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 Amica's Salah Review on the broadcast stations of Civic Media and my name is Jim Santel.
I am your host this hour and also next hour for our excursion through the geography of the rule of law.
The administration of justice, the operation of government, focusing a lot on courts, on litigation and on the postures and positions taken by parties during the course of those items of litigation in our federal and also our state courts.
This weekend, as is always the case, our syllabus is chock full of rule of law events because there have been a lot of them during the course of justice past week.
The great majority of them coming out of the state of Minnesota and Minneapolis in particular, want to talk about no less than six different events, six different rule of law justice related events coming out of Minneapolis just in the past week or so.
And that includes some news breaking late this week on Friday related to what a federal judge has said about the conduct of federal agents.
Yes, those are the agents of the immigration and.
Customs Enforcement Unit of the Homeland Security Department, a major ruling by a federal district court judge telling the ICE agents what they can and cannot do, not going all the way in terms of directing their actions, but providing some guardrails for the kinds of things that should animate, should animate the conduct of law enforcement there in Minneapolis.
We're also going to talk about sparring litigation and sparring threats of litigation.
by various parties.
We know that the states of Minnesota and Illinois have now sued the federal government over the deployment of some of those federal agents.
At the same time, some late-breaking news, again, coming out of Washington and out of Minneapolis, indicating that your Department of Justice has begun, presumably, a criminal inquiry into Minnesota leaders, including the mayor of the city of Minneapolis and the governor.
of the state of Minnesota.
We'll talk about those sparring pieces of political and, yes, arguably, rule of law matters as well.
We'll talk about what six prosecutors in the U.S.
Attorney's Office there in Minnesota have done to protest the conduct and the non-conduct, the non-feasance of the Department of Justice when it comes to the focus on the events at and following the time of the shooting.
the shooting of just a week or so ago there in Minneapolis.
What they did, what they did to send clear messages about their positions on what the U.S.
Department of Justice should and should not be investigating right now, a major statement when six different prosecutors quit, some of them very senior prosecutors walking out of the U.S.
Attorney's Office there in the state of Minnesota, in the city of Minneapolis.
And then we're gonna talk about this dust-up that happened late in the week.
The president threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act.
We'll talk about what the Insurrection Act says, what it does and does not say.
We'll talk about what the Posse Comitatus Act says in arguable opposition to that.
And then we'll also provide you with the news that perhaps
encouraged by his own party, but also discouraged by the lack of support for an Insurrection Act invocation.
The president appears to be backing off of that threat, which is a good thing for all Americans, including those who are right there in the city of Minneapolis.
Then we've got an unrelated event having to do with food stamps in Minnesota.
All of that, five, six, seven different stories coming out of Minnesota.
All of them rule of law related.
all of them focusing plainly upon the administration of justice in that state to our immediate West.
All of that's coming up here on Amicus, a law review.
In addition, we're going to go ahead and back East, talk a little bit about what's going on in Eastern Virginia.
Yes, the US attorney there who is still showing up for work in the morning.
We'll talk about what federal district court judges are saying about that and about the firing of one of the leaders of the assistant US attorney.
there in eastern Virginia.
Again, lots of employment-related matters concerning assistant United States attorneys who are walking and are being told to leave based upon disagreements with the Department of Justice.
We necessarily need to talk about the United States Supreme Court once again issuing a major decision sort of under the headlines this past week.
A major decision having to do with the
capacity of every single person, including a successful candidate for the Congress, providing that individual in a case called Boss B.O.S.T., the capacity to sue for allegations that the counting of ballots in Illinois
is illegal, unconstitutional, the counting that continues even after Election Day, the Supreme Court not deciding the merits of that case, but permitting Congressman Boston to go ahead at least and file his petition
pursue his litigation there in federal court, and perhaps the biggest news, the biggest news coming out of the Supreme Court just this past week, among the several oral arguments that it conducted on major issues affecting our lives and our livelihoods, this major issue involving the presence and the involvement, and participation of transgender women in women's sports.
We'll talk about the mixed bag.
of the Supreme Court members in response to the petitions and the positions articulated by those in favor of permitting transgender women to participate in women's sports, those who are supporting the state legislation that prohibits that.
We'll talk about the opposing views on that and how the Supreme Court
seems to have responded to those arguments, not entirely clear, but seemingly heading toward at least some order that could support in some way.
the decisions of two different state legislatures that in fact are banning, are banning the presence and the participation of transgender women in women's sports.
Not entirely clear, certainly a split court, if that's the way the decision goes, but nonetheless, nonetheless, important to understand what the Supreme Court did just this past week in its oral argument, anticipating as we all do.
The issue inspired the Supreme Court of a major decision in that case, along with all of the other 50 or so cases now pending on its merits docket right now on Amicus, a law review, we will continue with discussions of all of that, including you.
as is always the case, inviting you, Max and I, Max, my terrific producer, inviting you to participate in our discussion by calling in, sending in a text at 855-752-4842.
Text us, call us with your questions or inquiries.
You can also be a part of the conversation on the
civic media chat box as well.
We'll take a look at all of those and make you a part of our discussion on this wide variety of issues once again in this edition of Amicus Alara View in mid-January of 2026, beginning as we have necessarily done in recent weeks with Minnesota and Minneapolis.
Let us begin with this major news coming out of a federal district court just late this past week.
on Friday, as a matter of fact, a federal judge in Minnesota.
This is the trial judge.
This is not an appeals court.
This is a singular trial judge.
Her name is Kate Menendez, M-E-N-E-N-D-E-S-Z, imposing restrictions saying to those law enforcement officers, those federal ICE officers there in Minneapolis, that you have got to abide by the law.
You've got to abide by the Constitution.
imposing restrictions on the actions of those agents when it comes to their engagements with whom?
With protesters on the streets of Minneapolis.
We have seen that now after weeks of mounting tension between demonstrators and those federal officers.
The judge just late this past week, again, Kate Menendez, telling those agents they've got to behave.
telling those agents that they cannot, cannot retaliate and here are her words against people who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity.
And you might think, well, gee, isn't that what the law is?
And the answer is yes, that is exactly what the law is.
We are in a situation circumstances now in America in early 2026 and late 2025 in which it is becoming more commonplace for federal judges at the appellate
and certainly the district court level to simply having to announce what the law is.
