Judicial Jams and Legal Landmines: Year-End Wrap-Up

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 and my name is Jim Santel.

I am your host this hour and also the next hour as we examine

We take a look at the geography of all things related to the rule of law, the administration of justice, the operation of government in Wisconsin and America and often across our planet.

I am, as always, joined by my outstanding producer, Max.

here in Radio City in Racine, Wisconsin.

We are taking your phone calls as always in this program.

The phone number there, 855-752-4842.

Once again, our phone number, 855-752-4842.

Max always reminds me that you can also send your questions, your inquiries, your comments, your perspectives into our chat line at Civic Media.

and be a part of our conversation not only this weekend but also every weekend coming to live through the broadcast stations of civic media.

This is the final broadcast of 2025.

We return again next week for the first broadcast

of the new year in 2026, a bit of a teaser for that.

Yes, we are going to be talking about some of the major rule of law decisions, events, circumstances, occurrences throughout this past year, and then also making not some predictions, but

talking a bit about some of the anticipation for major events and circumstances and other things happening likely in the new calendar year.

All of that is coming up on our next broadcast next weekend at which time we will also be inviting you to be a part of our conversation here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

This weekend, as always, we have an ambitious

but achievable agenda as we talk through, walk through this wide geography of rule of law events from just recent days and weeks.

We are going to begin with responding to some of the questions that came in even after our last broadcast in the wake of our extensive discussion of and perspective sharing on

The recent criminal trial of Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, some perspectives this weekend based upon your follow-up inquiries to me about prosecutorial discretion, about judges and yes, about how it is inside the criminal justice system, we can and should believe two things at the same time.

things that are not inconsistent, but that animate our understanding of how the law works and about how the administration of justice proceeds in our state and in our nation.

That is coming up first here in our first hour of Amicus a Law Review, and then consistent with our traditions in virtually every other broadcast.

We're going to be talking about some of the major rule of law litigation in America, beginning once again with a major, a very significant

decision coming out of our United States Supreme Court just this past week.

It is a departure.

from much of what the Supreme Court has done in recent months, the last 11 months or so, a departure by virtue of the fact that the Supreme Court on this matter, involving the deployment of the National Guard in America, specifically in Chicago, a departure from the Supreme Court's traditional views, supporting virtually everything the President has asked for in this interim non-final ruling.

a decision, yes, as a part of the emergency docket, but in many ways does not partake of the traditional trappings of that so-called shadow docket.

This time, just this past week, as the year 2025 comes to a conclusion, the Supreme Court deals the administration a blow to its request, to its petition to keep and indeed to deploy the National Guard

in Chicago and presumably in other places over the objections without the specific request of the governors.

That's how the law traditionally works.

We'll talk about exactly what the justices did and did not do.

We'll tell you a lot about what the justices did in deciding that unsigned decision and we'll provide you with some insight into what the minority

Justices also said an objection to the decision of the majority.

All of that coming up this hour on amicus, a lot of you necessarily were going to review some other courts, some other courts and decisions that they have made as well.

We have spoken a lot throughout 2025 about the rule of law and about the challenge to our constitutional structure.

The constitutional crisis that we have been in since March

the day on which for the first time in recent American history, the United States Department of Justice has begun to say no to federal district court judges, specifically in mid-March when it came to the decision that directive by a federal district court judge named James Bosberg, he at the time was the chief judge of the United States District Court in the District of Columbia.

Now he is one of the judges of that court.

And at the time he directed the United States government to turn those planes around, you recall those planes bringing about 238 deportees from this nation to El Salvador, that high security prison.

the judge at the time making that directive clear the government, including the Department of Justice, including the Department of Homeland Security saying no, and beginning what has been 11 months or so of refusals by this administration to abide by what judges say, raising not just the prospect but establishing now the

unfortunate and catastrophic decision America that we are living under which is a constitutional crisis when one branch of government instead of appealing instead of pursuing the other mechanisms by which our checks and balances system is supported and promoted even while pursuing in some instances appeals

decides simply not to follow what judges say and articulate that view to those very judges.

We'll talk this week about what Judge James Bosberg is doing with respect to some Venezuelan deportees, in particular a hundred of them, his certification of a class of them.

that's going to animate what's going to happen in the future with respect to his administration of these cases and yes necessarily at the core of all of that his finding that the government has not afforded residents people in this country regardless of their citizenship of the basic due process to which they're entitled will talk

about what judge James Bosberg has said this past week, even as he continues to consider contempt options, contempt citations against your government and your United States Department of Justice.

And then among that 238, some major news in two different federal courts, which we will also review for your benefit, your understanding involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a name that you have all gotten to know,

all too well in 2025 because of the ways in which the government, among others, has dealt with Albrego Garcia, deporting him through an administrative error acknowledged once again in court before a judge named Paula Zinnis, she is in Maryland, deciding again as to her that it would not reverse its error, although she directed them to do it and bring him back, but instead ultimately bringing him back

only because of an indictment returned through the grand jury process by the Department of Justice charging a brago Garcia with human trafficking in Tennessee.

You know this story.

We'll talk about what the judge presiding over that criminal trial did this just this past week, a blockbuster decision that portends the complete turning upside down of that criminal prosecution.

pending their schedule to go to trial until this past week in the Middle District of Tennessee.

We'll talk about what the judge there has done and we'll talk once again as we seemingly do every weekend about what Judge Paula Zinnis has said in her continuing frustration.

with the United States Department of Justice and the Homeland Security Department as well in failing to provide a clear statement, a clear plan about what the immigration, the civil immigration case is all about.

We'll talk about James Bosberg.

We'll talk about Paula Zinnis and the immigration issues with which they're wrestling just this past week.

And we'll talk also

about this major news having to do with the criminal prosecution of Abraigo Garcia.

Now upended, now suspended in Tennessee by virtue of what the judge there has decided to do, mark January 28th on your calendars for a major decision in that particular criminal prosecution involving Abraigo Garcia.

Abraigo Garcia today, not in custody, not in criminal custody,

because the judge has previously determined that he is not a risk of flight and not a danger to the community.

And nor is he in immigration civilian custody, if you will, likewise, because Paula Zinnis has determined that there's no basis upon which your government, our government can detain him even while she continues to wrestle with all of these immigration matters.

A lot going on with respect to immigration in this, the near final week of...

2025, going into 2026.

