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.
This is Amicus, a lot of you, on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
My name is Jim Santel.
I am your host this hour.
And also next hour on this, our weekly weekend review of all things related to the rule of law, the administration of justice, the operation of government in America, sometimes beyond in 2025, looking into 2026 as well.
I thank you for the time that you will spend in conversation, in discussion with me during the course of the next two hours as we address some of the major civics issues.
the political events of the past week and also especially the legal events and circumstances that prompt our discussion this weekend.
As always, you can call into our conversation, our discussion at 855-752-4842.
That number once again is 855-752-4842.
4842, my wonderful producer, Max, also reminds me that you can also text in, send us your questions, your inquiries, your comments, your perspectives on any of these many matters on our aggressive and our ambitious agenda, but achievable nonetheless.
be a part of our conversation by calling in, by texting in those comments and questions here on Civic Media, here on Amicus, a law review.
We do have an aggressive and ambitious, but yet achievable agenda, a syllabus for discussion this weekend on the broadcast.
Let me tell you a bit about that and then launch into those important topics that animate our lives and our livelihoods here in Wisconsin, here in the U.S.
united states of america necessarily we spend a lot of time on this broadcast talking about the united states supreme court because of the important role that they play in defining for us our lives and our livelihoods in many ways
involving issues that some would argue should be across the parking lot there on Capitol Hill in the legislature.
Many of these issues also, of course, deriving from down Pennsylvania Avenue, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue at the White House.
And that is no exception this week as we talk about three of the major oral arguments of this term to this date.
oral arguments conducted by this Supreme Court there on Capitol Hill in the public domain.
You can listen to them live.
You can hear these oral arguments on recordings from the Supreme Court by going online and identifying the particular oral argument that you would like to hear.
Each of the oral arguments this past week, one on Monday, one on Tuesday, one on Wednesday, quite lengthy.
Several hours in length and all of them each of them in their own different but significant way important to understanding what's going on in government these days on Monday a major case I would offer one of the three major cases most significant matters before the Supreme Court this term a case called Trump versus slaughter and the name of the case tells you everything you need to know about at least the outlines of that case
case because this is a matter involving a former commissioner of the federal trade commission.
Her name is Rebecca Slaughter, thus the name of the case.
And she is contesting a decision made by the president of the United States of America.
His name is Donald Trump to fire her from the federal trade commission, removing her from that commission.
And the question is whether or not the president has the power to do so.
We'll talk about what the Supreme Court said about.
Without that major issue, it is a big case.
on its docket, I would offer the other one relates to tariffs.
And that also the subject of a lot of our discussion here on amicus, a law review.
And beyond that, of course, the role of government when it comes to voting, that's the case involving whether or not the Voting Rights Act of 1964 still has teeth.
Whether section two of that Voting Rights Act is important and understanding and regulating voting and the
franchise in America, those three cases, the tariffs case, the voting rights act case, and this case that was argued on Monday, the three big ones of this term at least,
to this state will talk all about the case Trump versus Slaughter as we begin our review.
A second case on the docket of the Supreme Court this past week, they entertained it on Tuesday.
A campaign finance case has sort of run under the major headlines of recent times, but it's hugely significant, again, in the area of politics and partisan campaigns coming up plainly in 2026 and beyond.
Questions about the roles of political
parties about PACs, political action committees, the roles that individual candidates will play, and where you can send your money to support political action campaigns, committees and campaigns for individuals, and also political parties.
What is it that the Supreme Court wrestling with this past week that is the power of political parties to support directly the financial status and integrity and strength
of individual political candidates, a case called National Republican Senatorial Committee versus Federal Election Commission.
It derives, believe it or not, from some circumstances, some events at the time that our current vice president, JD Vance, was running for the Senate from the state of Ohio, campaign finances on the docket of the Supreme Court on Tuesday this weekend finally, as if that wasn't diverse enough on Wednesday, a death penalty case.
Yes, once again,
under the Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court looking at the trappings of the death penalty.
If in fact, if in fact states as more than 20 of them have done, adopt the death penalty as a remedy, as a judgment that can be imposed in their states, what are the terms and conditions of doing that in particular
What kinds of things would a state need to address when it comes to a defendant, a convicted defendant, of limited intellectual capacities?
We'll talk about something called an holistic approach, and also IQ numbers, all of that before the Supreme Court on Wednesday of this week, in a case called Hannah Hamrather versus Smith.
Then we're also going to move into our second hour, into a couple of major cases.
that once again underscore the constitutional crisis that we are in, one of them having to do with Kilmar, Abrego Garcia, a major decision by a judge.
Her name is Paula Zinnis.
She is in Maryland.
We have talked about her a lot.
She has now released Mr. Abrego Garcia from civil custody, from custody underneath the immigration laws, and has released him.
even while the criminal case against him is going ahead in Tennessee, we'll talk about the interplay of those two cases, and the fact that for the first time in about four months, Mr. Abrego Garcia is not in the custody of the United States of America, not an immigration custody awaiting some disposition, we'll talk about what Judge Paula Zenis did in terms of addressing the history, the long, and as she described it,
tortured history of this case.
And then we'll also talk about what she said in connection with the behavior of department of justice lawyers appearing in front of her, advocating plainly that Mr. Abrigo Garcia remain in custody.
We'll talk about all that.
And then we'll move into a much related matter, this one pending in front of the judge who was responsible for overseeing
The response to those deportations way back in mid-March, 283 people, including Mr. Abrego Garcia, sent to El Salvador, you know this case well.
Findings that they were not afforded the appropriate due process that our law, our constitution requires.
We'll talk about what Judge James Bosberg has begun to do just this past week in determining whether or not your Department of Justice, and in particular,
the officials who are responsible for responding to and, yes, abiding by the things that the judge says.
We'll talk about what Judge James Bosberg has begun to do and the response late this past week by the Department of Justice, by the Attorney General, her name is Pam Bondi, seeking to have what Judge Bosberg is undertaking to do next week stopped.
seeking to stay what he is doing in the context of his determination about whether or not the United States Department of Justice has been and remains in contempt
for failure to follow his orders with respect to the flights of those 238 people to El Salvador.
We'll give you the history behind all of that.
We'll talk a lot about what Judge James Bosberg has done.
And we'll talk about the administrative stay just imposed late this past week to suspend that, at least for a time.
while the appeals court to determine whether or not the position of the Department of Justice seeking to stop his inquiry, seeking to halt his inquiry into whether or not the Department of Justice is in contempt of court, seeking to stop all of that as the rules
and the regulations and the wheels of justice.
Go forward.
All of that is coming up here on Amicus.
A lot of you, as always, inviting your questions, your comments, your inquiries, your thoughts at 855-752-4842.
Call in to Max or me and also be a part of our discussion by sending notes, comments, questions into our text line.
We welcome all of that here on the broadcast stations.
of civic media.