We've seen that out in Los Angeles.
It has happened again in Minnesota.
The Judge Menendez specifically giving some meat to the bones of her directive, telling them not to use pepper spray.
or other, as she called them, crowd dispersal tools in retaliation for what she described as protected speech.
Let me repeat that.
She said, you cannot use pepper spray or any other crowd dispersal tools in retaliation for protected speech.
She's talking about First Amendment rights.
She also went on to tell us more about what the agents can and cannot do.
She said, they cannot stop or detain protesters in vehicles who are not, as she
He said, forcibly obstructing or interfering with agents.
That comes in the wake of the tragic shooting and killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis on January 7th.
The ruling, this is all preliminary in nature.
It is directed plainly to the agents.
Even though it is preliminary, it is a preliminary injunction.
It has the force of law and compels those agents to comply with what the judge has said.
Big issue about two things, whether or not this administration under the guidance of Homeland Security
security and the ICE officials themselves on the ground there in Minneapolis will follow.
what the federal district court judge has said, that has been a continuing issue in the constitutional crisis that America continues to suffer under.
And second, highly likely that this opinion, this decision, this directive by Judge Menendez will be appealed to the court of appeals and that they will pursue further actions.
They're arguably going up to the Supreme Court as well.
We know well that all of this again comes in the tragic
wake of the tragic shooting of Renee Good.
And it follows in particular after the filing of a lawsuit in which some citizens indicated, advised, reported, complained that ICE was not, in fact, following the basic directions and requirements of the First Amendment.
The judge who is entering this order plainly has identified this as a major issue on the docket of this case.
And although the judge clarified in her order that the court's injunction does nothing to prevent the defendants, in this case, those are the ICE officers themselves.
That's the federal government.
That's your government on the ground there in Minneapolis.
doesn't prevent them from continuing to enforce immigration laws.
A very important point.
She's not saying don't enforce immigration laws.
She is saying, however, that when it comes to engagements with protesters, people engaging in things that are protected by the First Amendment, no more of those crowd dispersal tools, including pepper spray, and you cannot forcibly
You cannot forcibly stop them from doing those protests when in fact they're not interfering with the agents.
She clarified again that the immigration directives can still be upheld, nothing to stop the enforcement of them.
She said the injunction does not include explicit protections for recording of agents or other provisions sought by the plaintiffs.
So it doesn't provide the plaintiffs, that is petitioners, with everything.
they want, but she also noted that the continuing nature of this problem will only certainly bring everybody back into court.
When we come back, we'll talk more about the impact of that order and four or five other major things coming out of the district of Minnesota, the state of Minnesota, and the city of Minneapolis, all of that here on Amicus, a lot of you.
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.
Jim Santel, this is Amicus, a lot of you on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
Thank you for spending some portions of your weekend in consultation and discussion and exposition and exploration with me of some of these major issues in the areas of rule of law and the administration of justice beginning our broadcast this weekend with this major news coming out of the district court in Minnesota.
Judge Cape Menendez telling the ICE agents what they can and cannot do when it
comes to engagements with those people who are protesting what is going on in the streets of Minneapolis.
This lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, some law firms on behalf of the activists.
The plaintiffs claiming that the federal agents, those are the ICE agents, violated their constitutional rights by using excessive force of the sort that the judge, at least preliminarily, has found they have done.
They said the agents had intimidated
them, harassed them, arrested them, and done so without...
a sufficient basis upon which to engage in those actions.
No probable cause to do that.
And in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the judge is saying, basically knock it off, abide by the law.
And in particular, ensure, ensure that you're not detaining, stopping protesters in vehicles that are not forcibly obstructing or interfering with the agents.
also imposing some other restrictions on what the agents can and cannot do.
Important already, we've got callers, we've got Len from Madison asking the question that I posed again right before the last break, which is what happens next?
What about enforcement, Len says, and that is an excellent question.
Of course, we depend in America the rule of law.
We depend upon the rule of law to tell us that we need to abide by what federal district court judges and appeals court judges.
And yes, the Supreme Court says that we should do.
We are required to follow what state court judges, appeals court judges, trial judges, and state supreme courts do.
And if we don't do that, if we do not do what judges tell us to do, even as appeals are being pursued, that is when the system breaks down.
And that is the constitutional criteria.
about which we have spoken ever since March of last year when this administration first began to overtly not follow what a judge his name is James Bosberg in the District of Columbia was directing the United States government to do when it came to those 238 individuals migrants
flown out of this country and into El Salvador ever since then ever since then and in ways big and small in other federal courts including the Court of Judge Paula Zinnis in Maryland other courts around the country which we have reported on when the US Department of Justice appears in front of those judges and Either overtly or subtly says judge.
We're not doing what you are directing us to do What happens?
The answer is we've got to break down in the system.
And this is why Americans need to be so animated about the constitutional crisis in which we have been demanding.
directly and indirectly from our attorney general from the local United States attorneys and yes there are 92 of them throughout the nation and our territories demanding that the law be followed if in fact it is not followed what options to the judges have including this particular judge Kate Menendez in Minnesota she can as those other judges have done she can initiate contempt proceedings
finding in the end criminal contempt, arguably criminal conduct by our Department of Justice in failing to do.
And yes, indeed, one of the sanctions, it hasn't happened yet, but would be to jail, to imprison, to detain leaders and representatives of the Department of Justice and others involved in law enforcement who are not following what the judges are directing.
That's the remedy.
And it is a remedy that is available to judges.
It should not come to that.
Why?
Because that is not the system of justice upon which our system proceeds.
But nonetheless, the fact that the judge today directs the conduct of these agents raises the question of whether come today, tomorrow, the weeks ahead, they will follow this.
We have seen plainly in places like Chicago.
where federal district court judge has also directed certain things to happen and not to happen.
Again, when it comes to things like the use of pepper spray and body cams, situations where she also found that the agents on the ground failed to follow up on what she has said and conducting proceedings there to determine exactly why it is that they're not following what that judge has done.
The same could happen here.
the same could happen here.
And it is a good thing, Len, that you and others in America are attentive to that all enforcement, all important enforcement issue.