At the end of our second hour, we will do what we often do, which is a lot of rule of law snapshots, giving you some ideas about the activities of other federal judges and district courts throughout this nation, doing things to enjoy and to stop this administration once again from doing things that it is proposed to do, it is attempted to do, it is put in place by virtue of the president's executive

We'll talk about everything from FEMA funds, to mental health funding, to social security rulings, to Supreme Court decisions.

in the state of Mississippi, all of that coming up with respect to federal judges, making decisions about the future of America, and then lots of lawsuits also being filed in these last days and weeks of 2025.

Cases challenging this administration's decisions to stop gender-related care nationwide, to stop the development of wind energy, and yes.

In fairness on the other side, Department of Justice cases challenging voter information and decisions to deny the Department of Justice access to voter information around the country and right here in the state of Wisconsin.

And then also litigation involving immigration enforcement itself.

This one, this one, this lawsuit in the state of Illinois just to our south, there is a lot going on.

And it is, as we often say, a lot to digest

All of it is important.

All of it is key to understanding where we are in America as the first year of the Trump administration comes to an end, as courts continue to act, as grand juries continue to act, as juries continue to act, as the American population continues to engage in these all important decisions and activities and undertakings related to the rule of law, which animates and figures so large in our lives and our livelihoods.

Let us begin with you.

Let us begin with some of those major questions and comments You have sent to me even in the past week in the wake of our extensive this discussion last week about about the prosecution and the criminal conviction of Wisconsin circuit court judge Hannah Dugan You have identified three different areas for further exposure exposure and exposition this

broadcast, and those include areas related to prosecutorial discretion, which we talked about a bit at the end of our last broadcast, the issue of judges, who they are, where they come from, what they do, and then this prospect, this notion of believing in two things inside our analysis of the criminal justice system at the same time.

All of that is coming up as Amicus, a lot of you, continues here on Civic Media.

You're listening to Civic Media.

Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.

Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.

My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus.

We're on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

I repeat now what I always say, which is we so appreciate the calls, the inquiries, the questions, comments and perspectives, the texts from our listeners out there.

That number, as you know, is 855-752-4842.

And here at Radio Park, Max and I will take those questions, those inquiries, those comments.

both live online and also in our civic media chat box.

You can be a part of our discussion this weekend as always, once again, that phone number, 855-752-4842.

As a part of our continuing discussion of rule of law issues, your involvement is so important.

And I so appreciate the comments that I often get, even when we are offline, when we are not live on the radio here in Racine.

And that has included comments and questions from our extensive discussion last weekend, summarizing the significant events and the process both past and future.

in that criminal prosecution, that federal criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice of Wisconsin's Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan, resulting in her conviction.

a jury verdict of guilty on one of those counts and her acquittal on another one of them.

Now motions are going to be filed pending before the presiding judge.

His name is Lynn Edelman to review is resolved on whether or not that verdict is consistent internally consistent in such a way that it can stand.

That is the present issue that's going to be briefed in great detail in the coming weeks.

resulting ultimately in a decision by the judge one way or another about whether or not to order a new trial based upon the result of that split jury verdict and then presumably if he decides to deny that motion a sentencing hearing down the road we talked a lot about the strategy both internally and externally to accomplish that.

And then of course, and then of course a likely appeal in that case, all of that prompting an awful lot of you to call in to send me notes offline and off the air, talking about three of the things that I mentioned.

not just in passing, but in some detail last week.

What did they have to do with this concept of prosecutorial discretion?

Going back to the start, I had commented about the incredible amount of discretion vested in state and federal and even municipal prosecutors to make decisions about how cases, when cases, what cases are charged.

And we begin with a fundamental proposition, of course, that there are many crimes out there, many instances of criminal conduct that never see the light of day.

And in part, that is because some of them are plainly never reported.

They do not come to the attention of law enforcement because victims and witnesses do not bring them to the attention of law enforcement.

And so they never even pass the desk.

Once many of those cases are identified for investigation, there is also a huge amount of discretion vested in

federal and state and local prosecutors about whether to charge at all, even though, even though there may have been criminal acts committed.

And the reasons for those, as we talked last week, are three or maybe even four in number, number one, it may well be that after examination of an investigation, the prosecutor often in combination with the investigators will determine that no crime has been committed.

that there is no reason to believe that there is probable cause to determine that criminal conduct has taken place.

And for that reason, the cases are dismissed and you never hear about them appropriately.

You never hear about them because those are not in the public domain.

We do not identify potential defendants in the Department of Justice.

in the process of your Department of Justice because decisions about their involvement in criminal conduct have not been made or because in the end

The decision has been made not to charge in part, in part because there's no crime committed.

And the notion of providing names and identifying people in the public domain, when in fact there has been a determination that no crime has been committed, is contrary not only to the interests of those people, but of the community in general.

We do not presmirch the reputation, the integrity, undermining the status of people,

who have not committed crimes, and that is a fundamental portion of the prosecutorial discretion and judgment necessarily brought to all of this.

There are other times, of course, when there may be a view that a crime has been committed, but the proof simply isn't there.

And under those circumstances, perhaps it is that witnesses, people who have viewed events, people who have come forward with information documents,

Physical items of evidentiary support simply do not provide enough information either to determine that there is probable cause or in the end, in the end.

that a jury would not have a sufficient basis upon which to return a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt and inside the Department of Justice, even though the standard for a grand jury prosecution and a grand jury indictment has always been probable cause, the reality is that prosecutors are guided and instructed not to take a case to a grand jury unless they are convinced or unless they are believing that they will

in fact amass, put together assemble sufficient evidence even at a trial down the road to convince a trial jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

And that often prevents appropriately prosecutors from going ahead in presenting cases to a grand jury or in the state or other systems for simply issuing charges

Crimes may be committed, but the evidence simply is not sufficiently there.

And then there's this other category of things.

And that is areas where prosecutors exercise an awful lot of discretion beyond those two categories.

And they make decisions based upon the facts that the case may be there in terms of prosecution, the facts may be there, the evidence may be there, but in the end,

There are other options that meet the ends of justice.

And that's why we were talking an awful lot about this particular concept in connection with the ends of justice when it comes to the Henedugan case and the options before.

prosecutors, and that includes things like deferred prosecutions, even in situations where the facts may be there, the evidence may be there, but the ends of justice related to deterrence, both specific deterrence and general deterrence, are simply not present.

When we come back, I'll tell you more about that, and then we'll talk about judges a bit more as amicus a la revue.

My name is Jim Santel, and this is Amicus, a law review on the broadcast stations of a civic media.

I thank you once again for spending some portion of your weekend in conversation, in discussion, in exposition with me about these major issues in the areas of law, government, and justice, including some of the larger takeaways, some of the things that we should be considering.

pondering when it comes to this recent major prosecution, a criminal conviction of Wisconsin circuit court judge, Hannah Dugan in the federal court in Eastern Wisconsin, right before the break, talking about this concept of deferred prosecution.