Let's begin by talking about the United States Supreme Court.
Supreme Court, as you know well, in the first months of its 2025-2026 term, it runs until September 30th of next year, but basically...
The major work of the Supreme Court will be completed somewhere around the 4th of July, the 250th anniversary of our nation in 2026.
We know that the Supreme Court has conducted a number of oral arguments on some of those major cases, yes, including tariffs, yes, including issues related to the future,
of the Voting Rights Act of 1964, and it has scheduled even more oral arguments coming up in January.
It's got about seven oral arguments scheduled for January of 2026, even after it now, as of Wednesday, has concluded its public appearances, its public oral arguments in its courtroom there in Washington, D.C.
It has next scheduled oral arguments on the 12th, the 13th,
the 14th, the 20th, and the 21st of January of 2026.
And among the seven different oral arguments that it is going to be conducting during that time period are two more major cases, not only on the docket of the Supreme Court, on its so-called merits docket.
as opposed to its shadow docket, its emergency application docket.
But to those two cases, again, attracting the attention not just of courts, but also about debate in America, one of them having to do with the presence and the activity and the sporting activities of transgender women in women's sports in America.
Cases called Hecox, H-E-C-O-X, they're going to be entertaining oral argument
on allegations and charges and claims and positions articulated yes under the 14th amendment to the constitution equal protection once again on the docket of the supreme court coming up in january and another case which is also highly relevant what we're going to be talking about in just a few moments that is the power of the president to terminate to seek the the dismissal of
commissioners and board members, case involving Lisa Cook, remember her?
She is the present member of the Federal Reserve, president seeking to terminate her, and also entertaining oral argument on that issue is the United States Supreme Court also coming up in January.
Much related, much related to the first case we're going to be taking up
right after this break, having to do with the capacity of the president, his power with respect to independent agencies in America.
Stay with us for all that discussion 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, I thank you for spending some portion of your weekend in conversation and discussion.
Examination with me of some of these major issues that are animating our lives and our livelihoods in the areas of the rule of law, the administration of justice, the operation of government in these incredible times in our nation and in the history of our republic.
Let's begin by talking about one of those issues before
For the United States Supreme Court on Monday of just this past week, this major case, once again, affording the Supreme Court the opportunity to define the extent of the executive powers in the United States of America under the Constitution, the question in particular, whether or not a chief executive, a president, can terminate, can terminate the position of a leader?
of an official, a commissioner, a board member of an independent federal agency, in particular, an agency called the Federal Trade Commission.
The case, again, Trump versus Slaughter, based upon the termination by President Trump of one of those commissioners, her name is Rebecca Slaughter.
She had sought review of that termination, and she got it by two lower courts that said no.
Mr. President, you do not have the authority to terminate a commissioner in this way.
Based upon President, we will get to that in just a moment or so.
And they reinstated her.
And following that, following that, the United States Supreme Court on its emergency docket effectively overruled those lower courts and said, no, we're going to suspend what the lower courts have done.
We're going to stay what they have done.
And we're going to send Ms.
Slaughter back home once again.
She and one other member of the board of the commissioners there had been terminated by the president, not based upon cause, not based upon negligence or malfeasance or some other reason.
and that could support her termination, but rather because the president does not appreciate, does not enjoy.
the ways in which she does her job for political reasons, views her positions when it comes to FTC decisions in the areas of its jurisdiction as contrary to his views.
And that leads us, that leads us this weekend on Amicus, a lot of you to engage in some lengthy history because it's important to understand not only how important this oral argument and the disposition of this case is,
but also the fact that the Supreme Court has done this before.
This exact situation has been before our High Court about 90 years ago.
We've been down this road.
We've seen this play before and indeed, indeed the Supreme Court 90 years ago in a case called Humphrey's executor gave us the answer to the question that's now back for the Supreme Court.
The precedent
set back in 1935 was that the president did not and does not have the authority to do this with respect to these independent agencies created by the Congress, expressly for the purpose of being independent, from being away from the political and partisan decisions of any president.
And we'll get to the merits of that in just a moment.
After we talk about the history of this, we're going to go back to
33.
The president was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
America had just elected him.
He was carried into the White House, as history will tell us, by a promise to return the country to some level of prosperity, following the stock market crash and the economic calamity that he had inherited from some of his predecessors.
As he was moving in that direction, he came upon an individual, and his name is Humphrey.
and Mr. Humphrey happened to be appointed to the Federal Trade Commission.
Humphrey grew up, interestingly, in a small town in Indiana, practiced law northwest of Indianapolis for a while before moving to Seattle.
He won a house seat in Washington State in 1902, and believe it or not, he served in the Congress for several years before losing his 1916 Senate race.
His name of once again, it is important to understand this.
is Humphrey, and his name is given to the case.
Humphrey's executor, William E. Humphrey, a lawyer who refused to leave his post when the president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not only asked him but then demanded that he do just that.
It is 1933, it is Roosevelt's first year in office, and William Humphrey wrote to the president an urgent letter.
He said this, my dear Mr. President,
information has come to me that you're going to ask for my resignation for what reason he said I do not know now William Humphrey may have been a little dissembling in that because he had been sparring with the president for a while about things what related to
partisan issues, political issues, issues related to the kinds of things that the FTC should or should not be doing.
And Mr. William Humphrey plainly was of the view that the FTC should not be attacking business, should not be going after anti-competitive efforts and undertakings of business when the president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, felt that bringing corporations and companies under control was key.
to reestablishing the economic vitality of this nation.
And so...
Mr. Humphrey writes to the president and says, what is this about?
I'm hearing you're going to fire me.
I'd like a personal interview to talk things over, he says.
And he says, after more than 40 years of service, being forced to resign would greatly injure, he says, his professional life.
This is William Humphrey writing to the president, confronting him about the disagreement that they're having in public.
About a week later or so, FDR confirms those rumors.
And he says, he finds it necessary to ask for your resignation, Mr. Humphrey.
And in language, in language that we are hearing once again in this time, in this year.
between Donald Trump, our current president, and Rebecca Slaughter, a now former member of the Federal Trade Commission, same kind of language involving the capacity of the president to fire somebody on one of these independent agencies.
Roosevelt said that the agency's work could, as he said, be carried out most effectively with personnel of my own selection.
When we come back, I'll tell you the result of that story and why that's so important to what the Supreme Court did on Monday of this week in entertaining arguments.
90 years later, same issue, same basic contest involving the power of the presidency here on Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Santel and you are listening to amicus a lot of you here on the broadcast stations of civic media Thank you for joining my producer max and me for our exposition our movement through the geography of rule of law issues administration of justice issues operation of government issues Beginning in this broadcast with focus upon the Supreme Court once again this major oral argument on Monday of this past week in a case
called Trump.
Yes, that's our president versus Slaughter.
She is a former member of the Federal Trade Commission.