It is the stuff of the rule of law and absent a compliance, not only in this case, with what the judges said, but across the board, even while appeals are pending,
absent that fundamental notion that yes, judges do have things to say and can in fact direct the conduct of the federal government, absent that acknowledgement our system is not real.
and it breaks down.
And that is what we have been seeing again for about the last 10 months in America.
Reasons for Americans to be very animated, very upset, very dismayed, and very disappointed with the United States Department of Justice.
Let's talk about something else that the US Department of Justice is apparently doing.
According to late reporting, coming out of some sources, anonymous but reliable nonetheless of Washington, D.C.
The Trump administration, again through Pam Bondi, who is our attorney general, is apparently opening a criminal, yes, criminal investigation into two elected Democrats in Minnesota.
You know who they are.
The elected Democrats there in Minnesota are Governor Tim Walls and the mayor of the city of Minneapolis, Jacob Fry.
He has been both of them on the news a lot.
And the allegations, according to these sources, the investigation begun of them about whether they have conspired to impede thousands of federal agents who have been in the city since late last month.
This is another shot across the bow of those state and local officials
there were pushing back on what the ICE agents are doing.
Apparently an investigation now begun by your Department of Justice as to the governor and the mayor.
We'll talk more about that, the meaning of that, and what the mayor and the governor and others are doing to push back also in the courts of America as the broadcast continues right after this.
This is Amicus, all of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
We are spending the better part of the first hour of our weekend broadcast talking all about all of this news, all of this rule of law news, this administration of justice news coming out of Minnesota.
Of course, all of this, all of this in the wake of the recent tragic death, the shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good.
protesters related to that engaging in legitimate constitutional behavior there on the streets of Minneapolis.
Let's take inventory where we are up to this point.
We've got a federal district court judge.
Her name is Menendez who has told those agents they need to follow the Constitution when it comes to engaging with those protesters and not using the kinds of behaviors and conduct that plainly resulted in part in the tragic death of Renee Good.
We have got this reporting now that the Department of Justice
may be opening a criminal, a criminal investigation against involving the mayor of the city of Minneapolis, his name is Jacob Fry, and the governor of the state of Minnesota, his name is Tim Walls, former candidate for the vice presidency of the United States of America.
And the apparent allegations as to Walls and Fry, again, we don't know the details of this yet, that they somehow conspired to impede thousands
of agents who have been there since last month, engaging in exactly the kind of conduct that the judge has identified.
Now, news of this investigation, again, has sent ripples through the law enforcement community and political circles as well, especially because it comes only a couple of days after Todd Blanche.
Todd Blanche, who is the deputy attorney general of the United States, he is the second in command.
He posted what can only be described as a very incendiary message on social media just this past week.
He accused both Walls and Fry, again, of the apparent targets of this investigation of, as Deputy Blanche said, encouraging violence against law enforcement.
He referred to their actions as terrorism.
terrorism.
Now both the governor and the mayor of course have been very clear they've been out there in the media criticizing this immigration crackdown in Minneapolis criticizing with strong language and beyond.
Strong language telling the administration that the conduct of these agents, including, again, the shootings that we've seen, including the death of Renee Good, cannot continue.
They have urged local residents to document those actions.
While they have done all of that, been critical, again, protected speech under our Constitution.
There is no evidence out there, none whatsoever, that either one of them walls
or Fry have ever explicitly encouraged any violence.
They have never gone on record advocating for any violence of any kind, let alone any acts of terrorism.
This is once again, the Department of Justice.
This is Washington, your administration describing conduct in ways that are incendiary.
We know, we know that Renee Good herself has been described as a domestic
terrorist by your administration.
The investigation, of course, apparently follows those statements by Fry and by Walls, suggesting that citizens should protest.
They should be upset.
They should be concerned.
They have a right to have their voices heard in America.
but not advocating for violence.
Why is this so very important?
Well, it's the latest in a series of things, plainly, that this administration has done.
We have spoken a lot about this tactic in the past, even if...
there is no possibility of bringing a federal lawsuit, a criminal action against either one of these.
And yes, indeed, based upon the conspiracy statutes that are out there, the possibilities of ways in which they could be charged highly, highly unlikely that such a charge could be maintained.
But putting that to one side, as we have often said in this
very broadcast.
It is the investigation that is the punishment.
It is the investigation, the opening of the file, the inquiry that requires the targets of these investigations, whether the governor of the state of Minnesota or the mayor of the city of Minneapolis, requiring you to do what?
To be attentive to that investigation, to hire lawyers to represent you, to push back on or respond to requests for information, requests for interviews, all kinds of things that the investigation itself imposes upon you that diverts you from your other conduct, that is the mode of operation by this administration.
We have seen that plainly in other situations where this administration has threatened.
investigations of everyone from Adam Schiff, who is a senator from California, to Chris Ray, who's the former director of the FBI, maintaining that there are investigations going on as to them.
We don't know exactly what the focus of those is and what the precise target of them is.
Those kinds of things
identifying members of Congress for investigation, all of that, all of that in this basic trapping, this basic approach, that the investigation is the retribution.
And the investigation is the punishment for saying things in the public domain that the administration does not like.
We appear to have more of that just late this past week as the administration, your Department of Justice, presumably
through the Department of Justice, the criminal division, perhaps other divisions at Maine Justice, maybe the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Minneapolis, opening criminal inquiries into whether or not elected officials there in Minnesota have violated the federal law by encouraging and somehow impeding, question mark as well, thousands of federal agents who have been there, been there.
enforcing the law.
Now, once again, Federal District Court judge who issued the injunction here, the preliminary injunction, she says nothing about anything that she is doing prevents the enforcement of the law, but you've got to enforce the law when it comes to engaging with protesters and Americans and residents on the streets of America in ways that are consistent with the Constitution.
Those are the first two.
items coming out of Minnesota.
There is more because sure enough.
in the context of litigation in response to what's going on, these ICE deployments in Minnesota, in Chicago, and in other places around the country.
We also know that just this past week, state and city officials in the state of Minnesota and in the state of Illinois filed federal lawsuits.
These are civil lawsuits.
They're not criminal.
Again, only federal prosecutors and state prosecutors have the
to file criminal actions, but the lawsuits are against the Trump administration, against the Department of Justice.