We know that the reasons for doing prosecution, about which we'll talk more in just a few moments, are too in nature.

And that those include,

Both the notion that you want to deter individual conduct that is contrary to the law contrary to the norms the standards of good and decent behavior you want to stop an Individual sometimes a company a corporation from engaging in conduct that we have determined is violative of the law that specific

deterrence and then there's also general deterrence and that is the general deterrence that applies to all of us to those folks who might witness what happens to that individual corporation that individual person if they engage in

conduct that is violative of law.

What happens to them?

They are prosecuted.

They are sentenced.

And in many instances, they may go to prison.

They may be incarcerated.

The single most significant thing that a government can do to any one of its residents, including any of its citizens, depriving those people of their liberty.

The notion, the visual on that provides

general deterrence it prompts people from saying from and engaging in things that would otherwise might that otherwise might be on their agendas prompting them to say gee I don't want to

fall into that category.

And so I am deterred from doing the activity in which I might otherwise be engaged.

That is the concept of deterrence in its two fundamental forms.

And so, how does that figure into this concept of deferred prosecution?

It may well be.

It may well be that the ends of justice, both specific and general, can be met even if a case is supported by sufficient facts to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, even if prosecutors and investigators and the government is convinced a crime has been committed.

It may well be that a decision will be made not to prosecute.

to defer, to put off a prosecution upon an agreement, generally not in the public domain, an agreement between a defendant and the government that says, if you behave, if you continue to abide by the laws in the future, and it can be a specific period of time, no further violations of the law of the sort that we could prove in court.

and you abide by the law and you do other things, including providing information, admitting what you have done, doing all those things that express the contrition that we would expect of a defendant.

If you do all of these, those things, we will hold off on prosecuting you and the interests of justice with respect to you as an individual and with respect to the community in general are met.

by doing just that if in fact the deferred prosecution period continues and concludes without any further violations of law I would offer to you that the purposes of deterrence both specific and general are met.

and the case goes away.

And you may never hear about it, but the purposes of criminal law enforcement are still met.

And once again, all of these criminal prosecutions about which we speak here on this broadcast appropriately thought about in the context of what are the ends?

What is our purpose?

What are we hoping to do by prosecuting, by not prosecuting?

That's the discretion that is placed in prosecutors.

That is the reason why in those instances where you

elect prosecutors and we do here in the state of Wisconsin we elect an attorney general we elect we elect district attorneys throughout our state it is so very important to identify prosecutors who have that sense of good judgment and discretion to make those all important decisions

that we call upon them to make of all the sorts that I just now described.

This is no small aspect of the work of prosecutors.

And when it comes to elections of them, that needs to be center for everyone who's voting in those elections.

It is also true of federal prosecutors.

Where do federal prosecutors come from?

They come from presidents who nominate them.

They're confirmed by the Senate.

And there likewise, when you elect a Senate, when you elect a president, you should be identifying people who will also assess the judgment and the discretion of potential United States attorneys, because those folks also are responsible for exercising that discretion.

Both federal and state and even local systems call upon prosecutors

To be responsive to the community through those mechanisms by which they're elected, by which they're appointed, important for all of us to embrace that notion of the incredible power of prosecutors, the discretion we pose.

place in them and the issues that are before them posed to them on a regular basis.

The same is true about the second major issue that we began to talk about last week, and that is judges.

I noted that in the criminal trial of Hannah Dugan, there were no fewer than six judges who appeared in that singular courtroom.

One was the presiding judge, one was the defendant.

Four other judges appeared as witnesses too for the prosecution.

the defense, lots and lots of judges raising again the same issue with respect to judges that we just talked about in connection with prosecutors.

As we go to the polls in 2026 and beyond, it is important, perhaps heightened, by our attention to the Hanna-Dougan trial, a collateral impact of that trial to focus on who it is we are electing

to these positions in Wisconsin, who are the Wisconsin judges in the circuit court, in the appellate court, at the Supreme Court, and what qualities do they bring to those all important positions?

It is often said that unfortunately, because of the ways in which our campaigns are conducted, and because many members of our community simply do not have the exposure, especially to our trial judges in all of the counties of our state, we do not.

know them well, aside from the brochures that they may present to you, aside from the debates that sometimes happen.

And it is important as we go forward, and we think about the role of judges.

Federal judges, again, appointed by a president, confirmed by the United States Senate.

State court judges elected here, sometimes initially appointed by a governor when there are vacancies in those positions.

But ultimately, responsible once again to the people of our nation, it is critically important that we identify who these people are who are running for a judge.

Even if they've been incumbents for a long period of time, what do they say about the integrity of the judicial process?

What do they say about fairness and decency, about selecting a jury, about determining

what the issues are in advance of trials, about sentencing defendants, about resolving civil cases, about adjudicating civil motions, all of those kinds of things, we should be asking more of our elected

judges, those who are campaigning for retention, those who are seeking positions in the first place, those who are recently appointed by judges on an interim basis, by governors rather on an interim basis, all of them should be subject to our close scrutiny because of the things that we saw just last week in the Wisconsin Circuit Court judiciary as they appeared stunningly.

A, typically, in a federal court, and as they work more typically, more routinely, in the Wisconsin circuit courts, the counties around our state.

Judges are important, and we need to focus on them as 2026 approaches.

Finally, we can believe, as always, two things at the same time when it comes to the criminal justice system.

I talked about this and continue to talk about this a lot.

I have said repeatedly as a prosecutor that prosecutors must always understand, as we always do, that despite the fact that criminal prosecutions are an absolute necessity, it is critically important that we bring those cases in the discretion.

exercised by prosecutors, two grand juries, the resulting indictments, and the criminal complaints in our state systems.

Absolutely necessary what?

To enforce the law.

They ensure our safety, our security, and no one, no one should discount the significance of criminal prosecutions in ensuring our lives and our liberties in America.

At the same time, I can believe

in the same spirit, in the same paragraph, in the same sentence, that all of those criminal prosecutions are human tragedy.

Human tragedy is certainly for the victims of those crimes, for the community in which those crimes are committed, for the witnesses who may have seen it, for others in our broad neighborhoods, and yes indeed,

for the defendants, whether they're individuals or corporations and their families, all of that is human tragedy.

And for that reason, as I said, in connection with the Hanna-Dougan verdict and every other verdict in America, federal, state, municipal, there is nothing to celebrate here.

There's nothing to be joyful about.