There is history behind it.
There's a 90-year history in a case called Humphrey's Executor, and that brings me back to the history of a similar contest almost a century ago.
Same agency, same kinds of issues.
We've seen this before.
This time, 100 years or so ago, the contest was between a fellow
named William Humphrey, and a president named Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Franklin Roosevelt writes to him and says to Mr. Humphrey, yes, I'm going to fire you, please leave.
He writes him a letter that says, it's a definite decision of mine, and he congratulates Mr. Humphrey for his long and active service.
see you on the way out.
Mr. Humphrey is not agreeable to that.
He shot back a few days later, said he was, quote, somewhat disturbed and shocked by the news of his forthcoming firing.
He said, I've lost all professional and business connections.
After being out of the practice of law for nine years, naturally he said, I should like to consult my friends as to my future actions.
And he tells the president, he's not going anywhere.
I am not quitting, Mr. President.
And despite the distress that William Humphrey expresses to the president, the president says by telegram a few days later that he's accepting, he is accepting William Humphrey's resignation.
Not exactly what Mr. Humphrey had told the president.
Humphrey retorts, he said he is not going anywhere.
He cites the statute, which brings us to the relevant issues, creating the agency saying, you know what, Mr. President, the Federal Trade Commission was created by the Congress to be independent of you.
And yes, presidents appoint commissioners, but you do not have the capacity to fire me, to remove me or anyone else for anything other than inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
And on any of those, I have been forthright in my positions.
I have been stride in my positions, among other things.
William Humphrey has voted to dismiss some investigations against big businesses.
He's pro-business, which is, again, contrary to what the president wants to do.
Humphrey has said during the course of his term that he wants these investigations of various companies that, for example, make mattresses and shoes.
cash registers and so all of them stopped.
FDR wants them to be continued.
So what happens in this this back and forth eventually is that the president does in fact pursue his intent to terminate Mr. Humphrey and does that and Humphrey of course again responds you're doing this for political reasons not permitted under the law and if the
President goes ahead, he says, with this posture, this view that he can fire me.
This is what Mr. Humphrey says, the independence, the purpose, the character, and value of all independent commissions we destroyed.
President tries, even as he is firing Mr. Humphrey, to cajole him, to get him to leave.
But ultimately, on October 7th, the President fires William Humphrey, says, get out.
You've got to leave now and you are done.
He says, I think it's best for the people of this country that I should have full confidence in the positions and the prerogatives, the decisions of FTC commissioners, you are gone.
Mr. Humphrey did not take that easily.
Instead, he launched a campaign to keep his job.
He writes to fellow commissioners.
He writes to everybody he knows.
He says, I'm ready and willing to exercise the powers, the prerogatives of my...
office, the functions that I've been pointed to do.
He said that the president has no power to do what he is doing.
And he also wrote a letter, interestingly, to his successor that FDR had identified.
His name is George Matthews.
There is a Wisconsin connection to him.
Mr. Matthews is an economist from the state of Wisconsin.
He's going to take Mr. Humphrey's position on the FDC.
And Mr. Humphrey is saying, there's no vacancy.
I am still here and indeed Mr. Humphrey continues to go to work to show up at the FTC and purport to do his job.
He says, I'm not leaving.
It is unthinkable to think that I would leave when the president has no power to terminate me.
I am staying exactly where I am.
He continues to fight to keep his job, even while he's battling some illness.
In January, 1934, his doctor tells him to delay some testimony because they're concerned about his health.
And weeks later, on Valentine's Day, William Humphrey dies tragically at his home in Washington.
He was 71 years old.
That was about five months after FDR purported to fire him.
And news reports at the time indicated that he had been in poor health.
and that he'd expected to recover and continued with his term in office with the FTC.
That did not happen.
But even though Mr. Humphrey died five months after the termination, the legal issue was only beginning.
And again, it has its tendrils from all of that history into 2025 and 2026.
What happens in the wake of Mr. Humphrey's untimely death?
The legal fight goes on.
His estate files a claim with the United States government and said, Mr. Humphrey, improperly and not at all fired, showed up for work for five months.
He is entitled to all the pay that he would have otherwise gotten from the time of FDR's termination of him, purported firing of him until the time that he died when plainly he stopped showing up.
Please give us that money.
His estate said, thus the name of the case, Humphrey's executor.
The executor of the estate is the one who advances this claim.
Pressing forward, arguing that the deceased commissioner was illegally fired.
His estate was entitled to that back pay.
Makes it way up through the courts.
The courts say, yes, indeed.
William Humphrey is right.
And FDR, Mr. President, you are wrong.
You do not have the capacity to fire someone in this position.
And therefore,
Humphrey's executor, you win.
We're going to give you all the money, all the money that Mr. Humphrey otherwise would have been entitled to had he remained alive during that five month period.
May 27th, a day that's also known as Black Monday because the Supreme Court on that day issued a whole string of decisions striking down some New Deal programs, including its case.
It's case decision in this matter called Humphrey's executors saying, you know what?
We're affirming the lower courts.
The president has no power to terminate the position and responsibility, the authority of someone who's sitting in an independent agency spot.
FDR, you are wrong.
You've exceeded your constitutional and congressional authority conferred on the FTC.
And we're giving Mr.
the state's position, Mr. Humphrey's estate, all the money that they are seeking.
That's what happens in the case of Humphrey's executor 90 years ago, and it remains the law of the land until now.
It is still good law.
The Supreme Court initially, when it begins to tinker in this area, suspends the decisions of the lower court with respect to Rebecca Slaughter.
She had relied upon the precedent of Humphrey's executor and saying, you know what, 90 years ago the Supreme Court told me I'm independent.
The president, this time Donald Trump has no ability to fire me, relying upon that, the lower courts say, yes, you're right.
And the Supreme Court, in the wake of that on its emergency docket, suspends and stays those lower courts, but also places this on the merit docket.
which gets us to what happened finally this past Monday they have oral argument and the big takeaway the big headline from the history of the past and the recent history of just past days is the Supreme Court seems perched seems ready seems inclined yes to overrule 90 years of precedent to overrule Humphrey's executor Humphrey's executor by the way a unanimous decision
back in 1935 by the Supreme Court.
Humphrey's executor likely going to be on the chopping block based upon the nature of the oral argument happening just on Monday Supreme Court appearing appearing poised to Give the president once again a huge amount of power when it comes not only to the FTC But also other independent agencies in which the president may want to fire people we know as I said at the top of this hour There is a related case coming up in mid-January having to do with the power of the
president to terminate a member of the Federal Reserve, a board member.
Her name is Lisa Cook.
That's coming up also in January.
It's a related case, but interestingly not joined for oral argument this past Monday.
The FTC case appears to stand alone.
Interestingly, the argument was lengthy.
