurately stated in a federal court, that prompts the termination, the anticipated termination of federal prosecutors.
That's the state.
of the United States Department of Justice in November of 2025.
Let's talk about some federal district courts, the injunctive functions of federal district courts in October and now into November of 2025 as well.
We're gonna talk about four of them, lots and lots of activity going on.
Federal district court judges around the country, once again, the Bastions, the people who are pushing back and saying, no, you cannot do these things.
Yes, you need to do these things to ensure that the laws appell that the rule of law in America has integrity to it.
Let's begin with one that you may not have seen in the midst of all of these other major headlines of this past week, and that is that just on Friday, late this past week.
federal judge in Washington, DC.
He's a district court judge right there in our nation's capital.
I'm sorry.
Her name is Colleen Coller Cotelli, K-O-L-L-A-R-K-O-T-E-L-L-Y.
Judge Coller Cotelli, federal district court in the District of Columbia, issues an 81-page opinion.
There's a lot to read there.
And what does she say?
She says that the Trump administration's, the president's directive,
way back in January, in the early portions of his term, signed in an executive order in March of this year, cannot stand.
The administration's directive requiring proof of citizenship on voter registration forms, federal voter registration forms, she says that is invalid, cannot stand.
And all of this, all of this once again comes following the president's early directives codified in his March.
executive order, saying that not only is the president going to be involved in something in which he has no constitutional authority, but also, also undermining the capacity, the constitutional delegation to the states to decide the circumstances, the trappings of elections.
And, indeed, Judge Colleen Kohler-Cotelli says just that in her 81-page opinion, telling the president, no, and joining him and anyone else in the government from
acting on his executive order.
She says this Congress has never assigned any responsibility for the content of the federal form to the president or to any other individual in the executive branch with the power to act unilaterally.
That's Judge Kohler-Catelli.
She says, the power to alter the federal form is and always has been delegated, here we go, solely to a bipartisan independent commission.
And yes, indeed, that commission, the elections assistant commission, an independent body was supposed to adopt some nationwide changes to voting procedures.
at a time when the states once again have principal responsibility to do all of that.
The judge goes on to say that this matter, this matter again is exclusive to the states and that she says that American history
supports that notion.
She goes back to the country's founding, repeatedly noting that besides the small role that this elections assistant commission has, this form that is produced, was created by Congress in 2002 to assist with elections, the reality is that the more important to the supremacy of the Constitution establishes that the elections clause of that document, of the Constitution, is the one that grants authority over elections to the states.
has no involvement in this, his executive order cannot stand.
She says the court pauses to note a conspicuous absence.
from the legal and historical context thus far provided by whom once again by attorneys for the Department of Justice appearing in front of her she says the states have initial authority to regulate elections congress has supervisory authority over those regulations the president does not feature at all in a related case we also know brought by a coalition of attorneys general from a number of states
back in april a judge in massachusetts temporarily blocked the same executive order somewhat more broadly including a provision that imposed on states certain obligations for counting mail in ballots likewise that judge saying can't do that mr president not within the ambit of this of the constitution the president of course we know well has repeatedly made these claims about some significant non-citizen voting that are unsupported simply not out there
they've been repeatedly debunked, and we know that the leaders of the groups who are bringing these lawsuits said that the requirement to prove citizenship would likely have fallen hardest on women, service members, and the poor, among other groups, that what, statistically, tend not to have that kind of proof readily available.
21.3 million people do not have government-issued
proof of citizenship on hand.
And that's the reason why this order of justice past week so very important.
When we come back, more, more decisions of federal district court judges here on Amicus, a lot of you.
you
This is Amica Solaroview.
On the broadcast stations of Civic Media, we are talking once again about the injunction functions of federal district courts around the country to uphold the rule of law to promote the rule of law in ways big and medium-sized.
None of these this week in the second category at all.
All of these are significant.
We just concluded our discussion about what U.S.
District Court Judge Colleen Kohler-Catelli,
judge in the District of Columbia has done to stop the president from going ahead with his executive order in March following up his early statements in January about requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration and executive order would have impacted quite literally millions, tens of millions of people in America who do not have government-issued proof of citizenship readily on hand.
that order likely to be appealed to the U.S.
Circuit Court in the District of Columbia.
Nonetheless, another statement by a federal district court judge about the limits of the president's power when it comes to voting and what it is that the Constitution does and does not say about elections in America.
Let's go across country from the District of Columbia, way out to San Francisco, to the Northern District of California to talk again about a judge we've spoken about before.
Her name is Susan Ilce.
an I-L-L-S-T-O-N.
She is another member of our federal judiciary who's likewise saying no to this presidency, to this White House, when this presidency is engaging in conduct that is violative of the law.