There's no congratulations to be extended.

It is human tragedy, a necessary part of our work.

as members of our community, but nonetheless tragic.

tragic as a part of our rule of law system.

We can also embrace two processes at the same time.

We can embrace the process of grand juries and prosecutors issuing charges.

We can embrace notions about the discretion of prosecutors in doing just that.

We should embrace the importance of grand juries, making all important probable cause decisions.

And yes, indeed, we embrace the importance and the legitimacy

and the integrity of trial juries as they wrestle with decisions and come back with decisions on verdicts.

Sometimes finding defendants guilty, sometimes not guilty, every so often failing to determine beyond a reasonable doubt with unanimity that a verdict can be reached.

We can embrace and should embrace all of that.

We should embrace the

sentencing process, that is by which defendants come forward to judges and exercise the right of allocation, telling the judges how they feel about their criminal prosecutions and the convictions entered against them.

We should embrace the mechanism through which we sentence criminal defendants in post trial proceedings.

And we should also and do embrace appellate proceedings guaranteed to everyone who seeks appellate review of those

lower court decisions that involve criminal prosecutions and criminal convictions and the judgments entered in the wake of them.

Even while we embrace all of that, we can also be

critical of those individual things that come out of those processes.

We can be critical of jury determinations based upon what we know and based upon what we have seen.

We can be critical of sentencing issued by judges and entered by courts in the wake of this process.

We can be critical as we are often here on this very broadcast of appellate decisions by panels of judges and yes, even by the Supreme Court and

Why do we do all of that?

Because that's our First Amendment right.

We can embrace the system that is so important to our criminal justice procedure and also be critical without being inconsistent in exercising our First Amendment right to free speech and advocacy and even to public protest when we disagree with the results of the process that we embrace.

Nothing inconsistent about that.

We can believe two things at the same time.

to come back.

We're going to talk about that very Supreme Court here on Amicus,

a lot of you.

This is Amicus, a lot of you on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

My name is Jim Santel, your host for this, the second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast about all things related to the rule of law, the administration of justice and the operation of government.

That includes, as it seemingly is every broadcast, focus upon the United States Supreme Court.

And even in these last days of calendar year 2025,

as the Supreme Court now is at about 50 cases in its regular merit stock.

The Supreme Court active yet again in just recent days in its so-called emergency.

or shadow docket, which we have talked about at great length.

The Supreme Court coming back in January in about 16, 15 days from now, entertaining more oral argument on those many cases, on its regular docket.

But just this past week, issuing a decision in its emergency docket, its docket that does not

tripically involve the submission of briefs and oral arguments, a major decision having to do with the power of the presidency, a huge decision in connection not only with what's going on in the cities of America, but also this Supreme Court's view about the powers, the authorities of the executive branch with which it has wrestled a lot in this past term.

The headline, of course, the Supreme Court deciding.

that the Trump administration's request to deploy the National Guard in the city of Chicago over the express objection of Governor Pritzker there Cannot go forward the Supreme Court refusing to allow Donald Trump to deploy the National Guard in the city of Chicago a case that comes up

from a district court judge and an appellate court there, the Seven Circuit.

We've talked about them at great length, deciding that the deployment of the National Guard

without the consent of the governor there, is not supported by the law and the Constitution of the United States of America under the Posse Comitatus Act, under a determination that in fact there is not a rebellion, there is not an insurrection going on there.

Those decisions of the lower courts percolate up.

to the United States Supreme Court and land on the emergency docket.

Now here's a case at the end of this calendar year where even though it's on the emergency docket, the Supreme Court does some very interesting things procedurally because not only do they take a long period of time, about four weeks to decide in this supposedly emergency status whether the governments, the presidents request should be granted, that's a long period of time in a situation

situation in which the administration is maintaining that action is urgent.

But second, even in the midst of that period of time, they ask for briefing on a particular issue related to the language of the law.

And we'll tell you all about that.

And then, and then we get an opinion that, yes, again, is unsigned.

But it's not the one sentence or two sentence opinions with which we have become familiar of this past year.

It's extensive.

And we'll tell you what the majority did.

We'll tell you what the...

Others who are dissenting from that said about this, all of them writing pages and pages, exposing and describing and explaining, which is what they should do in every case, the reasons for their decision here, once again, the headline issue, the Trump administration, Delta Blow.

in its attempt to enforce the law through the invocation, through the deployment of the National Guard in Chicago and presumably in other places around the nation.

Here we go.

The justices order again.

Part of the emergency docket is preliminary, but it does in fact block the administration, at least for now, from ordering a state-based military force in the Chicago area.

And in this three-page unsigned ruling, again, not a lot of exposition, but some, the court refused to grant the president what he wanted to do.

That is the broad discretion to deploy in Chicago and, again, in other cities, citing this 1878 comatotus law banning the use of military for domestic policing.

It represents, undeniably, a major blow to this administration's efforts as it has pursued them on the emergency docket, seeking law enforcement powers.

Supreme Court's saying, at least for now, we're not giving those to you, Mr. President.

At this stage in the litigation, the court said the Trump administration had not shown that this statute

permits the president to federalize the guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois.

Three conservative justices, we'll hear from them, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito and Neil Gorsic, all of them noted their objection, interesting once again, in some very lengthy dissents, atypical when it comes to these emergency docket decisions.

Justice Alito writing that the protection of federal officers from potentially lethal attacks should not be thwarted.

And of course, we get reactions from both sides.

The White House, of course, expressing once again the commitment of the president to enforce our immigration laws and activating, seeking to activate the National Guard to protect law enforcement, federal buildings and properties.

J.B.

Pritzker, the governor there, calling the victory, the victory here in the Supreme Court, a ruling in favor of democracy.

Now, we know as well that the Trump administration has also sought the same kinds of things in Portland, Oregon, and at Oregon, in Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.

Again, over the stated objections of state and local leaders there.

What is the federal law that we're talking about?

We've talked about this a lot.

The federal law allows the president to federalize

Members of the National Guard without the permission of the governor state officials in some circumstances Notably significantly when there is quote a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the government or when law enforcement is overwhelmed and cannot execute United States law federal courts around the country have generally said that those conditions rebellion and an incapacity to

pursue regular law enforcement just does not exist to allow the president to federalize those guard troops.

Judges we know in Los Angeles and Portland and again in Chicago have halted those mobilizations saying that none of the predicates for the statute have been met.

The court as I said interestingly took about two months to rule.

This is the second hour of this weekend's broadcast of amicus a law review.