And the justices were very much engaged, giving us a very good sense of how they're going to play out, how this is going to be resolved when they go into the decision conference, which probably happened on Friday of this past week.
Kelly Slaughter, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, was actually there in the courtroom.
And she appeared to be listening closely.
She was listening to the justices as they questioned the parties, including her attorney on this major case.
And she also seemed to be taking some
copious notes.
She was often writing things, which is significant.
She is taking notes on what the justices are saying.
You know, the electronic devices not permitted in the courtroom.
No cell phones, no other recording devices.
The argument concludes, and the big takeaway once again, it appears that a majority of the Supreme Court going to tell Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, no.
that we're going to overrule 90 years of president and you are fired by virtue of what the Supreme Court will say to her and also tell the president in yet another grant of extraordinary power to him.
Katanji Brown Jackson, one of the court members very much engaged in this conversation, appeared very sympathetic to the arguments made by Rebecca Slaughter's lawyer.
He said that there are real-world risks that are palpable.
He cited concerns about other agencies.
like, for example, the Federal Elections Commission, also independent of the White House.
What about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, he said, and technical determinations made by people on that commission, if an order goes forward granting this
permission to fire here, that could also apply in all of these other areas.
He said they must be insulated from politics.
We know as well that there was something else from history that came about, not only a lot of discussion about Humphrey's executor, along the way, along the way, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court calling Humphrey's executor that that old case, that 90 year old case, he called it a dry husk, H-U-S-K.
a dried husk that gives you a pretty good sense about how the Chief Justice is going to resolve this particular case.
There was also something called the Sinking Fund Commission.
came up several times.
It's arguably the first commission ever established with an independent authority of the White House.
It was created in 1790 by the first Congress, five members, to approve settlements and payments made to pay the war debts in our American Revolutionary War.
On the commission was the Vice President and Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary.
The Secretary of State, his name is Thomas Jefferson,
plainly a high-powered commission and operating independent of the White House even back then.
Why?
Because they didn't want these decisions to be made upon political or partisan views about who should get compensated and who should not.
Justice Roberts again articulating his view that the
president here is a dried husk.
When we come back, I'll tell you a little bit more about what the Supreme Court did as we think about the future of this major case pending before the highest court in our land here on Amicus, a law review.
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 Alava.
My name is Jim Santel.
I thank you for spending some portion of your weekend in this our discussion about the powers of the presidency going forward once again on the docket of the United States Supreme Court in this case called Trump versus slaughter testing whether or not any president including the current president has the power to terminate the position to fire people on these independent commissions
a tradition that we've had since 1790.
when people like Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton served on the very first of these commissions called the Sinking Fund Commission, doing so independent, independent of the White House.
Why?
Because you don't want them to be making decisions that are political or partisan in nature.
That tradition has continued as we know through this case called Humphrey's Executor in 1935, in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed in the early part of the 20th century
century that fundamental notion presidents got no capacity to do it now on the chopping block the history of this particular arrangement between these independent agencies and the presidency now apparently going to be eviscerated erased by the Supreme Court changing history for the first time in 235 years what do we know how do we think that that will probably be the the case even as the Supreme Court is not
yet issued its decision.
Well, we know about some of the things that the Supreme Court justices said during the course of the oral argument.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, for instance, said there's been an eroding of Humphrey's executor over the years, basically saying, well, it's no longer about the power that it normally did in previous years.
Neil Gorsuch contends that Humphrey's executor was poorly reasoned from the start.
A unanimous opinion 90 years ago, badly done, Neil Gorsuch says.
And as I've indicated, perhaps the strongest indication of how this is going to go, the Chief Justice himself said, this is a dried husk of whatever people used to think.
John Sauer, again, is the...
Solicitor General, who's arguing on behalf of the president, on behalf of your Department of Justice, according to Sauer, he says, the president is answerable to the voters, but agencies like the FTC and all these others have no boss, he said.
According to Sauer, the president must have the power to control administrative agencies.
And the one who has the power to remove is the person that they have to fear and obey.
Fear and obey, that's the way that your Solicitor General described the roles and the positions of these independent commissioners and board members just this past week.
Most of the justices appeared to accept that position.
Not everybody.
Not everybody.
Plainly, Katanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan taking a very different review.
Justice Kavanaugh, likewise, throwing his lot in with majority.
At some point, at some point, John Sowers says,
He is insisting that, you know what, this is not that big a deal.
The sky will not fall, he says, and in fact, we're going to be promoting a greater and better understanding of how government should work.
The sky will not fall, he says, to the members of the Supreme Court.
And that prompts Sonia Sotomayor, one of the likely dissenting voices in this ultimate opinion.
She warns that his argument, what you have said, Mr. Sauer, is effectively going to let the president
Do more than what the law permits.
Do more than what the law permits.
There is apparently at the time a hush.
in the courtroom as she says that, as the moment shocks the room, as she describes the import of this plainly, not the view of the majority of her fellows on the court.
But that's the tenor, that's the likely takeaway on all of this.
And this exchange between Sonia Sotomayor and John Sauer culminating in Sotomayor's warning, the government's position would let the president do whatever he wants in terms of exercise of powers,
is the takeaway on all of this.
And that is why we have spent so much time talking about it in this, the first hour of our broadcast.
That is because, along with the decision,
that this Supreme Court made in its previous term, July 1 of 2024.
You recall that's the case involving Donald Trump and the United States of America.
That's the big one.
Most people regarded as the case in which the Supreme Court said, and they did, that a sitting president is immune from certain types of criminal prosecutions for conduct committed in his official capacity, a stunning reversal of our understanding of separation of power.
and the notion that no one is above the law.
Well, it turns out, according to the Supreme Court, there is someone, and that's the president of the United States of America.
In the first pages of that monumental landmark case of July 1 of 2024, the Supreme Court also lays down what it probably will say again when it dissolves, when it resolves rather, this case involving Rebecca Slaughter.
It's said in that case of July 1,
that the president cannot be entangled with things like criminal
involvement, criminal prosecutions, can't be responsible for things that divert him or her one day from being strong and muscular and deft and decisive and quick to act, gotta be able to be muscular, if you will, in doing these kinds of things and being an all-powerful executive.
And indeed, that is a codification of what John Roberts, the Chief Justice, was advocating many years ago when he was inside the White House as one of the lawyers there.
Now,
It has taken fruition.
It has taken new life inside the Supreme Court, not only on July 1 of 2024, but also likely sometime in the months coming up, maybe very soon, but certainly no later than July of 2026 when we celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Constitution and of our United States.
Honor before that date.
The United States Supreme Court, again, almost certainly in this case, called Trump versus Slaughter, is going to restyle the way in which the branches of government work and is going to afford the president a huge amount of power.
Critics of this likely opinion will say it's nowhere in the Constitution.
and they would be right.
It's not there.
It's not envisioned by James Madison, but the Supreme Court does tell us what the law is.