You recall well that Judge Ilston had previously entered what's called a temporary restraining order, which is the first thing that a judge does early on in a case to preserve the status quo, when in fact the merits have not yet been discussed.
No evidentiary here.
she did that a while back, and she said, you know what?
Based upon the initial representations to me by the parties who are challenging what the government is proposing, I need to restrain the government from doing what it's proposing.
And so what did she do?
She said that temporarily...
The government is prevented from firing about 4,100, 4,100 civil servants around the country who were the targets of the Office of Management and Budget to be fired in the midst of the government shutdown.
And she said, on his face, it strikes me that those things, the government shutdown and the firing, are unrelated.
Sure, they all relate to government employment and government service, but she said, this is an illegal act, and therefore she tempered
temporarily restrain the government from doing that.
She has now had more hearings, more evidence, more consideration, and just this past week, she entered a preliminary injunction, which is the next step, which keeps things in place, keeps that TRO, that temporary restraining order in place, until there can be a full trial on this issue down the road.
That's how much due process we afford people in this country.
That's how much consideration the judges give to get these decisions
right.
A TRO is issued now just this past week.
Judge Susan Ilston, Northern District of California, enters a preliminary injunction doing what?
Preventing the firings of this loss of these 4100 employees while the lawsuit challenging their legality continues.
It indefinitely extends that earlier order that she entered that would have expired just this past week.
Labor unions
presenting many, if not all of these federal workers, including the American Federation of Government Employees, had sued the Trump administration, saying these mass layoffs are an abuse of power.
Indeed, the judge had previously, and again this past week, agreed with them.
She said that the White House has taken advantage of the lapse in government spending and government functioning to assume that all bets are off, that if in fact we are in a layoff situation, you can do whatever you want.
is basically what she's saying and she's saying that's what the president cannot do she says the laws don't apply to them anymore and they can impose the structures that they like she condemns that as a policy statement says that's not what America is all about the policy directive she says issued by the president
present a sign that the politics that infuses all of this is what is going on.
She says, these are laws which govern how we can do the things we do.
The laws require, Mr. President, that you follow those.
No one above the law is implicitly what she has said.
She was on to talk about the reasons why the representations made in front of her in her court
are invalid.
Last week, the Department of Justice lawyers also sent some curiously mixed and uncertain signals about the intentions of the government.
The government lawyers, again, not quite certain where this is all headed, at times referred to a hypothetical firing of these 4,100 by, well, at the same time, acknowledging that the government, the Office of Management Budget, had begun to send out notices to about 4,000 of them.
Those misrepresentations, those arguments that confusion on the record drew some rebukes by Judge Ilston, who, well, she pressed the government lawyers about this to explain the legality of the firings, only to be told by the government lawyer that the government did not prepare to address that at the hearing.
That, again, is a representation and illustration of how
How unprepared this administration is.
That all a part of the temporary restraining order.
proceedings in front of her, the judge now reaffirming everything that she said at that time.
She said she was also concerned about the fact that the Trump administration had made misstatements and corrections and omissions in its court documents and had failed to properly account for the size, the scope, and the timing of the layoffs that it was processing.
The judge entering now a preliminary injunction, an indefinite
termination of this termination order and ensuring that as the case goes ahead to trial in front of her at some point, presumably in the weeks, maybe the months ahead, that those 4100 employees, again, as long as and beyond, beyond the closure, the conclusion, if and when it comes to this government shutdown, have their jobs protected.
Now, will that be appealed likely to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?
Very likely.
This administration will do
just that.
But once again, it reflects not only the misrepresentations made by the government in front of federal district court judges that continue in the courts of our nation.
When we come back, we'll talk about two other injunctive actions by federal district courts just this past week and the ways in which they affect our lives here on Amicus, a lot of you.
you
Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel, Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant new stories in the areas of law, government, courts, and the aspiration for justice.
And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a lot of you on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
My name is Jim Santel.
Thank you for once again joining me during your weekend days, your weekend hours.
to engage in a review, reporting, discussion, analysis of these major issues in the area of rule of law, justice, the administration of government as well.
We are continuing to talk a lot about federal district court judges here on this broadcast because of the role that they're playing, not just in pushing back against the unconstitutional actions, the illegal activities of our administration, but also ensuring that on your behalf,
On behalf of the people of the United States of America, the laws are upheld, the Constitution is observed, and that the rule of law continues to be the driving force in our lives.
We have talked already about a couple of federal district court judges, including the judge in the District of Columbia, who has said that the president's order requiring proof of citizenship for new voter registration for voting cannot stand.
We talked about this much related
by a federal district court judge in San Francisco who said, Mr. President, you cannot fire 4,100 civil servants just because there is an admittedly catastrophic shutdown, nonetheless illegal to do that.