My name is Jim Santel your host throughout this coming

Our of our broadcast joined in the studios here in radio park by my excellent producer max together We're taking your phone calls at 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 you can also text your questions your inquiries your comments your perspectives into the civic media chat box Be a part of our discussion of all things rule of law related this hour.

We are talking about federal courts once again including the supreme

them the United States Supreme Court and something significant that it did both procedurally and substantively just this past week which is something of a departure for this court both procedurally and substantively what did the Supreme Court do the Supreme Court on Tuesday of this past week refused

a request of the president of the united states of america when it comes to law enforcement refusing to allow the administration to deploy hundreds of national guard troops in the chicago area over the objection of the illinois governor there it is significant of course that this happens

at a time when the administration, with the support of another governor, his name is Jeff Landry in Louisiana, is about to deploy about 350 national guard troops in New Orleans before New Year's Eve this coming week.

This past week, however, the Supreme Court is saying that invoking the law, the president cannot do what he has been asking to do.

And lower federal courts have cited

with the decisions of law enforcement, state law enforcement, that is, and local governors, the governors of the states, and have said, no, there's not an insurrection.

There's not a rebellion going on.

There's nothing about this situation that warrants the deployment of the National Guard in our state, in our cities, under these circumstances.

The lower courts have said that comes up to the Supreme Court on this emergency application.

And the Supreme Court takes its time, number one, in resolving this about a month or so, which is atypical to begin with.

and second along the way during the course of that month says, you know what?

We've got a question.

We would like the parties to brief something more than just reviewing the cold record that comes up from those lower courts, more than two months into this period of time on this emergency application.

The justices ask for the parties to address the meaning of a specific key section of this statute.

To federalize the National Guard, as we indicated, the president has to determine that he is, quote, unable with regular forces to execute United States laws.

Let me say that again.

He's got to be able to affirm, to commit, to decide that he is unable with the regular forces, with regular forces, to execute United States laws.

And the justices seizing on that language asked whether regular forces meant the military.

or civilian law enforcement.

Now, the Trump administration, the Department of Justice, responded that regular forces, as it set forth in that law, refers to civilian law enforcement, like, for example, federal immigration agents who have also been there in places like Chicago and other cities.

And as a result, they argued,

They should be permitted to unilaterally deploy the National Guard because federal agents were overwhelmed.

That's their theory.

That's the Department of Justice theory.

The Attorney General from Illinois said just the opposite, countering with the argument that the term refers to the full-time professional military in our nation and said the justices should deny the President's request

on that basis alone that the language does not support this deployment because why the president has not tried to use the standing military nor could he under the law and in its order just this past week on tuesday the majority of the supreme court surprised us all and decided in favor of the

State Attorney General, the majority agreeing with Illinois officials that the term regular forces refers to the United States military.

To call in the guard, the president must first determine that he is unable with the help of the military to execute US laws.

And for that reason, the court said, he could likely take such a step only in the rare situations

where he would be properly legally allowed to call in the military in the first place to execute the law.

Now, there's a lot there.

There's a lot to unpack there.

The majority said that those circumstances are exceptional.

Basically, the laws invocation under these circumstances is exceptional because the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which again makes it illegal to do what?

to use federal troops for domestic policing under normal circumstances can't be invoked here because of the exceptional nature of the provision.

At this preliminary stage, the Supreme Court said the government, that's the administration, that's the White House, has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.

A lot going on there.

But it depends, ultimately, they decided upon this language, having to do with what regular forces mean, and determining that regular forces means military, can't do it in these circumstances, can't apply the law, and therefore the president loses.

Now, that did not happen without some concurrences and some dissents.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he agreed with the majority's decision to deny the administration's request, but he would have done

on some narrower grounds.

And he writes, again, atypical for applications, emergency petitions of this sort, atypical to get this kind of exposition.

He says the majority was too quick to cut off options for the president by suggesting that he, the president, could not federalize the National Guard, even if he found that he was struggling

to protect federal personnel and property.

That was his decision.

Brett Kavanaugh again joining the majority, but on a different ground.

And in a 16 page dissent, count him 16 pages, Justice Samolito criticized his colleagues in the majority for resolving this issue that the parties had not expressly raised in their initial petition.

What is the meaning of this language?

He says this, there is no basis for rejecting the president's determination that he was unable to execute the federal immigration laws.

That's a Justice Samolito writing and he's joined

by Justice Thomas.

Justice Gorsuch also wrote a separate dissent.

They're among the three who say no, the majority got this wrong.

Justice Gorsuch writing that he would have sided with the administration based on the statements from federal law enforcement officials and that such weighty questions, he said, those are his words, deserved a full airing and get this should not be decided on an emergency.

basis.

So we have Justice Gorsuch saying procedurally we should put this on our merit stock it and we also have Justice Alito and Justice Thomas deciding that they would have gone in the opposite direction had they been the majority based upon other reasons.

Fascinating that Justice Gorsuch says we should not be applying the emergency docket here on a matter of this weight.

The

Decision, again, significant, not simply because it sets forth a reasoned analysis of what the law is.

Basically supporting the lower courts, finding there's no insurrection, there's no rebellion.

Finding the law doesn't apply, finding that this particular invocation of what the forces, the armed forces, the military is under the law cannot be squared with what the president and the department of justice has said about it.

And beyond that, doing this with a lot of writing, a lot of words, a lot of exposition by the dissenters, the three, and also a fair amount by the majority.

Again, it's unsigned.

It's a part of their emergency application process.

And yes, we can perhaps along with Judge Gorsuch once again bemoan the fact that the Supreme Court has not placed this on emergency docket, but perhaps it will come back.

And that leads us, of course, to other cases that are pending out there.

Supreme Court, again, has about 50 on its docket, as I said previously, in January on this very broadcast.

We're gonna be talking about some of those major oral arguments coming up for addressing by the Supreme Court in January of 2026.

Right now, this end of the year decision by the Supreme Court, an interesting cap.

to what has been an otherwise fairly aggressive use of the emergency docket to give the president all that he wants now saying nope

There is a line there is a bridge too far and this is it again Not the final word certainly lower courts will continue to wrestle with this in Chicago and in other places and the Supreme Court may wet may well yet place it on its its major docket When it reviews those cases coming up in the weeks and months ahead They probably will place about another 10 maybe 15 maybe 20 cases

on their docket before they're concluded.

All of these decisions could be addressed, be resolved at any time in the weeks, the days ahead, but certainly by July 1.

And we know that among those 50 cases, there are at least two or three that are especially important.

They're deciding the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1964.