And so we look forward to seeing how they resolve this.
A likely disposition from six to three, a vote of six to three by the Supreme Court likely already decided in their decision conference of late this week.
When we come back, more about those other cases argued before the Supreme Court here on Amicus, a law review.
This is amicus a lot of you here on the broadcast stations of civic media this the second hour of our weekend broadcast
Focusing as we often do on the United States Supreme Court, why?
Because the things that the Supreme Court decides in ways big and small affect us all in major ways.
We spent all of the first hour of our broadcast this weekend talking about this major case that implicates the powers of the presidency and of the Constitution.
And in particular, on whether or not the president
Can fire members of independent agencies?
It is, in effect, a codification that is the argument.
is a codification of the unitary executive theory, this thing advanced in Project 2025 that establishes or would establish in the chief executive a huge amount of authority.
It appears that the United States Supreme Court, based on the oral argument of justice past Monday, is going to give the president the power that he is seeking.
Not only with respect to the FTC, but likely many other commissions out there, also independent of the White House history.
Historically we will see what happens there.
We plainly will monitor that and report on exactly what the Supreme Court does in the end likely they have decided that case already in a decision conference of late last week Probably assigning right now who is going to write the majority who is going to write the dissenting opinion in that the case once again is Trump versus Slaughter there's another case on the docket of the Supreme Court
Arguably just as controversial because this one affects campaign finance laws, the case involves the capacity of political parties, the Republican National Party, the Democratic National Committee, to fund directly or at least to support in greater amounts the individual candidacies of
candidates running for office.
This is a dispute that's brought before the court by some Republicans, and in particular, the name of the case reflects that it's the National Republican Senatorial Committee versus the Federal Election Commission.
They're challenging.
They're challenging certain established limits on how much money
Political parties can spend in coordination with candidates.
Up to this point, limits on that, restrictions on the extent to which the political parties, yes, including the Republican Party, also the Democratic Party, can spend in supporting the candidacies of individual candidates.
Sparring, once again, on whether or not those limitations, those restrictions should remain in place.
As it has always been the case, we entertain these arguments in the wake of history.
You know what the history is on this particular matter.
You all recall this landmark 2010 case called Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission.
What did Citizens United do?
You recall this well.
Justices there struck down.
They said no to some legal limits on independent political spending.
monetary spending by corporations and unions.
Corporations and unions limits on their capacity, in other words, giving them the authority to make payments to candidates, basically allowing huge amounts of new money to enter into politics.
That's the Citizens United position.
That's the Citizens United case of 15 years ago.
The issue is back now, not with respect to corporations and unions.
That's settled, at least for now.
There is a so-called Citizens United fix that has been pending in Congress for 15 years.
Congress has not done anything to overrule that decision.
And meanwhile...
The issue of campaign financing by political parties now is before the court.
And the question again comes up based upon real-world circumstances, including someone who is much in our political eyesight these days.
The reality is that this particular case comes out of a situation involving our own vice president of the United States of America, J.D.
Vance, who is at that time an Ohio
candidate for the Senate.
Remember that?
When he first sort of broke on to national politics, along with some Republican groups at the time, had sued the Federal Election Commission, arguing about these coordination limits.
He said the notion that political parties, including in his case the Republican Party, cannot support me directly, is unconstitutional.
Said it's actually a First Amendment violation.
The political parties are being stymied in their speech.
and therefore the courts should strike down these limits, these caps on the extent to which political parties can contribute to individual candidacies.
The Biden administration, as this matter percolates up, defended those campaign laws in the lower courts, and a panel of federal appeals court judges sided with the private administration upholding those current spending limits, keeping things as they are.
Republican groups then asked the justices to weigh in, which is their right.
They appealed this to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court granted what's called a writ of certiorari.
Said, yes, we'll review this entire situation again in the wake of Citizens United, this time determining whether political parties have the capacity to support individual campaigns and candidates at a greater level than they have been able to do.
The reality is that way back in 2000,
one, there was a similar case brought by some Colorado Republicans and that the spending limits between the party committees and the candidates were upheld at that time.
But in arguments on Tuesday of this week,
The deputy solicitor general named Sarah Harris, she's also in John Sauer's office, argued that that president had been demolished, she said.
And she told the justices of the Trump administration, different from the Biden administration, now view these current limitations.
as an important free speech issue.
And she said, get rid of those limitations.
She said this, she said, regardless of how this works out in terms of who gets more money when and who does what with the money, the bigger issue is.
Is there a restriction right now that is encroaching on truly central campaign speech?
And the answer to us is manifestly yes.
She's advocating for getting rid of these limits on political parties with respected campaigns for individual candidates.
So how does this play out?
Well, again, there is contested language and argument back and forth.
It begins, actually, with some agreement.
between Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh, which is also interesting when both of them effectively say, you know, we have been down this road before and we always seem to muck this up.
This is what Sonia Sotomayor said, waiting into this campaign finance issue.
She said, every time we, meaning the Supreme Court, interferes with the congressional design, we make matters worse.
Sotomayor says, our tinkering causes more harm than it does.
And she's got a companion in that.
His name is Brett Kavanaugh.
He says that I'm concerned also about some of the fallout of the court's campaign finance decisions in the past.
He says he's worried that, as he said, the combination of campaign finance laws and this court's decisions over the years have together reduced the power of political parties as compared to outside groups.
with negative effects on our constitutional democracy.
Again, suggesting that maybe, maybe, we have to reverse this, but also along the way, this has been a mess.
And indeed, it's not clear.
from what the Supreme Court justices did on Tuesday, exactly how this is going to play out, because, well, it's clear that Sonia Sotomayor and Khataji Brown Jackson and Lena Kagan advocating for retaining these restrictions, limitations on political parties, the other members of the court asking questions sort of in all directions, and not entirely clear exactly how this is going to play out.
And so why is this so important?
Why is this case so meaningful?
What it has to do, yes, indeed.
once again with money.
big money, small donors, and it has to do with advertising.
And for that reason, it's going to change dramatically the kind, the nature, the frequency in particular, the number of ads that you see in 2026.
If the Supreme Court keeps things exactly as they are, yes, you may feel that you're going to be flooded once again, but this will be a very different climate, a very different geography.
If the Supreme Court grants the petitioner
in this case, the Republican Party bringing this case to it.
If it grants the request to unleash the powers of these political parties, again, it would apply to both parties, Republicans and Democrats alike.
If they do that, it will certainly change the way in which advertising is on your screens and on the airways in 2026 in this major year in American history.
Why is that very, very important?
Well, it also involves political action committees.
And of course, we know that political action committees much a part of this.
Experts say,
as they look at political action committees, and they look at individual candidates, and they look at the political parties who are at the core of this, that a win here for the petitioners for the Republican Party would have an immediate practical impact on the midterm elections coming up in 2026.