And now we're going to turn to one that is a bit more in the news of recent days, and that is what's going on in Chicago.
Another federal district court judge, again, directing that the government behave in its administration of law.
In this case, on the streets of Chicago, the judge here is Sarah Ellis.
We have spoken about her before.
Her last name is spelled E-L-L-I-S.
She is the judge who has in front of her a case that's been brought.
by a coalition of media organizations and protesters and clergy members filing claims that federal agents said again this is not the National Guard this is a different set of law enforcement these are federal agents, ICE agents, border patrol agents describing and charging that those federal agents are engaged in a pattern of extreme brutality.
That's what the allegation is in the complaint.
They have brought to Judge Ellis.
And that brutality is intended to silence and depress and also civilians.
And in particular, they noted initially an event outside a federal detention facility in Broadview, Illinois.
federal agents there shooting pepper balls and tear gas at protesters who had gathered regularly, told demonstrations there, you have probably seen some of the visual and the other reporting from that particular site.
As the weeks have gone on, the use of tear gas along residential streets has increased and has become a point of contention among other pieces of conduct, other behaviors by the federal agents on the streets of Chicago along the way.
calling attention to himself, is a fellow whose name is Gregory Bovino, B-O-V-I-N-O.
He is a senior border patrol official, and he is there guiding, directing, overseeing a lot of the federal presence there on the streets.
He's become in many ways the face of the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration, the one who's directing a lot of this on the streets, and also, also...
raising issues about the behavior of federal law enforcement, precisely the sort that this coalition of media and protesters and clergy have brought to the attention of Judge Ellis.
She has issued orders along the way, barring those federal immigration and other agents from deploying tear gas and other chemical agents on crowds without first giving them warnings, actually two warnings.
And she's also barred agents from doing other things that are contrary to the basic ways
in which law enforcement is supposed to do its job on the streets of America.
She's prohibited them from deploying weapons above the head of the crowd in most situations.
Basically, she said, abide by the rules of law enforcement.
Do you have a role to play?
Sure, she said.
Do you have authority to make arrests under appropriate circumstances in compliance with the ways in which we arrest and detain people in America constitutionally?
Yes, you've got to do it.
However, she said, without this kind of abusive behavior, the brutality
that these groups describe.
Well, in the wake of all this, increased attention brought to her by these groups coming to her and saying, they've done it again.
Here's another instance in which Mr. Bovino and his forces there have violated your order, judge.
You see a theme here from the Department of Justice, from law enforcement, federal law enforcement generally, and the judge has responded time and time again in recent weeks by saying, you cannot do this.
me reaffirm my position on this and just this past week she is required initially Mr. Bovino to do something extraordinary and that is to appear in her courtroom at six o'clock after every single day of activity to report on what he has done to review whether or not he is in compliance with her orders.
a concern heightened by the fact that there is this very notorious now video of him hurling a canister of gas into a crowd, engaging in other activities and other events, requiring Gregory Bovino to appear in her courtroom.
And for more than an hour, for example, recently, just this past week, she reread to Mr. Bovino some of the restrictions she had previously set as a part of this lawsuit over the tactics, the allegedly
illegal unconstitutional tactics that his agents are using.
And she cited some of these examples of times in which those officers appeared to violate the restrictions, the express things that she has said you cannot do.
They used tear gas in a neighborhood where children were about to march in a Halloween parade.
They failed to warn residents before tossing tear gas canisters at them.
She note an incident in which an agent threw a canister out of a car as it drove away.
those kinds of things and more coming to the attention of federal district court judge Sarah Ellis once again in joining in word and in spirit and in content saying no you cannot be doing these things in fact Mr. Bovino took the stand in his usual green fatigues and his border patrol insignia he appeared at the federal courthouse and did provide some initial reports and the judge said I'll see you tomorrow at six and during
in the course of a subsequent hearing.
Again, all these kinds of things reviewed, including the results of at least 3,000 arrests in recent weeks.
Bovino answered some questions with a simple yes, ma'am.
He was asked whether he was on the same page as the judge.
He said, I understand what you're saying, Your Honor.
We're on the same page.
We'll abide by the TRO.
That's the temporary restraining order.
And again, left the room.
Everyone did with the expectations that were back on track.
Well, in the meantime,
time, the Department of Justice and your government took an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, same building.
Same building in downtown Chicago in the loop and the Court of Appeals stunningly shockingly said that with respect to these requirements and Mr.. Robino meet with the judge every single night that that's oppressive that she's becoming an Inquisitor which is which was the word from the seventh circuit that she was effectively intruding into the operations the practical operations of law enforcement on the street and that cannot be tolerated that goes beyond the seventh circuit said the
capacity of the judge to oversee what's going on with due respect.