They're deciding the future of tariffs and the power of the presidency, deciding an awful lot of civil rights cases as well, having to do with basic humanity in our nation, all of those cases on the docket, and could be resolved, could be resolved at any time in the days just ahead, including the last days of this administration, of this year,

in this administration, but also the first days of 2026.

There are other courts that are also very busy in America.

Let's talk about them because it's also fitting that we conclude our last broadcast of 2025 with revisiting some of the two major issues that have been on our docket in this past year.

And those involve

the deportation without due process of some 238 immigrants from some migrants deported absent due process from the United States of America to El Salvador to that high security prison in that foreign country.

We have talked a lot about that.

And in fact, we've talked a lot about what James Bosberg did way back in March in ordering that those planes be returned to America, whether they're on the tarmac now in El Salvador,

or they're still in the air or still hadn't left the United States of America, the judge on a Saturday and Sunday in mid March directing, directing that.

the United States Department of Justice and the Homeland Security Department sent word to those pilots telling them to return those planes.

The government plainly not doing that, saying no, we're not doing that.

Even while they did eventually appeal, James Bosberg in recent times determining, still having hearings on whether or not because of that and other misstatements and lies and deception.

Presented to him in his court by the United States Department of Justice should indeed be held in contempt.

Preferee to follow his directives.

Just this past week, James Bosberg once again.

once again, back in the news as he determines that the U.S.

must give due process to some deported Venezuelans, making a determination, a factual substantive determination, that the U.S.

government has denied due process to the Venezuelan men it deported.

to that president in El Salvador in March.

As we come back, I'll tell you more about exactly what Bosberg did, why this is so important, and then we'll also talk about Abrego Garcia in another court, two other courts in the United States as the broadcast continues.

My name is Jim Santel and this is Amica Salar Review Your Weekly.

We can review of all things related to the administration of justice, the rule of law.

Here in the state of Wisconsin, in our nation and around the world, talking now about, once again, United States District Judge James Bosworth.

He is a federal judge.

He is in the District Court in the District of Columbia.

He is the one who has been residing over this major case involving a deportation of hundreds of migrants.

to Venezuela, justice past week, not only reaffirming his great concern about the ways in which the Department of Justice has presented its case,

but also, also determining justice past speak.

The US government denied due process to the Venezuelan men that it deported in March to Al Salvador.

That's a significant, a huge decision.

You may recall that petitioners had challenged the deportation of the Venezuelans in particular, saying that the Alien Enemies Act, that's the law that was invoked by the administration to justify this, the men should have been given the

opportunity to argue against their removal.

And that's exactly what Judge Bosberg said just this past week.

He said that they deserve the right to a hearing, whether by bringing them back to the United States or allowing them to pursue legal remedies from abroad.

Without to say this, on the merits, this court concludes that this class was denied their due process rights and will thus require

Listen to this, we'll require the government to facilitate their ability to obtain such hearing.

Our law requires no less.

That's Judge James Bosberg in his opinion.

Now the Department of Justice, the Department of, that is responsible for litigating in front of Judge Bosberg said it's going to appeal.

And of course, all of this raises issues again about the power of the executive.

But in Monday's order, Boseberg said the U.S.

maintained custody over those men, even while they're imprisoned at this notorious prison in El Salvador.

He said, so the court has jurisdiction.

The judge says he's got continuing jurisdiction over their fate.

He gave the administration until January 5th.

not a lot of time, to either facilitate their return to the United States or, as he said, these are his words, otherwise provide them with hearings that satisfy the requirements of due process.

This is Judge Bosberg just days or so ago.

He went on to say, regardless of whether the president was lawful in invoking the Alien Enemies Act or not,

The men deserve to have a meaningful opportunity, those are his words, to prove that they weren't gang members before being deported.

Otherwise, he said, a finding of unlawful removal would be meaningless for the plaintiffs.

who have already been sent back to Venezuela against their wishes and without due process.

He's making reference to the fact that many of these, if not all of them, have already been returned to Venezuela by virtue of a prisoner swap that happened even after their march deportation.

The judge goes on to say to expedited removal, can it be allowed to render this relief toothless?

Bosberg says, otherwise there would be nothing to stop the government from secretly spiriting people to a foreign country.

And again, Judge Mosberg, way back in July, had said that there was probable cause to believe that the Trump administration had already engaged in criminal contempt in lying to them, to him, to deceiving him about the status of these deportees and violating his order to stop those planes from going to El Salvador in the first place.

And appeals court stepped in to prevent

the finding of contempt.

The judge has now pursued that again when that appeals court decision recently was suspended.

And he is now also has the contempt issue on his docket as he considers all of that.

Lots of things going on in Judge Bosberg's court.

Lots of expectations for early, early January when the judge there, Judge Bosberg continues to focus.

on this event that began in March of last year of 2025, affirming once again, justice past week, the due process rights under our constitution, under the Alien Enemies Act, under basic human rights standards to be heard about the circumstances under which the deportees should in fact be subject to this kind of deportation to foreign nations.

No small thing happening once again in the last week

last days and last week of 2025.

And then among them is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a name you've gotten to know an awful lot as we think through all of the events of this past year.

Abrego Garcia, as you know, deported among those 238

sent to that prison through an administrative error acknowledged in front of another judge.

Her name is Paula Zinnis.

She's in Maryland, where the deportation proceedings were under review.

And the government admitting we aired, but failing to return him until the government goes in front of a grand jury in Tennessee and indicts him basically for human smuggling.

And along the way, along the way, upon his return, he is then facing a judge in the Middle District of Tennessee on what?

On the criminal charges against him, returned by a grand jury sought by the Department of Justice in that for a Middle District of Tennessee.

Now the judge there, the judge there has long ago determined that he's not a risk of flight, not a danger to the community, and released him on his own recognizance on the criminal case.

The government subsequently apprehended him on the immigration case.

Again, it's a lot.

There's a lot going on here.

And that immigration case is the one that's pending in front of Judge Sinis.

But before we even get to Judge Sinis, there is more that happens just this past week in the criminal case.

The criminal case, it was scheduled to go to trial.

in the coming month in January, now taken off the docket, taken off the judge's calendar, Judge Waverly Crenshaw, we've talked about him before, issuing an order just this past week, removing that trial from the court's calendar based upon what?

Based upon his scheduling a hearing on January 28th upon a pretrial motion of the defense when we come back I'll tell you what that means I'll tell you what that motion is all about and we'll go back to Maryland to talk about what Judge Zinnis has done as well all of that here on Amicus a lot of you

My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus.

It's our second hour.

We're talking about federal district court judges doing things in connections in connection with the administration's efforts successful to deport about 238

immigrants, migrants from this nation to El Salvador way back in March.