Shrinking, again, this is a partisan perspective, but shrinking dramatically, one of the Democratic Party's major financial advantages.
And what is that as people
from both sides of the political aisle.
Look at this.
They say that is lower costs for political candidates who directly buy broadcast.
Advertising time now.
What does that mean?
Let's try to unpack that a little bit what elections observers and political pundits are saying about all this under federal law We know that broadcasters are obliged to offer political candidates the individual candidates low advertising rates But they are not not required to give super PACs those same low rates so super PACs
often pay double, sometimes even triple, sometimes even four times as much money for the same TV spots as do individual candidates.
And so in recent years, it has been a part of the records of the Federal Election Commission that Democratic candidates in America have tended to vastly out raise Republican candidates
who have been more reliant on the support of those super PACs and national party committees, which gets us back to this particular case.
Those Latino parties and the super PACs can accept the larger donations, and that's the rub here.
In practice, all this means that Democratic candidates have been able to take advantage of those lower ad rates more often than Republicans.
That's just the way it is played out economically in these campaigns.
And so why is this all important once again?
Well, an individual donor can give only $3,500 to a candidate for both a primary and general election in the federal system during an election cycle.
A donor, any donor, political party, a donation, a PAC donation, whether a Republican or a Democrat, can give up to $44,300 to a national party committee's general fund every year.
It can also give hundreds of
Thousands of dollars the more special they count so it depends on where the monies go
And if, in fact, the Supreme Court says that political parties are now enabled to provide some of those large dollar amounts to individual candidates, it changes that advertising calculus and enables Republicans to pay for advertising at rates and levels that the Democrats have enjoyed in recent years.
What is the upshot of that seemingly
partisan and political analysis that's really just based upon history and the economics of all of this and that is if the Supreme Court if it does decide to get rid of these finance limits for political parties what it means is a whole lot more advertising yes from Republicans but also certainly from Democrats in the coming year and also changing the ways in which big money
and dollars at that category come into our political campaigns.
When we come back, we'll do yet another case before the Supreme Court this past week.
All that on Amicus, a lot of you.
This is amicus a law review Spending a lot of time in this broadcast this weekend talking about the Supreme Court these major oral arguments of recent days in which we can pull some sense of how the Supreme Court may be at least addressing the issues if not resolving them completely We know from the oral argument on Monday the Supreme Court likely to issue a major win for the president's Deposition that he should be able to fire anybody on any of these
Administrative agencies these in
Attendant agencies a huge case if in fact the Supreme Court goes down that road with respect to the separation of powers and the balance of powers in our federal system on Tuesday They wrestled with this issue related to campaign finance issues not quite as clear about how the Supreme Court will come down but recognizing huge consequences if the Supreme Court decides to overturn adjust the ways in which political parties the Republican National Party the
the Democratic National Party and others in a partisan setting can or cannot support financially the candidates of individuals who are running for office in America.
That one last clear.
There is a third oral argument that happened on Wednesday of this past week.
And once again, the tea leaves likely indicate a majority of the Supreme Court going in one direction.
Completely different.
from powers of the presidency and independent agencies, completely different from campaign finance issues.
This has to do with the death penalty in the United States of America.
Again, a hot topic that the Supreme Court does periodically take up.
They have done it again in granting certiorari to review a particular case coming out of the state of Alabama.
And Alabama man will talk about exactly what he did, who's challenging his death sentence imposed by the state of Alabama after a murder conviction because of some varying, some diverse results in a series of IQ tests.
I know you're thinking, how does that?
figure into a death penalty case.
Let's begin to unpack that.
Again, the justices hearing arguments from Alabama and also on behalf of the particular defendant here, the convicted defendant, arguing against the imposition of the death penalty as to him.
We know that in the past, the Supreme Court has said that under the Eighth Amendment,
which prohibits, among other things, the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment, that in the general sense it is not.
it is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment to impose a death penalty.
They have said at the same time in virtually the same breath that if the states of the nation are going to pursue the death penalty and right now there are about 27 of them by my count that do have variations on this, their variations have got to be consistent with
basic understandings about due process.
You've got to do an awful lot of things to ensure that all your T's are crossed, all your I's are dotted, that every aspect of due process is adhered to, that evidentiary rulings, that trial courts, decisions by appellate courts in terms of reviewing what happened at lower courts, that all of those are meticulous and they are particular.
They always should be that.
You would anticipate that in civil and criminal cases, but here the stakes could not be.
higher, right?
This is playing the single most significant dramatic thing that a government can do, which is impose a death penalty on any one of its residents.
And indeed, that's what we've got going on here.
We have the Supreme Court saying it is not unconstitutional to do it, but you've got to do it consistent with certain rules and regulations, which they have also
established over the period of many, many years.
And the jurisprudence in this has changed over time.
There are some Supreme Court justices of the recent past that say that that very position should be overturned.
They have taken the view that it is cruel and unusual punishment to impose the death penalty under any circumstances.
that has not been the law of the land, that has not been the view of a majority of the Supreme Court's in recent history, and so we proceed down this road.
Of the circumstances, the details under which states can do this, one of them, one of them comes out of another case called Atkins versus Virginia.
It's called
Atkins analysis, ATKINS, it gives states the leeway to determine their own processes, their own procedures, their particulars for deciding who may be intellectually disabled, who among the folks on death row
is not entitled, is not subject to death penalty in position because of certain mental disabilities and therefore can raise the issue of intellectual disability in opposition to the death penalty being pursued by the state.
What is this all about?
In Atkins, the Supreme Court said that before you can impose the death penalty, you've got to ensure that the person who is the subject of that ultimate
in position has the intellectual ability to appreciate the nature of what's going on here, to appreciate the consequence certainly of what he or she did, but also the significance of the penalty it has to do with deterrence.
And in fact, if the person does not have the intellectual capability, has some mental disabilities that suggests that that person does not appreciate what is going on, you cannot, you cannot impose the death penalty upon that person.
That's the case.
of Atkins.
And so the question is, how do we determine who is intellectually disabled, who has those mental disabilities, and who does not?
And in this particular case, a case involving Joseph
Clinton Smith sentenced to death after being convicted of a heinous murder that he planned and involved with the robbery way back in 1997 and years before and after that murder the defendant took five IQ tests five different IQ tests
allegedly to determine whether or not he's got mental disabilities, whether he has got intellectual disabilities that would disqualify him for the death penalty.
His test scores range from 72 to 78.
Very clear, very clear on each one of those, but they vary.
And the key part of Alabama's law on mental disability turns on whether defendants score 70 or lower.
on the state test.
When we come back, I'll explain why those particular tests are so important here, what the Supreme Court did in response to this petition, and where they're likely going with respect to this issue about intellectual disabilities for people on death row.
That, as Amicus Allaro View continues.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus Allaro View.