It is an order that is stunning, because again, in its content, there is nothing about what Judge Ellis has said that doesn't prescribe simple, simple rules of the road, if you will, rules by which law enforcement is always to abide in its administration of justice, including detentions and arrests.
crowd control, those kinds of things.
That's what she affirmed.
She was not involved in the day-to-day specifics about how, when, where, and why, other than to review those instances where there are violations of those broad principles.
The things that she did not become involved in were the specific operations of numbers of law enforcement, where they're going to be deployed, what their specific actions are, who is going to be arrested, those kinds of things.
That would get very particular.
That is not invading the purview, the province of the executive of law enforcement to engage in this kind of conduct.
But the Seventh Circuit said, can't have these daily reviews.
You can do them periodically, but not on a daily basis.
Nonetheless, Sarah Ellis, this past week continuing to monitor what's going on here, she said most notably that significantly.
It's Halloween as it was on Friday of this past week.
She said can we have a day when we do not have tear gas when the operation stands down?
She says no that it is a day when people are going to be out Minding their own business.
She's echoing the words of the governor himself Pritzker who said it is Halloween Can we make certain that the seven and eight and nine and ten year olds are not gassed on the streets of Chicago a Stunning thing for a governor to have to say a shocking thing for a federal district court judge to have to say to tell one for
enforcement in the exercise of their duties and they do have responsibilities and obligations to ensure the safety and security of the community on behalf of the residents that they serve.
They do have those authorities, but they've also got the discretion and the capacity and the expectation that they will do it in a way that is humane and yes, respecting the fact that it was Halloween.
And let's make sure that young people and old people are not gassed doing things that are not illegal, but are instead in celebration of a lighthearted and time of celebration among communities, including Chicago and around the nation.
All of that continues from the desk of Sarah Ellis.
She's a federal district court judge in Chicago.
The Seventh Circuit plainly taking a look at this as well.
We know that the larger issue coming out of the Seventh Circuit
pending before the Supreme Court now based upon this restriction imposed by Sarah Ellis, supported by the Seventh Circuit.
that there's not a rebellion going on in Chicago.
This is not insurrection.
It does not justify, again, the decision by April Perry, who's another federal district court judge, to restrict the law enforcement there, to restrict the National Guard from going in.
All of these issues plainly intertwine there in Chicago.
the United States Supreme Court addressing issues related to the presence and deployment of National Guard, Sarah Ellis, the Southern Circuit, also dealing with the on the streets behavior of federal law enforcement, including ICE, including Border Patrol, including the actions as directed by Gregory Bovino.
Again, this Border Patrol official
at least in court, saying he'll comply with the TROs and directives of Sarah Ellis, but outside saying things other than that.
All of that continuing as a part of the injunctive work of federal district court judges in America.
And finally, let's get to the one that is all over the headlines this weekend as it was this past week.
And that
is SNAP funding.
You know well what's going on here.
This is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
It's been around in one shape or another since 1939, revised somewhat in the 1960s.
Basically, 42 million Americans benefit from SNAP benefits, sometimes called food assistance programs.
It quite literally keeps people in America fed, young people.
middle-aged people, older people who get this government assistance through virtue of this program established by what?
By the United States Congress.
23 states have sued to compel the administration to fund at least partially.
the SNAP program during the period of this shutdown.
You know how this comes about.
The administration taking the position that during this shutdown, no funds available to fund this in this emergency situation.
The funds running out effectively have run out at the end of October.
And as a result of that, petitioners, challengers going into two different federal courts late this past week and saying no,
There are funds available.
They're right there.
They're available for contingencies.
You may call it a rainy day fund.
It's an emergency fund.
And asking the federal district court judges to enjoin the government, to stop the government from refusing to use those funds to fund this multi-million dollar fund for 42 million Americans.
When we come back, we'll tell you what.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus on the broadcast stations of Civic Media, spending appropriately virtually all of our time, not every last minute, but virtually all of our time talking about the injunction functions of federal district courts around the country and now this big one.
Everyone is talking about SNAP funds and the capacity
or maintained alleged claimed incapacity of the federal government to fund this program that keeps about 42 million Americans healthy and fed around the country.
A program billions, not just millions, billions of dollars every single month, about eight billion dollars to fund this program.
We know a lot about the program itself.
Snap benefits averaging about $187 per month per recipient, costing the federal government.
It's a lot of money, admittedly, $8 billion every single month.
Lawmakers, lawmakers have established this program, again, way back in 1939, amending it somewhat over the years, reaffirming it all the time.
It has always been available there.