They claim that these mass deployments of immigration agents into Minneapolis and into regions in and around Chicago, about which we have also spoken at length, violate what?
violate the U.S.
Constitution and infringe on states' rights.
We're talking once again about the 10th Amendment, which we've chatted about a lot in the Constitution and on this broadcast.
That notion that there are things that are reserved to the states, there are things that are explicitly vested in the federal government,
And when they're not in the federal government, the states reserve the rights to exercise prerogatives, legislative prerogatives, law enforcement prerogatives in those areas.
It's called federalism.
It's the 10th Amendment.
The lawsuits filed just this past week, again, two different federal district courts.
One of them in the district of Minnesota, the other in the northern district of Illinois, came again in the midst of all of this immigration enforcement activity.
The blitz there is plainly prompting these officials to push back.
And as a part of this initiative, the newly filed lawsuits are asking the
federal judges.
Again, these are separate from the case we just described involving Judge Menendez.
These two new lawsuits in two different districts, Northern Illinois, the District of Minnesota, asking federal judges to impose very, very broad sweeping limits on the conduct of federal agents in both states.
Now, you may say, well, gee, hasn't Judge Menendez already done that?
Yes, she has.
That lawsuit, again, brought by the ACLU and lawyers
senting advocates on the street.
These again brought by officials out of the states of Minnesota and the state of Illinois as well, plainly overlapping with the same kinds of claims.
The Illinois case, for example, filed by the state government and the city of Chicago.
They're the plaintiffs in this case saying that the Trump administration has unleashed an organized bombardment and is imposing a climate of fear.
language of the lawsuit coming out of Illinois.
The Minnesota case, paralleling that in many ways, again, filed by the state and by cities throughout Minnesota and St.
Paul.
including Minneapolis, of course, what they say in that complaint is that thousands of armed and masked DHS, Department of Homeland Security agents, have stormed the Twin Cities to conduct militarized raids and carry out dangerous, illegal and unconstitutional stops and arrests.
Attorney General of the state of Minnesota, his name is Keith Ellison, much in the national news in the past and again in recent times, has said this.
He says, people are being racially profiled, harassed, terrorized and assaulted.
And he adds that Minnesota police are spending countless hours dealing with the chaos ice is causing.
Note the importance of that comment.
He comments about the invasion, the federal invasion of the Twin Cities, he says, has to stop.
Why is that so significant?
He makes the distinction there between ICE, the federal agents, who according to the lawsuits filed in Minnesota and also in Illinois, are causing chaos, not just for the people of Minnesota and Illinois, that's at the top of the list, obviously, but also for the police, the legitimate domestic police forces, those forces that are themselves,
assigned responsibility to do what ICE has now taken on to do itself.
That is doing basic domestic law enforcement.
Again, nothing prevents ICE from engaging in immigration enforcement, but the allegation plainly is that ICE is now crossing the line into areas for which it has no jurisdiction and causing, according to the governor of the state of Minnesota, mayhem chaos and calling for the federal invasion to stop.
The Illinois lawsuit outlines a list of complaints about roving patrols in that state, including Chicago, the use of tear gas, once again a continuing theme.
The collection of photographs and fingerprints by immigration agents describes a number of high-profile instances from the federal enforcement authorities from this campaign in which agents marched through Chicago's downtown using a helicopter, you recall that event, and a raid on an apartment building.
and also their involvement in at least two shootings there in Illinois.
You may recall as well, as I made reference earlier, federal judge in Illinois temporarily blocking the president's deployment of National Guard members, another federal judge telling the ICE agents there in Chicago, again, what they can and cannot do, lots and lots of lawsuits coming out of the involvement of ICE in our major cities,
this latest civil lawsuit seeking to stop the Trump administration, much like the lawsuit pending still in front of Judge Menendez in Minnesota.
This one brought by state and local officials asking the judges on behalf of the state, on behalf of the municipalities to stop.
what is going on there as violative of the Constitution, stopping, stopping the invasion, as they've described it, of federal authorities.
All of that, all of that going on in Minneapolis, in Chicago, and yet there is more.
When we come back, I'll tell you what some assistant U.S.
attorneys in the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Madison have done to express their views about what's going on in their state, in their office, in our Department of Justice.
that coming up
next.
My name is Jim Santel, and this is Amica Salaro View on the broadcast stations of Civic Media, spending a lot of time appropriately on all of these things coming out of Minneapolis and Minnesota, and yes indeed, Chicago as well.
We've got federal district court judges weighing in on this.
We've got new lawsuits filed by state and local authorities seeking to send ice packing from these cities.
And we also have some wonderful questions from some of our listeners.
I appreciate that so very much.
I appreciate very much.
Ben Budd who's calling in from from Jamesville asking asking what happens what happens if in fact you have these local law enforcement officers there the domestic law enforcement that is there properly to enforce the law and they come upon ICE agents who are violating the law violating the Constitution even violating the the local laws and the state laws of the jurisdiction in which they're purportedly enforcing immigration laws and
And the answer, of course, once again.
but is that we haven't had to face this kind of problem before.
Here in the state of Wisconsin, my own experience from being inside the US Attorney's office was an incredible amount of what cooperation among local, state, and federal law enforcement, that is a good thing.
You sit around a table, you coordinate based upon limited resources, you coordinate what should and should not happen.
Everybody is on the same page, which is the enforcement of the law, keeping people safe
secure working on behalf of the constituencies who are the residents of those particular areas.
Here now we've got lawsuits, we've got statements indicating that that has fractured at least in Minnesota and presumably in other cities around the country, other states around the country like Illinois, like Oregon.
like other cities and states that have similarly witnessed the same kind of thing.
We've talked about a lot of that coming out of Los Angeles, for example, and Washington, DC.
What is the answer?
We don't know if, in fact, we're going to get to that point where you have state and local law enforcement
Stopping, detaining, arresting federal law enforcement on the streets because they're violating law.
Do they have the authority to do that?
Sure they do.
They've got a responsibility, they being the local and established state enforcement authorities.
Do they have the authority to arrest others, whether they're federal or...
or non-law enforcement who are violating the law, of course they do.
That's what these lawsuits are all about.
That's what this schism is all about.