We are talking about the third
Oral argument in a series of three of just this past week before the United States Supreme Court, this one involving the death penalty, implicating all kinds of issues related to the Eighth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment, how it is that states can in fact impose the death penalty upon particular convicts, the mechanisms for doing that, the stridency of the policies and procedures that have to be followed before you can do that ultimate thing that a government
is empowered, at least for now, under the Constitution to do 27 states have the death penalty, no small thing when it comes to establishing the mechanisms for that.
And then what do you do?
What do you do when you've got a defendant, a convicted defendant, who maintains that he or she does not have the intellectual capacity to understand what is going on and therefore under this case called Atkins, Atkins versus Virginia,
cannot be put to death.
How do you determine whether or someone has that intellectual disability does have the mental or does not have the mental state to be executed?
And so the Supreme Court has before it on Wednesday of this past week, the horrific case, tragic case, all of these cases tragic involving an individual.
who is involved in, way back in 1997, an horrific murder.
Even before then, Smith, who is the defendant in this case, he has got a long history.
We know that during the course of his life as a child, he was physically abused by his father, stepfather, according to court records in school, he's assigned to a special class.
for students with intellectual disabilities, and that is relevant, even in this late date, because it establishes some record, some history, about whether or not this individual has the intellectual capacity to be subject to the death penalty.
He drops out of school after failing the seventh and eighth grades, spends much of the next 15 years in prison, 19, at the age of 19, he goes to prison for six more years for burglary.
Released on parole found to have violated the terms of that release.
He's returned to prison before being released again just two days before the horrific murder in this case and it is horrific I'll give you a little bit of sense of the reason why Joseph Clinton Smith.
He's the defendant.
He is the convicted defendant is before the courts
On this particular day in 1997, Smith and a partner of his, Laura, a fellow named Dirk Van Dam, who they had heard was carrying some cash.
And they follow him, they lure him into an isolated area in the woods in Mobile County in Alabama.
And there, they attack him.
They attack him with a hammer.
and a saw, all this according to court records, and after beating him to death, they take $140, they take Van Dam's boots, and they pawn the tools from his truck.
And that's the offense conduct.
He is convicted of that heinous murder, and he is placed on death row in Alabama.
Way back in 1997, the years had followed that, and ever since then, underscoring the amount of litigation that is often involved in death penalty cases like this, his case has been in the courts.
And now it's before the courts, once again, including the United States Supreme Court, on this issue of his own disability.
As I said right before the break, it is clear that over various times, various years, various circumstances, Mr. Smith takes IQ tests and they range from anywhere between 72 and 78.
Those are low scores by any evaluation, but they're just above.
The Alabama score, which is 70.
70 says if you score 70 or lower on the test, we will determine that you are intellectually disabled and therefore no death penalty.
Higher than 70, then we can impose the death penalty.
Very lively argument about this on Wednesday before the Supreme Court.
And it appears, it appears the majority of the justices are very reluctant.
to embrace this strined numeric approach that was being advocated for by the attorney for the state of Alabama.
Most of the attorneys, again, or the attorney for Alabama advocating that this is a bright line test, most of the members of the Supreme Court finding that uncomfortable.
And in fact, suggesting that it's too rigid a test, in part because it would not permit the lower courts
to account for other evidence, right?
Other things that may be a part of Mr. Smith's life and his intellectual capacity that lower courts should know about in determining whether or not he is truly intellectually disabled.
So the attorney for Alabama.
suggests that this matter, the highest score before the court, should be given the highest weight.
And in that case, it's 78.
And therefore, he scores at 78.
He's eight points above the 70 figure in Alabama for that reason.
And because of all of the applications of Alabama law that are dependent upon that numeric calculation, for that reason, Mr. Smith can and should be executed.
prompts skepticism from Chief Justice John Roberts and from Brett Kavanaugh as well, right off the bat.
And the Chief Justice says, you can see why that might be regarded as a little results oriented.
That's probably a dramatic understatement.
Once again, all three of the so-called liberal justices are
concerned to put it lightly about this numeric analysis being advanced by the state of Alabama.
And Justice Elena Kagan in particular says that if the defendant here has received these scores,
You have to leave open the door, she said, to a person's evidence.
She's talking about something beyond just the scores themselves.
Most of the justices seeming to embrace what's called an holistic approach, H-O-L-I-S-T-I-C, an holistic approach in which the judges at the lower courts can take into account other things beyond just the numbers.
When you have someone like Mr. Smith, whose IQ scores are admittedly very low, but whose scores are hovering just above
the 70 line in Alabama.
The Alabama law basically advocated for by the attorney for Alabama says that to avoid execution defendants like Mr. Smith required to show, and this is what the law says, significant sub-average intellectual functioning at the time of the crime was committed.
They have to show some significant deficits in adaptive behavior, adapting to the world around you, for example, at the time the crime was committed.
And they also have to show that these problems manifested themselves before the defendant reached the age of 18.
All of that suggesting that the lower courts should indeed, as the majority of the Supreme Court seemed to say, be taking into consideration, yes, IQ scores, but things beyond that in this holistic approach to determining the capacity of a defendant on death row.
Justice Samolito disagrees with that.
He seemed to disagree with it in any event.
He suggested a person like Mr. Smith who claims intellectual disability has to, as he said, meet some concrete standard in the interest of greater consistency and predictability, he said.
Otherwise, Alito said, everything is up for grabs.
That was Sam Alito during the course of the oral argument on Wednesday.
Appears in the end that he will be in the minority on that position, but we don't know yet.
We'll see what the Supreme Court does, underscoring once again the significance of these cases before the Supreme Court as we've talked on this broadcast, having to do with the death penalty in America under the Eighth Amendment.
What does that mean?
What does it not mean?
Having to do with campaign finance, rules and regulations, money in our campaigns here in Wisconsin and throughout the United States of America, having to do with the power of the presidency.
to fire, to terminate, to regulate the actions of independent agencies or not.
Huge issues just on the docket of the Supreme Court just this past week.
We of course in future broadcast will continue to report on exactly what the Supreme Court does in all of those hugely important areas here on Amicus, a law review.
We also continue to monitor things by lower court judges as well.
We have
talked a lot before about the activities, the actions, the undertakings of many, many federal district court judges, and offering the perspective that among other things, including, for example, grand juries, including, for example, the actions of individual prosecutors and investigators inside the Department of Justice, including, for example, the advocacy of all of you when it comes to responding as you are prone to do, as you are inclined to do, in response to these
concerns about the rule of law.
We have talked a lot about the role among those kinds of things of the role that federal district court judges play in ensuring that there are guardrails.
There are guardrails to ensure that the rule of law is observed.
One of those, of course, is the actions and activities of federal district court judges conducting trials and hearings and determining almost with unanimity that the actions, some of the actions
of this president in issuing executive orders, in engaging especially, in deportations are contrary to the law, contrary to the Alien Enemies Act, for example, contrary to the Constitution and a due process.