We talked already about what Judge Boesberg, the district court judge in Washington, D.C.

has done, finding that all of them had a right to due process, directing interestingly, fascinatingly, that the government is now obliged by January 5th to afford them the due process, that they've never afforded any one of them.

since March 15th.

We will continue to monitor that story, more of that percolating up in the days and weeks just ahead.

And also, parallel to that, lots of things going on in connection with the individual cases.

Plural, there's an immigration case, a civil immigration case, and also this criminal case brought by the United States Department of Justice against Kilmer, Abrego Garcia, alleging human smuggling.

And that case pending in the middle district of Tennessee, we have spent a lot of time talking about that criminal prosecution.

The judge there presiding over that case, Waverly Crenshaw is his name, had previously scheduled a trial, a jury trial on those federal charges, criminal charges against Abraco Garcia.

that trial scheduled for January this past week doing something extraordinary.

Removing that trial date from his calendar, no new trial date at all, and instead, scheduling a hearing for January 28th on the petition, the motion of the defense alleging that this entire prosecution is, we've heard these words before, vindictive.

It is a vindictive prosecution.

And the judge, the judge has found at least preliminarily that the evidence presented in support of that motion preliminarily by the defense is sufficiently strong, sufficiently compelling.

It is not frivolous to prompt him to cancel the trial and instead have a hearing on what prosecutors are doing.

Did they in fact vindictively, selectively target?

target Abraigo Garcia because of his notoriety, because of other circumstances set forth in that motion.

At that hearing, Judge Crenshaw has said, prosecutors, these are Department of Justice attorneys in his courtroom prosecuting this criminal case, are going to have to explain to him

their reasoning for charging Abraigo Garcia in the first place.

And he said, if they fail to do that to his satisfaction, the charges against him, the pending criminal charges may be dismissed.

That is huge.

That is hugely significant when it comes to another wrinkle, another turn in this very circuitous criminal prosecution of Abraigo Garcia.

He is, again, released by the judge

from the criminal custody that he was otherwise in upon his return, and he is now at liberty.

not only to engage and attend if he wants this hearing on January 28th, but also to attend as he did.

Another hearing that was being conducted by another federal judge, her name is Paula Zinnis, in Maryland, just this past week.

Lots of things going on this past week in connection with his criminal and now his civil case.

Judge Zinnis, as you recall, is responsible presiding, not over the criminal case, but over the immigration man.

matter, determining what his status should be.

And she likewise has recently released him and said again he's not a danger to the community, not a risk of flight.

And oh, by the way, the government has failed to provide a final order of removal.

And she said, by doing that, you have not provided a predicate, a basis upon which he can continue to be detained.

And so this past week, the judge, Judge Paula Zinnis, had yet another hearing in addition to the times, as she said this past week, in which she has been very frustrated with this government about the things that they have said and not said done and not done in response to her various directives.

Along the way, Judge Zinnis said just this last week, and again,

Again, it's a lot.

It is circuitous, and yes, as even she says, this is confusing.

She says that after she ordered a break of his release from immigration detention about two weeks ago, he was given a document saying that his release was conditional because he was subject to a final order removal.

But the Justice Department attorneys now appearing in front of her said just the opposite.

They're now arguing, contrary to what they said before, that that order isn't final.

And Abraigo Garcia will have another chance to ask an immigration judge to release him on bond.

In other words, judge, you don't have to do anything more here.

We'll go back to the immigration court.

And Judge Zina says no.

Your record of appearing in front of me is not sufficiently compelling.

You don't have the integrity to do this.

She says, you, Department of Justice, elected this forum, I'm taking you at your word.

I imagine it is possible that order was improvident, meaning unwise.

And the attorney who's there actually acknowledges that the notice here could cause the court confusion.

Indeed, that's exactly what Paul Zinnis says.

The attorney goes on to say it may have been done in a manner that was not far-sighted and did not have the information it needed.

This is the attorney for the government now appearing about another misstep.

Another thing done wrong by the Department of Justice, the attorney appearing in front of the judge supporting her conclusion about the confusion in all of this says the officer did the best he or she could at the time.

Events did overtake that.

Once again, your Department of Justice showing a huge amount of incompetence in and presenting these cases to the court in front of Paula Zinnis.

Zinnis, again, also sounding surprised.

that officials were offering a Brego Garcia and immigration court bond hearing, even though, again, previously they had argued in hundreds of appearances that immigrants who enter the United States illegally aren't entitled to one.

Now, Mr. Brego Garcia gets offered one the judge said in the end.

This is also confusing that your track record made her reluctant to simply step aside and let the immigration court now proceed.

Here's what Paul Zinnis said on the record to the immigration attorneys there, the Department of Justice attorneys arguing in the immigration case.

She said to Mr. Brego Garcia, she said this to his attorneys and to all of us following this very serpentine and very difficult to follow.

proceeding, she said, this is all a very hard pill to swallow.

Now, now you, the Department of Justice, now you're saying, no, trust us.

This one, this order, this one is finally going to be correct.

And she says, why should I give the government the benefit of the doubt in this case?

She also delivers a very sharp tongue lashing to the administration lawyers for claiming in a recent court filing that her recent order barring,

The redetention of a breakout was ex parte, meaning that it was done without the involvement, without the submission by the government.

She says, that's just plain wrong.

She says, the Justice Department attorneys received notice of the emergency temporary request when a breakout's lawyers filed it just after midnight on the day of its submission.

The judge says to the lawyers, again, your representation to me about this being ex parte without giving you a chance to respond to it, that's inaccurate.

She says this, she says, everybody signed it and it's flat wrong.

I'm growing beyond impatience, she said, with this happening.

I want to know who wrote that.

And I want to know why all the four lawyers who were signatories to that thought it was a good idea.

You had all night to tell me why the petitioner, meaning Abrego Garcia was wrong.

This was an emergency of your making.

This is a judge who is not, not at all pleased with the Department of Justice's proceeding.

The judge gave the government until late this week and days next week to submit the proper legal basis for any continued effort.

to detain Abraigo for immigration purposes.

She also, like the judge in Tennessee, set another deadline in January for a port on all these immigration proceedings, presumably an attempt to try to straighten them out to figure out what's going on, all of them guaranteeing that Abraigo remain free throughout these holiday days.

The proceedings again in front of these two judges one in Tennessee one in Maryland underscore once again Not only the incompetence of this administration in doing the basic things that it needs to do in charging someone properly in dealing with the basics the basic tenants of how we do criminal prosecution America and Judges are not letting them get away with it.