And it underscores, once again, the fractured way in which government is now proceeding in 2025 and 2026.
Your question, bud, is all important.
And we hope that we don't see that because what further
indicate and illustrate the breakdown in this federal and state and local consortium, which has always existed in America, apparently no longer, at least in Minneapolis and other cities like Chicago and Portland.
I appreciate so very much that comment.
Also appreciate a comment coming in from Jim in Campbell Sport, who's talking about what you do, what you do if in fact there are these frivolous claims, including presumably, I think Jim, you're talking about this, allegations that local and state officials have engaged in criminal conduct.
Well, there are remedies for that as well.
There are cases involving malicious prosecution that you can pursue.
But once again, the concern about all
this is that even initiating these lawsuits, that is even criminal investigations of state and local authorities, those investigations, the investigations themselves are the punishment.
And even though there can be remedies when they fall apart,
when they do not lead, do not lead to criminal prosecutions, the reality is that their very presence is what the point of them is, which is retribution.
A word that we heard a lot from this president during the course of the campaign.
Great questions, great observations coming in from our listeners about these hot topic issues.
And we'll notice well in the final moments of this first hour of amicus, something else that happened in the midst of, in the wake of all of this, and that is six count of
Six federal prosecutors in Minnesota in the U.S.
Attorney's Office there in Minneapolis have resigned this past week over what?
because they're upset because the Justice Department is investigating not the agent, not the ICE agent, who is responsible for the shooting of Renee Good.
And in that context, we've got statements by both the civil rights head.
Her name is Harmeet Dillon.
She has said that she is not considering opening an investigation into whether the agent who shot Ms.
Good actually violated federal law.
And we've also got a statement from Todd Blanche once again, indicating there's no basis for that criminal civil rights investigation.
The assistant US attorney is obviously responding to that.
the decision not to investigate, but even at a greater level, more principally, the push to investigate whom?
The widow.
The widow of Ms.
Good herself, who was killed by the ICE agent.
Departments reluctance to investigate the shooter.
Those two things in combination, prompt people like Joseph Thompson.
and others, including Harry Jacobs and Melinda Williams and Thomas Calhoun, Lopez, all of these assistant US attorneys have left the Department of Justice.
They've walked out in protest, presumably, over the decisions of your Department of Justice, not to at least initiate an investigation, a criminal civil rights investigation to determine whether or not Ms.
Good's constitutional rights to life
have been violated, but instead, instead to pursue an investigation into the wife of Ms.
Good, her name is Becca.
And Becca Good has said in a statement that she and her wife had stopped to support their neighbors when they got into this tense confrontation.
Apparently now an investigation going on as to the widow, the widow of Ms.
Good, no investigation going on with respect, at least a federal investigation going on with respect to the shooter himself.
And that prompts, again, the stunning, but not unprecedented in these
the stunning departure of six assistant United States attorneys, including Joe Thompson, second in command in the U.S.
Attorney's Office.
He was basically the first assistant.
He was in charge of many major cases.
He and others are gone.
in protest of your Department of Justice.
When we come back a little bit more about what the president has said in connection with Minneapolis and then the Supreme Court back in the news just this past week as our broadcast continues.
This is Amica's Solaro View.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is the second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast about the rule of law, the administration of justice, the operation of government, and it's all there in our syllabus this weekend as we focus
principally in our first hour, and yes, more in this second hour on all those things going on in Minneapolis.
We have talked already about a federal district court judge, Kate Menendez, who has ordered agents not to retaliate against people on the streets of Minneapolis for engaging in peaceful and unobstructed
protest activity.
We have talked about the fact that apparently the U.S.
Department of Justice is now initiating a criminal investigation of the mayor of Minneapolis and also the governor of the state of Minnesota, alleging
perhaps that they have somehow impeded thousands of those federal agents from doing their jobs.
We have got at the same time lawsuits filed by the elected representatives in Minnesota and Illinois, also the city there, of course, Chicago, alleging that the immigration enforcement campaigns in those states have violated the Constitution, asking another federal judge to stop that from happening.
And we've got six...
Six prosecutors in the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Minneapolis walking out the door this past week saying no more.
We are protesting the fact that not only are we not investigating as we would normally do, not deciding yet whether to prosecute the shooter, but investigating whether or not he and perhaps others engaged in violations of the Constitution, depriving Ms.
Good of her constitutional right to liberty and to life.
They are walking out the door because of the decision of the Department of Justice at the highest levels, not to pursue that, but instead, instead to substitute an investigation into the wife, the spouse of Ms.
Good.
Again, all of that happening in Minneapolis just this past week, we know as well, we know as well that during the course of the week, the president both articulated a very, very concerning possibility that he was considering and then seemed to rescind it late in the week.
We recall well that early this past week, the president responding to much of this activity was musing about the possibility of invoking the insurrection act of 1807.
And now, once again, to cut to the chase on this, at the end of the week, probably because of pushback from inside his own advisors, maybe his own party, certainly from Democrats and from other people of reason and sensibility, withdrawing much of that.
But invoking possibly, he said early on, the Insurrection Act, threatening to invoke it as a response to the immigration customs enforcement activities and the
attacks being made upon it question mark in Minneapolis so it raises the question what is the insurrection act we need to address that once again because the president has raised this possibility of invoking it what does it mean an early version of the insurrection act it's gone through a number of different iterations
was first passed by Congress way back in 1792.
It provides for the calling forth of militia to execute the laws of the union to suppress
Insurrection's important word and repel invasions.
It's been amended a number of times during the course of our history.
The law, again, the Insurrection Act basically gives the president the power to send military forces, the military, the United States military to states to quell to stop what the president would identify as widespread public unrest and to support civilian, civilian law enforcement.
Interestingly, the law requires
before the president can do that, he first has to call for the so-called insurgents to disperse.
And if stability is not restored, the president may then issue executive orders to deploy those military forces.
That's what the Insurrection Act requires of the president before he can send the U.S.
military in.
That's what he was musing about early this past week.
And plainly, plainly raising an awful lot of concerns about this heightening
of the not just the language but also arguably the conduct of the federal government the
engagement of state officials and local officials in pursuing law enforcement.
Now, there's another law that we have spoken about as well.