Lawmakers must regularly replenish it as they have done this fund as a part of their yearly work to fund the government.
government and consistently across political aisles they have done just that.
The program significantly also maintains a reserve.
Again, you can call it a rainy day fund, but that kind of minimizes the significance of it because it ensures that if in fact there is a shutdown of the sort in America that's now virtually entering its second month, there's a reserve that is available in case of emergencies.
If in fact the Congress is not refunding it
its regular budgeting procedure and their shortfalls in funding, which we have now, and Democrats and Republicans alike have looked at this and said,
that the Trump administration should, in fact, ensure that this funding is available, or at least until recently.
The Agriculture Department, again, a part of the executive branch, up until recently, said that it would use these reserve monies, totaling about $5 billion, not enough to fund the entire month, but nonetheless something.
It is a reserve fund that is out there, would be available right now.
If the government remain closed for an extended period of time, that was the position.
of Republicans and Democrats of the Congress of the Administration of the Agriculture Department that is responsible for administering this program until late October, just late this past month.
When the Department of Agriculture reversed its position, the administration said no, as did the president, publicly stating that it could not, in fact, use those funds, drain those available reserves, accept in response to natural disasters, and this is not one of those.
And it's in the wake of all of that and the continuing government shutdown, the failure of the government, again, the Congress to replenish this fund as it
does routinely, never before in any of the previous lapses in government appropriations and in budgeting has the SNAP fund
been unavailable.
This is a first in our history, at least since the time of the initiation of SNAP programs nationwide.
It's happening now, and it prompts people to go into federal courts.
Once again, asking federal district court judges in at least two districts around the country to enjoin the government to stop the government from saying, no, that's a double negative, basically compelling the government to enable the access to this reserve fund.
And so
you go into the district court for the District of Rhode Island, Judge John McConnell, a lawsuit brought basically on economic terms, many of the grocers and other people who rely upon others using food stamps and the snap card to buy and to purchase and acquire groceries, describing the economic impact that this will have if indeed these snap funds are not available.
If the cards, if you will, that are renewed for recipients of this program are not
renewed and so Judge John McConnell US District Court for the District of Rhode Island on Friday of this past week orders of Trump administration he says you must distribute the contingency money timely or as soon as possible for the November 1 payments to be made well November 1 is here
And that raises a larger issue, and I'm wondering about compliance with that.
The judge goes on to talk about ordering the administration to use those emergency funds to continue the program and to explore tapping a second tranche of money at the Agriculture Department so that November benefits could be paid in full.
The ruling, that ruling again from Judge John McConnell, M.C.
Capitol, C.O.N.N.E.L.L., that ruling
plainly flies in the face of what the president, at least the administration and other Republicans on Capitol Hill have said, which is that this fund is not available.
Now you've got a federal district court judge who has said, no, it is, it is significant once again, as we continue to focus on things that your department of justice says before the judges of this land.
At one point in the hearing before Judge McConnell, the lawyer for the Justice Department argues that the shutdown he said was not
emergency, those are his words, even though roughly 42 million people were at risk and remain at risk as of this time of losing those benefits imminently of food not being available to them through the SNAP program.
the lawyers on the other side again representing the challengers to what the government is not doing said that these actions these kinds of words the refusal to do this needlessly plunges snap into crisis refusing to act the government is
while it still has time refusing to act in a circumstance where it can, in fact, lawfully engage.
And now for what it's worth.
You've got the capacity.
You've got the backing, the imprimatur of a federal district court judge saying, go ahead and use this.
You've got another federal district court judge.
She happens to be in the district of Massachusetts.
Her name is Indira Talwani, TALWANI.
She's got the same thing in front of her.
These are groups of people who are saying that we are going
to be detrimentally damaged by virtue of what is happening here.
And she also finds that the decision by the administration
to halt SNAP benefits is unlawful.
She sides with about two dozen states, about 23 attorneys general who are petitioning on behalf of the residents of their states to have the administration position overruled.
As we continue, I'll tell you more about what Judge Talwani did as a part of her injunctive relief and what she has ordered the government to do coming up this Monday.
Here on Amicus, a law review.
you
This is Amicus.
A lot of you in the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
My name is Jim Santel.
We are talking all about injunctive relief, injunctive orders, entered by federal district court judges across the country in places like Rhode Island, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, San Francisco, Chicago.
The list goes on specifically now talking about and reporting as are all other media outlets on these major decisions by a couple of judges.
One of them in Rhode Island.
His name is John McConnell.
The other one in Massachusetts
And her name is Indira Telwani.
She had a hearing on Thursday.
She announced on Friday an opinion that's fairly close to the one that Judge McConnell has entered.
She also says the same kinds of things.
She says Congress has put money in an emergency fund and it is hard for me to understand how this is not an emergency.