It is huge that the trial judge has taken this criminal matter off his docket and instead called the

government attorneys in to explain themselves.

It is huge that Paula Zinnis has also said that the government needs to explain itself and she is not at all giving up on her jurisdiction to oversee the immigration matter even as the criminal matter proceeds.

It is a lot and the large takeaways are incompetence of this Department of Justice and violations once again of fundamental due process by people in the United States

Everyone whether they're citizens residents whatever their status entitled to the protections of our Constitution That's what the judges are affirming as our other judges in America on a regular basis Let's do some of those rule of law snapshots that we do now at the end of many of our broadcasts to tell you about what other judges are doing in America To uphold the rule of law

A federal magistrate judge in Oregon just this past week ruled that the Trump administration could not withhold emergency preparation money from states that had failed to provide updated

population counts that accounted for deportation.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, that's FEMA, had imposed this requirement in October, adding a hurdle for states in order to access hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to buy equipment, to pay staff, and otherwise prepare for disasters.

The magistrate judge basically ruling.

that keeping FEMA funds from states that don't subtract deportees from population counts, that the FEMA is acting unconstitutionally and illegally, that coming out of Oregon.

We've got another federal judge who is in Mississippi.

We know a lot about the cases pending in Mississippi.

U.S.

District Judge Sherian Acock, AYCOCK in August, ordered Mississippi to redraw a map.

that would be the basis upon which Mississippians would decide Supreme Court justices in that state, the electoral map, selecting justices, the judge just this past week finding that the map that had been redrawn based upon her directive way back in August, she's looked at it now, and she has determined

And it violates section two of the Voting Rights Act, which, yes, indeed, as of this broadcast, is still the law in the United States of America.

She concludes that the current configuration of these lines for the electoral map, which will be used to select justices to the Supreme Court in the state of Mississippi, she says it basically dilutes the power of black voters.

And the Friday ruling gives the Mississippi legislature until the end of next year, until the end of 2026, until its regular sessions are done to redraw that map.

The basis upon which the judge does all this, of course, are the demographics of the state of Mississippi, nearly 40% black.

But it's never had more than one black justice on its nine-member court.

And of course, that gives rise to the federal courts finding that there is a violation of the voting rights act, which, yes, indeed, applies to state and federal cases as well.

That's another federal judge.

When we come back...

We'll talk about yet two more judges in our nation entering orders in the United States as amicus a lot of you continues.

My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus a law review on the broadcast stations of civic media Doing as we do from time to time a rule of law series of snapshots about what federal district court judges are doing around the nation in ways big small and in between to enforce the law to enforce the Constitution and to ensure that basic rights are preserved for all Americans spoke right before the break about a judge in Oregon a ruling that blocks the

FEMA from restricting funds from states that don't subtract deportees from population counts, basically telling FEMA you've got to provide emergency preparation monies for those states.

Another judge, this one in Mississippi, ordering special elections for Mississippi Supreme Court positions after finding a voting rights violation in connection with the drawing of lines in that state.

Yet another federal judge, this one is named Kimberly

and she's in the Western District of Washington.

And she has ruled in favor of a lawsuit that's filed by New Mexico and 15 other states to restore mental health funding in academic circumstances.

Way back in April, the Education Department sent some boilerplate notices to grantees of funding for school-based mental health services saying those grants would no longer be continued.

based upon performance issues, but because the program, according to the Department of Education, no longer aligned with the Trump administration's policies.

And what happens, of course, is that there is a lawsuit.

It is brought by, again, a number of states, including New Mexico.

And the judge just this past week says that nothing in this regulatory scheme

comports with the department's view that multi-year grants may be discontinued whenever the political will to do so arises.

She directs that the government's suspension of the program be rescinded, reversing that.

She says that the rescission of the program, the denial of the grants is unlawful and simply because politics prompts you to think otherwise is not a basis upon which to do this and tells the

administration that you do in fact need to restore about one billion dollars in school-based mental health services under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which passed way back in 2022.

That coming out of a district court judge in the Western District of Washington, and yet there's more.

There's another federal judge

and actually a set of federal judges, and they're in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

We've talked a lot about the Fourth Circuit.

Federal court, just this past week, saying that the Social Security Administration, in its adjudication of claims for disability under the administrative processes there, federal court, the appeals court says that the Social Security Administration cannot dismiss

can it reject complaints of fibromyalgia sufferers as they are set forth?

In its opinion, the three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rules generally that in cases where there's no objective medical tests or markers to identifying debilitating conditions, and that includes fibromyalgia, subjective testimony, that is what the patients themselves are describing, must have more weight.

According to the appellate court there, again, fibromyalgia, this serious and fairly mysterious condition disproportionately affects women.

And the current science is incapable of observing through objective medical testing exactly its nature and its scope.

Accordingly, the court writes, we must give weight to the subjective testimony that's presented by the petitioners who are seeking disability benefits

about the severity of their system.

The judge is saying this case is in the end about crediting a patient's accounts of the chronic debilitating and little understood illness fibromyalgia.

Plainly, it also has implications for other diseases.

other claims, other sufferers who are seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Administration, an important decision issued by a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals just this past week.

We know as well that there are an awful lot of lawsuits being filed, and in that connection,

many of them in federal courts as well as lots of things continue to happen in coming out of the White House in particular.

Coalition of 19 states just this past week, a suit brought lawsuits to block the Trump administration's plan to do what?

to strip to prevent federal funding from hospitals that are providing gender-related care for minors.

And that policy that was just announced by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert RFK Jr., would have cut off medical and Medicare payments, which make up a major share of hospital revenues to any facility.

Any facility provides minors with gender-related treatments in the country.

This coalition of states now getting in front of a federal judge asking the federal judge stop the implementation, block the White House plan to end gender-related care for minors.

The coalition, again, seeks to stop that effort to cut off federal funding to hospitals that provide that care.

likely that will be the focus of more reporting here on amicus a lot of you and then in connection with another case we reported on last week having to do with the attacks by this administration on offshore wind development a the developers of a Virginia offshore wind project are asking a federal judge that just this past week to block another Trump administration order that halted construction of their project along with four others

over national security concerns, the administration saying that we need to stop the development of this wind development, this alternative energy mechanism based upon national security concerns.

The petitioners filed this lawsuit, maintaining that the departments of energy's efforts

and the administration's efforts to stop this is wrong, arbitrary, and capricious.

We'll talk more about that and other lawsuits in America in the next version, the next edition of Amica Solar Review, beginning next weekend, 2026.

Have a good weekend, everybody.

The national news cycle never stops, 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.