You're probably scratching your head and saying, well, gee, Jim, what about the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878?
We need necessarily in America in 2026 to engage in these kinds of civic lessons, these many law school lessons.
about what the law is because they're affecting our national discourse.
We need to understand what this is all about.
State governments maintain authority, even in the midst of an insurrection act, which is out there, to keep order within their own borders.
And that's power given to the state authorities, state officials, under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
What does it say in general?
very generally, the law prohibits the use of military as a domestic police force.
So we've got the Posse Comitatus Act vesting in state law enforcement, the obligation, the requirement to ensure safety and security, and giving them within their jurisdictional borders the power to do just that, and forbidding the use of military as a domestic police force.
And then you've got the Insurrection Act.
arguably being at least talked about by the president that permits under findings where there is an insurgency, where you've got the rebellion which we've talked about, the insurrection kind of thing that we've talked about before, justifying the military intervention.
Lots of things going on there.
And in the end, as I indicated, news indicating that perhaps because the president had overstepped, at least in his language, lots and lots of pushback,
on this possible invocation of the insurrection act.
The president, the president appearing to step down from that late this past week on Friday and saying that, well, I still have the authority to do this.
I might consider doing it down the road, but right now I'm not doing that.
Officials on the other side of this debate, not necessarily
completely satisfied with the president's statements about that, still warning, warning against any invocation of the Insurrection Act, warning against any intrusion, any placement of military forces, a military occupation in Minneapolis and in other places around the nation.
And all this follows once again, the president's earlier discussion about doing it.
At the end of the week, in response to all the pushback, he said this.
The president said, I don't think I need it right now.
And that, of course, when the president said that, suggested that he is backing down.
Nonetheless, Tim Walls, again, the governor of the state of Minnesota, has urged Donald Trump.
in connection with just this portion of this, this language invoking the Insurrection Act.
He said, let's back down from the heated rhetoric.
Let's turn the temperature down, the governor wrote on his own social media post.
He said, stop this campaign of retribution.
It is a lot.
All of that is going on right now in Minneapolis.
And there's another footnote to all of this, which is also significant when it comes to understanding
Again, the role of federal courts, while all this is going on in connection with the presence of ICE agents in Minneapolis, the tragic shooting of Ms.
Good, the investigative work, the lawsuits that are being filed, the threats of criminal investigation, all of that going on, we still have federal courts who are also doing the work that they are assigned to do.
Another federal judge in Minnesota just late this past week, her name is Laura.
a Provenzino, P-R-O-V-I-N-Z-I-N, a Laura Provenzino, U.S.
District Court again in Minnesota, same court, different branch of that court, issues a 50-page ruling.
It is not, it is not about the matters going on in the streets of Minneapolis, it's not about the ICE agents, but instead, instead, even while all that is going on, the federal judge temporarily blocks the Trump administration from doing what?
from freezing funding for food stamps and other forms of hunger relief programs in the state.
We have seen this a lot.
A 50-page ruling finding, this is Judge Provenzino, finding that the Agriculture Department's decision to withhold federal funding there in Minnesota for food assistance programs was, according to the judge, without any recent explanation.
She's called it haphazard.
haphazard.
She issued again a preliminary injunction while litigation in the case continues.
You may recall that in other places, including Minnesota, in mid-December or so, the Agriculture Department.
The Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, sent a letter to Minnesota and other states requiring that it recertify many of the food stamp recipients, of course, much in the news during the course of the recent shutdown and SNAP benefits threatened to be suspended for quite literally millions of Americans.
The same day that a federal judge blocked the administration from withholding billions in social services
funding for Minnesota and for their democratic states.
The Agriculture Department announced it would withhold about $129 million in federal funding from Minnesota for food stamps.
Again, an awful lot going on here.
It's not always easy to follow, but that is the basis upon which there is a lawsuit that's filed, attacking the decision to suspend that $129 million in federal funding.
suspension of that and the judge just this past week saying that doing so would be haphazard.
It's without any reason explanation.
She restores that funding, that $129 million fund there in Minnesota.
Litigation goes on in our federal courts and in other places around the country.
Let's move into another part of the country, back to the Eastern District of Virginia, where, yes, indeed, more activity.
We go from the District of Minnesota, which is a federal district.
It is a federal district in and of itself, in addition to being a state.
We go back to the Eastern District of Virginia.
And we know well that is there that the lawsuits against James Comey and Letitia James were recently dismissed.
by a federal judge finding that the U.S.
attorney there designated by the president, her name is Lindsay Heligan, was not properly identified and placed in that position.
And as a result of all of that, of all of that, there is a bit of an insurrection going on.
It's with small eye, not the kind we're talking about in Chicago or in Minneapolis or in other places, or at least allegedly, according to this administration.
We've got a bit of a battle going on between the local federal judiciary and the authority of Lindsey Heligan,
who remains in her position there in the Eastern District of Virginia as the United States Attorney, even though a federal district court judge has said you were improperly appointed and saying that these two prosecutions against Comey and James have to be dismissed.
What happens is that the Department of Justice comes back and says that even though the judge says that the investigations and yes, the prosecutions that followed from them had to be dismissed, those matters now on appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
They said that the judge said nothing about the continued authority of.
U.S.
Attorney Haligan continued to operate in Richmond, Virginia, and throughout the Eastern District of Virginia in general.
And she said,
And the U.S.
Attorney there has said that she will continue to operate.
And indeed, her name continues to appear on behalf of the Department of Justice.
As the U.S.
Attorney there, when we come back, I'll tell you exactly how the local federal judiciary is responding, how the Department of Justice is responding.
And yes, another federal prosecutor fired, fired amidst the turmoil in all of this, as Amicus, a lot of you, continues.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus Allaro View on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
We have moved from our focus of all of these things happening in Minneapolis and Chicago and other places around the country having to do with the ICE deployments in Minneapolis and in other places.
We moved east to the Eastern District of Virginia to the continuing dispute about who the U.S.
Attorney is there and the authority of that U.S.
Attorney, you recall well, that Lindsey Heligan found to have been
improperly illegally appointed by the president and therefore necessitating, according to a federal judge, the dismissal of those retributive lawsuits against James Comey and Letitia James, that's now on appeal.