Congress told you what to do if there is no money.
This is the judge speaking this past week.
You need to figure out how to stretch that emergency money for now.
Again, 23 states suing in her court to compel the administration to at least partially fund the supplemental nutrition assistance program snap, about 42 million Americans benefit from that on a regular basis, about $8 billion every month, $5 billion sitting in this fund, which would not again replenish it.
completely, but nonetheless provide the bridge that is needed right now, right now for families who are looking to put food on their tables across America.
The judge Indira Telwani like, like the judge in Rhode Island, John McConnell, directing then the administration to do this and interestingly compelling the government to come back, come back on Monday, early this coming week to describe the ways in which the
The administration is going to accomplish what she and implicitly what Judge McConnell have ordered as a part of this.
Tell me how it is you're going to go about accomplishing this.
It may well be.
It may well be that there's some great wisdom in this to ensure that the government does in fact do what she has ordered the government to do.
And again, not getting into the great economic details, the finance issues, the things that budget people inside the government itself would need to do inside the Department of Agriculture.
And they're not small.
That is not to minimize the significance of what needs to happen here.
The timeliness of this is also huge.
The fund basically having been dissipated at the
end of October.
What do you do now?
Well, you've got federal district court judges saying, use that emergency fund forthwith.
Go ahead and do it.
Judge Tawani saying, come into my courtroom on Monday and tell me exactly how you're going to do that.
We'll see what that looks like on Monday.
Interestingly, in that connection, the president of the United States of America has weighed in on this litigation.
Again,
challenging in many ways when he is speaking as a party plainly to this litigation when it's his Department of Justice and in fact is pushing back on it.
He says this, if we are given the appropriate legal direction by the court, well, Mr. President, you have.
You've been given that appropriate legal direction, which is use the fund.
He says it will be my honor, be my honor all in caps.
To provide the funding, just like I did with military and law enforcement pay, he added that reference referring to his earlier actions to shift billions of dollars in funding to pay workers who normally would have not have received checks during the shutdown.
So once again, he's acknowledging the capacity to do it.
Along the way, the judges identifying ways in which the government has, in fact, tapped into reserve funds, these funds available in case there's a lapse in funding, judges both in the district of Rhode Island and also in Massachusetts, John McCormick, and also Judge Indira Telwani saying, do what you need to do to make this happen.
We know as well, based upon all the reporting, that this is just not a matter of
flipping a switch.
And in the meantime, we know that there are an awful lot of governors and other representatives, officials throughout many states in the union who are trying desperately to use state funds to bridge the gap to keep monies available.
Using federal cards, that's one of the challenge to provide state funds, not an easy thing to do, an awful lot of governors and other leaders in states.
In states that had relied upon this federal funding up until now, now trying to ensure that their own residents, their own constituents do not starve, do not go hungry in America, 42 million Americans facing this crisis, which continues even this weekend, even this weekend, even
In the wake of these orders by federal district court judges, this is going to be one of the major news stories of the coming week, the extent to which the government, as promised, committed by our president to make good on this, awaiting some direction that candidly he should not have to wait on.
He is the executive leader.
He is the executive branch head, and it is a part of the execution of the law.
that the Department of Agriculture, which is a presidential unit, it is an agency of the executive branch.
They're the ones who need to do this, and they're the ones who know how to do it.
He shouldn't have to be asking federal judges how to implement this specific, but broad things that they have commanded him to do, that is the role of the executive branch.
More news coming up on that undeniably in the coming week, as all of these injunctive orders continue to loom large,
in not only the recent history of our nation, but in the annals of rule of law in America.
Also looming large, some other developments of Justice past week having to do with those prosecutions of the president's adversaries.
Let's talk about two of them.
Let's talk about what James Comey has done just this past week.
You know, he was charged once again with false statements and obstructing the process of a congressional hearing.
and failing to properly, accurately, honestly respond to a question while he's seized on justice past week.
And he has said, basically, I don't know what this indictment means.
And indeed, there's an awful lot of curious language about an investigation, about person one, person three, making reference to a certain matter that may or may not be within the knowledge of even the grand jury we don't know.
He has basically said, what are you talking about?
He's said,
government does not have the authority, these are his words, to create confusion, is identifying confusion and ambiguity in this indictment by posing an imprecise question.
He's talking about the question that likely Ted Cruz asked James Comey during the course of this examination before the United States Senate by creating confusion, by posing an imprecise question, and then you seek to exploit that confusion by placing an after-the-fact
a various interpretation on the ensuing benign answer.
There's a lot going on there, but that's the way that he has described this indictment against him.
It is confusing.
It's ambiguous.
We don't know what you're talking about.