You know we have talked a lot in the past about judges like Paula Zinnis in Maryland.
And she has done something just this past week that both reflects upon the power of district court judges to ensure that those guardrails in place, and also the authority and the power of another judge in another district, the District of Columbia.
His name is James Boesburg.
We've talked about him a lot, also in connection with deportations.
What did both of those judges do just this past week in affirming not only the role that district court judges appropriately play,
in this extraordinary time in America, how our federal district court judges responding in these instances to deportations, especially those in which there have been findings based upon evidentiary presentations of the lack of due process, the lack of compliance by the Department of Justice, by the government, by Homeland Security, and also along the way.
by actions of Department of Justice attorneys that fall in the category of dissembling and deceiving and, yes, lying and telling judges things that are not true, also the subjects of their focus of just recent weeks and recent days.
Let's begin with James Bosberg because he's the one who began to identify these problems way back in the middle of March.
when, as you recall well, the administration placed on some planes 238 people, some migrants, and deported them, as you recall well, to El Salvador, to that high security prison.
And at the time, an emergency application made to Judge Bosberg in his role as a federal district court judge, petition made on behalf of those 238
including significantly a fellow named Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
You recall that name well, we'll get back to him in just a moment or two.
The judge looking at all this and saying that absent information, absent proof that all of those particular individuals have been afforded due process, even if they are deportable, even if they should be deported based upon their conduct, no evidence of due process, which is required by our law and our constitution.
And so what he does is he says turn those planes around if they haven't taken off if they haven't taken off keep them here on the ground if they've taken off Turn them around call the pilots bring them back if they have landed in El Salvador Tell them to gas up and bring those planes back as well That is what judge Bosberg says in the effort to try to determine what has happened here and to determine Under the law whether or not your government has complied with the Constitution
and what he does is in the weeks and days and yes months that follows he tries to get answers to the question about what the government did at that time to abide by his directives by his orders his clear orders to turn those planes around to bring those 238 back and he has been stymied in that effort by a Department of Justice that has said no when we come back I'll tell you the result of that what happened just this past week and we'll also talk
about Kilmar Brego Garcia and what happened with him in a federal district court before Judge Zinnas in Maryland as we return right after this.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
We are talking about these rule of law issues percolating up and out of federal district courts, one in the District of Columbia, one in Maryland, all having to do with the deportations in the spring of this year, about 238 people to El Salvador on those planes, one of them named Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Let's get back to talking about what the judge in Washington DC, his name is James Bosberg, is attempting to find out about
what happened way back in March, when in fact those planes, even though he directed them to return to America, to return those 238 people here to determine, judicially, whether they should be deported or not, when that didn't happen.
What happened there inside the United States Department of Justice?
The judge initially began this inquiry a long time ago.
That was suspended when the Supreme Court, when the, I'm sorry, the Department of Justice sought a review by the appellate court to stop that review taking place.
Recently, the appeals court has permitted James Bosberg to go ahead again with his inquiry.
And indeed, justice past week, Bosberg has recently ordered the testimony
of a former Department of Justice employee, his name is Arez Rouvenny.
He has since made a whistleblower disclosure about the failure to halt those flights that took more than, again, 200 people to Venezuelan men.
to Al Salvador.
The testimony, the testimony that Judge Bosberg is looking for is to determine what exactly did Irez Rouvenny and others know about that, what kinds of representations made.
There's another person who's also in the focus of Judge Bosberg.
His name is Drew Ensign.
He's another DOJ attorney on the case.
And he was also called to testify in front of the judge.
Now, why is this all important?
Rouvenny was present for meetings.
as the Trump administration began to pursue this deportation, including a March 14th meeting where a particular member of the leadership of the Department of Justice, his name is Emil Beauvais, apparently told litigators and lawyers in the Department of Justice that the Department of Justice would have to consider telling the courts,
No, and that's a diplomatic way of saying something much more dramatic and telling them to ignore.
the orders of courts.
Documents previously provided by, by Arezruveni, show some frantic emails of his on the night of March 15th, even as these petitions are made to stop the planes.
Materials also suggest that Drew Ensign may have lied to Bosberg about these pending flights.
And in particular, one of them says he knows they're being removed.
and he knows about the flights.
The judge wants to get to the bottom of all of that and has called those two, Rouvenny and Ensign, before him, and has begun to initiate this inquiry into whether or not the Department of Justice should be held in criminal...
contempt of his orders with respect to those planes.
What has happened late this past week?
The Department of Justice gone to the appeals court a second time and said, stop the judge from making this increase.
Stop the judge from pursuing this.
Quash the subpoenas, basically, do not require these attorneys to come forward to tell the judge what they know about what was happening in mid-March.
And the appeals court, at least like this past week, has entered an administrative state to stop those proceedings from going forward while it can address legitimacy of this contempt proceeding hearing.
And so this is an issue.
This is a matter, a circumstance that is still much in flux.
We'll see what the appeals court does in this coming week.
even as James Bosberg holds out the prospect that based upon the misrepresentations made to him, what he is called lies and deception, that he wants to get to the bottom of that, he wants to know who directed what when, at what level of the Department of Justice, these decisions were made, he believes that these two lawyers have the keys to that information, and he is asking for their testimony, not yet before him, but coming up arguably soon, depending upon what the appeals court does.
not too far away.
We've got the companion case.
You know what this is all about.
This involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
This is Paula Zinnis.
She is a federal district court judge in Maryland, and she has been handling the civil immigration matter, not the criminal case involving Abrego Garcia.
She's been determining whether or not the United States of America, the agencies responsible, Department of Justice, Homeland Security, have been
acting properly when it comes to detaining Mr. Abrego Garcia.
In the end, late this past week, ruling by Paula Zinnis, major ruling, said it was troubling that the Trump administration had kept Kilmar Abrego Garcia in custody for four months without following through on his pledge to reexpel him, and in particular finding that they had detained him for that four-month period without lawful authority,
despite repeated vows to re-expel him from the country.
31-page decision coming from Paula Zinnis.
She said she had little choice but to release him because something remarkable had not happened, and that is the government had never obtained a valid order for his removal from the United States of America.
The judge also recounted the very tortured history, the words she used to describe this, including the misrepresentation
made to her about the capacity of the government to send Mr. Abrego Garcia to various other countries.
She is also entertaining the possibility of contempt proceedings there, not at all pleased.
by what the Department of Justice has done there.
And as of late this past week, finding the legal insufficiency of the position of the government and its misconduct, releasing Abrego Garcia into his own custody and directing that the Department of Justice Homeland Security do not pick him up again.
While all of this is pending, including the criminal case in Tennessee, more on that plainly coming out from Paula Zinnis' courtroom in the future, more on all of this also coming out from our reporting in all of these cases here on Amicus, a lot of you, the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
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.