Even so, even so, Lindsay Heligan, having been found not to be properly appointed, she's still there.
And she's still signing off on pleadings.
She is still in the so-called signature block on pleadings, both civil and criminal.
a district court judge there.
His name is David Novak.
He's in Richmond, Virginia.
He's ordering, ordering Halligan to explain in writing why it is in false and misleading for her to continue identifying herself as the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after the earlier ruling of the judge finding that judge was Cameron McGowan Curry.
You may recall back in November, finding the Lindsay Halligan improperly.
improperly appointed by the president.
Todd Blanche in an exercise of some linguistic gymnastics said that, well, the judges, Judge Curry's order that found that the authorization was not proper said nothing about Héligans continued service as the acting U.S.
attorney.
It simply dismissed those cases.
And so she is still there apparently with the support incredibly of the U.S.
Department of Justice, prompting again, Judge Novak,
in this back-and-forth, this small spat, this small battle inside the federal courthouse there to ask her to explain how it is she is still there.
And specifically in a case it's pending before Judge Novak, he questions why he shouldn't strike Halligan's name from an indictment in a criminal matter.
He cited court rules that make it unprofessional conduct for attorneys to make
false or misleading statements.
Judge Novak is saying that the very representation that Lindsay Halligan on this criminal indictment is still the U.S.
attorney is false.
She's no longer it, he says, and therefore this is false or misleading.
In their response, once again, the Justice Department said that the judge's fixation on a signature block
is untethered from how federal courts actually operate.
That's the pushback from the Department of Justice.
The courts thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the executive branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions.
To the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and an affront to the separation of powers.
That's the Department of Justice pushing back against this federal judge who said she's got no authority.
cannot continue to operate.
Justice Department, big news, accusing a judge of abusing his power and questioning the authority of the prosecutor herself.
A continuing story, plainly not done.
Here's another part of that, however, that is perhaps
even more significant, undeniably more significant in that very office.
A senior federal prosecutor, his name is Robert McBride, was fired this past week after a disagreement with presumably the U.S.
Attorney with the Department of Justice about whether he would take charge of the Trump administration's effort to re-indite, to charge once again James Comey.
The dismissal of this prostitute, again, as seen as Robert McGride, is again the latest in departures, voluntary,
terminations of assistant U.S.
attorneys in the wake of decisions that they have made inside the U.S.
Attorney's Office, not to follow the directives of the superiors there.
McBride himself, interesting recent history, had been in the U.S.
Attorney's Office there for only a couple of months.
He is temporarily serving as the top deputy to Lindsay Halligan, plainly brought in
with due respect because she does not have the litigation, the prosecution authority to know how to do this and to re-indite if at all a second time.
He has spent actually more than a decade as a prosecutor where in Kentucky, he has brought in basically to assist Lindsay Halligan in trying to resuscitate the criminal investigation and prosecution of James Comey.
And Donald Trump, the president, selected again Ms.
Halligan initially to serve in that capacity.
The Department of Justice then selects Robert McRide to come in and assist her in that as a part of its effort to reinvigorate the prosecution now dismissed against James Comey.
The reporting of the dismissal, this is not
Robert McBride leaving voluntarily, he is dismissed.
He is fired by the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice saying again, a little bit about this, but not a lot, plainly confirming implicitly have not explicitly that disagreements between Mr. McBride and the leadership there have prompted, have prompted his dismissal.
We are firing you
because you will no longer pursue the assignment, which is to re-indite and prosecute James Comey.
I would offer, once again, that kind of behavior.
where the administration, any administration is terminating the employment because of internal disagreements, is not only contrary to years of history of the Department of Justice, it's contrary to the best interests of all of us in ensuring that inside U.S.
Attorney's offices, there is healthy debate about the merits and demerits of criminal prosecutions, of civil cases.
That's why you have lawyers and investigators who gather around tables and make decisions not in the public.
domain, not in this way, but privately just expressing their own views about the merits.
That's how the Department of Justice works.
This fellow Robert McBride terminated because he was articulating opposition to yet another effort to prosecute
to prosecute James Comey in that particular district, recognize that there are other judges out there in connection with the Lindsay Halligan matter that have also found that various U.S.
attorneys are improperly in place in New Jersey and in upstate New York.
When we come back, we'll talk about another court, and that is the United States Supreme Court, what it's been doing this past week here on Amicus, a law review.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
We so appreciate your calls, your inquiries, your comments, your questions, and your texts on our chat line.
We've got a couple of them.
in connection with our previous discussion about all things Minneapolis, all things rule of law related, Mark indicating, reporting on some involvement of his cousin there, who is describing situations where folks are being taken into custody.
One of his friend's nephews was held for about nine hours there in Minneapolis, trying to document what ICE was doing, and other instances there, an awful lot of those accounts.
being rendered by people on the streets there in Minneapolis and that is in part what the Federal District Court judge has said the ICE officials and other law enforcement have got to permit happen.
that you do indeed have a right to record things that go on.
That's part of that, Mark.
We so appreciate that reporting as well.
And then there is a fascinating question, which I again so appreciate from Adam calling in from Oregon, who talks about, asks whether or not in connection with this back and forth also related to Minneapolis, with whether or not the president and other people, perhaps including the attorney general himself, are engaging in seditious
conduct he says they seem to believe that they are the highest power and most and not the US Constitution so an act against them is sedition however Adam goes on to say they seem to be in the ones who are committing the most heinous actions themselves and what can be done about that Adam appreciate very much the very important question when conduct by your government itself strikes
and plainly others as violative of the Constitution, what does one do?
Even as the government itself is alleging sedition by people who are opposing positions there in Minneapolis, other places.
In part, in part, Adam, that's what the lawsuit that has been brought by the Minnesota and state and Illinois state authorities is all about.
Maintaining that the presence of ICE and the things that they're doing contrary to the Constitution,
Contrary to the 10th Amendment, the separation of powers, a bit different from alleging sedition, it is also arguably baked in to this continuing litigation in front of Judge Kate Menendez, who again has responded very definitively to what is going on there in Minneapolis and telling the ICE agents, telling the federal government that they cannot engage in violations of the Constitution.
Adam, the fact that you asked the question at all, that is whether or not our government is engaging in sedition, tells you everything you need to know.