And for that reason too, it should be dismissed on substantive facial grounds even before you get to a trial.
We know he has previously submitted these also equally compelling motions alleging that the U.S.
Attorney
The interim U.S.
attorney there does not have the authority to do this based upon the timing of the interim appointment, and perhaps most significantly, that he is a product, his prosecution, the product of vindictive prosecution, which again, as we've said before, has some more than passing validity to it, and may in fact be attractive based upon what the very things the President has said about James Comey, the need to indict him, the kind of person he is, what he has done.
that may in fact undermine the very prosecution that the president called for from the Department of Justice.
That's going on inside the James Comey prosecution.
You've got an equal challenge to the substance of the...
Patricia James prosecution she too going to be raising issues related to the authority of the US Attorney to prosecute her case the capacity of this case to go ahead at all based upon the kinds of scurrilous things that the president has said about her the need to indict her the vindictive nature of things that he has said that suggests this is not based upon substance but rather upon his interest in getting after his political enemies and indeed this
past week we've got some additional indication that the very language of the indictment may be wildly flawed.
You recall well that it is indeed hand-picked U.S.
Attorney, her name again, Lindsay Heligan.
She is this insurance lawyer, may in fact have some relevance now it turns out.
She alleged in this indictment that Letitia James had signed this bank contract, this bank loan document that prohibited her from renting the house, but she did so anyway.
That's basically it.
She rented out the
House misrepresented to the bank, got money for it, violating there for the terms of this loan, and the bank fraud comes in the banks giving her this money.
based upon this misrepresentation.
Well, it turns out, it turns out that there is a second home writer on all those documents.
And the writer, which is a standard addendum to some of these mortgage contracts developed by many mortgage companies, requires James to do this.
Here's the language of it, to maintain exclusive control over the occupancy of the property, including short term rentals.
including short-term rentals.
Now the idea here obviously is to restrict Ms.
James' capacity to use the second home as an investment property, and that would be done by hiring some management company, a third party, to use it primarily to generate income.
That's not what the indictment alleges.
And what the indictment alleges is she violated this by having it used as a rental property.
It appears from the language of this addendum, this writer, about which an insurance lawyer, now the U.S.
Attorney in Eastern Virginia, should know a lot that this very writer, the very language that's included in the package of Morgan materials that certainly the government looked at, envisions, perhaps does not prohibit her,
permits her to go ahead and engage in short-term rentals of that property.
If that is the case, and it certainly appears to be the case, the case against Letitia James is sunk on substantive grounds, the very language of that writer, of the mortgage documents, the core of the allegations here is that she knowingly lied that she was not going to rent.
The problem once again, that there's absolutely no statement ever made by James that she would not rent out the property.
The contract language does not prohibit her from doing that.
It prohibits rentals via a third party.
And that's not alleged in the indictment.
Again, she will be raising all of these kinds of things, suggesting the substance isn't there, that if this goes to trial, there may in fact be what's called a directed verdict by a judge who says that there's not even a basis for a jury to find any defendant guilty.
It may not even get to that spot if indeed the motions that she is filing, alleging vindictive prosecution, alleging lack of authority by the U.S.
Attorney, all of these things suggest, once again, the authoritarian government by a president, by an executive commanding the initiation of charges, the initiation of charges and investigation, which as we have said, that's the retribution.
The retribution itself is the punishment, it is the investigations, the prosecution.
Not that it doesn't matter, it does matter a lot what happens with these cases, but it's the very
notion that these people are now under indictment in situations where the merits of the case are not present and also the reasons for bringing these cases from the grand jury into the public domain are themselves the product of animus by our president.
That's the authoritarian aspect of all this and that is the reason why the rule of law will once again be the subject of review by the judges again the federal district judges in eastern Virginia.
who will have to wrestle, again, not with injunctions this time, with emotions to dismiss these basically unsubstantiated, substantively, and invalid prosecutions because of where they come from.
all of that happening just this past week in the rule of law environment in America.
And then we begin, as promised, looking forward to next week and the United States Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court back in business Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the 3rd, the 4th, and the 5th.
It is a lot that's going on.
Let me tell you a little bit about the kinds of cases that the Supreme Court is going to be addressing among the 44 now in our docket, that coming up as amicus, a law review.
continues.
This is Amica Salar Review.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is the final segment of our weekend exposition of all things rule of law related.
Providing you with some calendar information and then also anticipating our broadcast next week when we're going to delve into these cases at greater length, the Supreme Court back in business this coming week, Monday, November 3rd, Tuesday, November 4th, addressing four different cases on those days involving everything from fugitive tolling doctrines, supervised release in the criminal setting, whether or not a soldier can sue a government contractor in state, not federal court, for his injuries suffered in a domestic attack.
on a military base on Tuesday, there's a question about whether a judgment in bankruptcy can be vacated and if so, under what circumstances.
And also on Tuesday, living the consequences of an attempt to establish federal jurisdiction by adding more players, more parties to those cases.
All important cases, each one of those four in their own right, the big one, however, with which all of us are going to be concerned, is on Wednesday, November 5th.
9 a.m central time 10 a.m eastern time learning resources ink versus trump and trump versus v os selections this is the tariffs case this is a big one coming out of the past nine runs the question is whether or not the president has the authority the constitutional authority the statutory authority to do what he has been doing under the constitution both the federal court of international trade and the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit have said no you can't do this
why the Constitution gives that authority only to the Congress.
It's right there in language of the Constitution, Mr. President, and oh by the way this thing called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that you're invoking to do an end run around the Constitution gives you the authority only in circumstances where there is a true emergency and that is not here and for that reason you do not have the authority.
The Supreme Court.
going to be entertaining oral argument on that this coming Wednesday morning.
Justices to be weighing in through their questions, their comments to each other, to the litigants in this case about whether or not the President of the United States of America has the capacity, independent of the Congress, to impose the tariffs that have been so much in our news.
We'll talk about all of that.
in our broadcast next weekend in the wake of that and do some assessment of where it appears the Supreme Court justices likely diverse in perspective.
come down on that all important issues for the future of America, tariffs, but also the power of the presidency.
We so appreciate our listeners who call in, who text in, appreciate very much, Katherine, your comment about the importance of understanding that SNAP brings monies and economies into the coffers, if you will, of grocers and farmers.
And in fact, Katherine, you're exactly right.
That's the basis of the lawsuit that was pending in front of John McConnell.
The judge in wrote
who said this economy, these financial aspects are going to be impaired.
And that was the basis upon which he ordered the government to go ahead and use this replenishing fund.
Appreciate Catherine very much that comment.
Gary also inquiring about how this is done.
Do the federal government send monies to the states who then distribute it to families?
The answer is it's done by a card.
And the cards are loaded up at the start of every month and during the court.
of that process, then a recipient of SNAP is able to use that card to go into those grocers that Catherine is talking about and buy food.
And if those cards, which they're not being re-upped right now, do not have the money on them, the case is that the particular recipients of SNAP funds do not have the funds from whatever source, the regularly appropriated source of funding or this replenishing fund.
All of that, all of that, the subject of our present situation.
We also have callers on the line.
Appreciate very much.
Dick, you've been on the line for a long period of time.
Your call or your comment here today.
Dick, go ahead.
Great show.
Quick question.
To Colmey and Latrissa James, if these things both get thrown out or even if they don't, why could they not do the same thing that Trump did with his frivolous law case and come back and sue the Justice Department for Allard?
legal fees and all damages and then also to this clown the tear gas man down and uh if he were to break any of the rules that were laid down to him by that judge would he not be in contempt of court and be thrown in jail
Dick, two great questions about enforcement.
What do we do in America when we've got these situations?
There is a concept, Dick, which I suspect you may know, prompting your question, called malicious prosecution.
And if, in fact, the government, if a private party maliciously without a basis for doing it, prosecutes in a federal or state court, it's not an easy kind of thing to present.
You've got to show the animus, which may, in fact, be your right, Dick, when it comes to the prosecutions of Letitia James and James
in the federal courts, a malicious prosecution action could in fact be pursued.
And an awful lot of people have thought about that down the road based upon the inadequacy, not only the process on these cases, but also the lack of substance behind them.
Appreciate that observation.
As to Mr. Bovino, yes indeed, the judge, Judge Ellis there, Sarah Ellis in Chicago, has spoken all the words of contempt.
There are many other
judges across the country have likewise spoken about contempt.
including Judge Boesberg in the District of Columbia, Judge Zinnis we talked about before, and she can enter a finding and do that in the course of her oversight of what's going on on the streets of Chicago.
There are also civil actions that can be brought for false arrest, for violating the Constitution and the mechanisms by which people are arrested.
Those are civil rights that the judge is talking about, not just matters for training of our law enforcement folks.
but they're the kinds of things that could indeed form the basis for a civil.
prosecution in a federal arguably a state court as well against the very people who are not following what the judge is saying here that could be contempt could also be depending upon exactly what is described here you suffer damages because law enforcement has not acted in a way that's consistent with the law and the constitution that too dick appropriately can give rise to a civil cause of action
and request for damages.
It underscores the significance of all of this.
Dick, appreciate your comments so much, and also the comments of all the others who have texted in into our broadcast.
Next week, again, all of these things, continuing focus here on the broadcast of civic media called Amicus, a lot of you.
Have a good weekend, everybody.