We didn't used to have to ask these questions under other administrations of both Democrats and Republicans alike.
The rule of law.
the rule of law being compromised when in fact all of these basic understandings are being fractured.
Constitutional crisis, authoritarian government also indicated by the continuation of this focus on being criminally prosecuted and investigating the opponents of the president.
Great comments, great questions.
We appreciate all of that tremendously.
Also significant to note, going back, going back across the country, out to California, another important thing happened this past week by an appeals court in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals having to do with the elections coming up in 2026 and in particular November.
Federal appeals court in the middle part of this past week rejected a claim
that the California, the new plan there, the new congressional maps that created five presumably democratic favored districts was unconstitutional.
A federal appeals court just this past week rejects that claim, effectively upholding.
upholding that voter-approved plan, that referendum, that plainly intends to benefit Democrats in this year's midterm election.
A three-judge panel in Los Angeles sided with Governor, his name is Governor Gavin Newsom, and some fellow Democrats in Congress would argue that the maps were drawn purely to give their party an advantage in reaction to what?
We know what that is, a similar gerrymandering approach by Texas Republicans.
The ruling by the appeals court now in California basically permits the maps to go ahead.
It could in fact end up before the Supreme Court.
But again, time is of the essence in all of this.
At some point, people in Texas and California and other states around the nation have got to know what the districts are, have got to know how those lines have been drawn.
And of course, this coming
out of California in the wake of the November ballot.
Proposition 50, you may recall this well.
And the allegation is that that was a racial gerrymander done for racial purposes.
The folks in opposition to it, including opposition to the challenge, that is some double negatives here.
The folks who are supporting the result of Proposition 50, establishing those new districts, they maintain, no, this is a political gerrymander and nothing else, no racial involvement.
in this whatsoever the appeals court agrees says yeah there's some things around the edges that may be a bit troubling but overall the compelling weight of the evidence is that this is indeed a a political gerrymander done for political purposes why is that important we know that the Supreme Court has said
Federal courts do not get involved in negotiating, in trying to figure out whether there have been political gerrymanders.
Those are no longer in the jurisdiction of our courts.
Racial gerrymandering is.
And of course we know in that connection that there are other cases pending, pending in the United States Supreme Court involving just that issue, having to do with the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1964.
and also matters related to counting of ballots and the timing of counting of ballots.
What is election day?
Those cases also pending in the Supreme Court.
The California matter may get there, other matters may get there, but right now the appeals court in California is supporting what Californians did to create those five additional favorable to Democrats districts in that state.
talking about the Supreme Court once again as we necessarily do very important because once again the Supreme Court was in business this past week a number of different oral arguments as I reported on previously another major oral argument next week which we'll talk about having to do with whether or not the president
And fire a board member a commissioner of the Federal Reserve.
This is the Lisa cook case This is the one of the major power related cases pending before the Supreme Court oral argument oral argument coming up next week
Before the United States Supreme Court on the 21st coming out of the district court and the circuit court Determining whether or not the president has the fire as the authority to fire the independent commissioner the independent pendant board member of the Federal Reserve
a major case.
You may recall well that this also involves arguably the reversal of a 90-year-old opinion called Humphrey's Executive.
We'll talk more about that as we have before, after the oral argument of this coming week.
You can tune in and listen to that oral argument in the mid-morning on the 21st of January.
You can also hear it after it's recorded.
Big things happening at the Supreme Court next week and also just this past week.
Perhaps the biggest thing involves the oral argument.
of the Supreme Court with petitioners and with respondents in connection with the involvement, the participation of transgender women in sports.
And the takeaway, the takeaway from the oral argument is not with clear decision, not with absolute precision, but it appears, it appears that a majority of justices seem to be inclined
inclined to allow the states that have passed laws that ban, that prohibit transgender women from participating in women's sports.
Supreme Court appears from the oral argument to be supporting, allowing those states to ban transgender athletes.
That appears to be the takeaway, not entirely clear, not entirely certain.
We'll see what the Supreme Court does with this, but it appears that these
or the oral argument and the arguments made suggest that a majority might be inclined to support the states that have prohibited the involvement, the participation of transgender women in sports.
The outcome of these cases, and they come out of West Virginia and Idaho, there are two different cases playing as implications around the country.
Why?
Because about 25 other states, about half of the states in the union have similar laws.
And for athletes who compete in schools and collegiate sports around the country, this is a big issue.
It is not an easy issue.
We know that the premise for these cases, again, are individuals.
Becky Pepper Jackson, she's a high school sophomore from West Virginia.
And Lindsay Heacock, she's a college senior in Idaho.
Both of them challenged those state laws that prohibited
them from participating in women's sports.
The laws, they require that the participation on sports teams for girls be based according to the laws on biological sex defined as a person's sex assigned at birth.
Three hours, three hours of debate of oral argument justice past week.
The justices across the geography are grappling with things like fairness and yes, sports and scientific uncertainty and discrimination and title nine and what America means.
And again, seem to be in the end dividing down ideological lines.
The three so-called liberal justices, you know who they are, Sonia Sotomayor and Katangi.
Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, appearing to recognize that the Supreme Court majority, six others, will probably support in some way the decisions of the legislatures in those states and others to ban transgender women from engaging in sports, appearing to recognize, that is the three presumably minority members of the court, suggesting through their questions that maybe.
If these laws are found to be constitutional, even so, maybe these two transgender athletes themselves on their own cases, on their own merits, can go back and pursue their individual challenges that say that because of who they are and their particular histories, they do not pose this threat.
to women's sports if they are permitted to participate, allowing their cases to be reviewed by a lower court.
The individual merits of their claims, the three justices suggested, would give those athletes, they said, a chance to show that they themselves, they as individuals, do not possess unfair competitive advantages, even if others do, basically separating out their cases.
Now, on the opposite side, and again, the majority appearing to
to support the bans.
The majority conservative justices emphasize that federal law has long allowed separate sports teams, separate individual sports teams for boys and girls.
And they do that on the
premise of fair competition.
And the majority also seem to raise some concerns about undermining the goals of Title IX.
Title IX, you know what that's all about.
That's the civil rights statute that has fueled participation in women's sports.
It applies, again, in educational settings across the board to ensure access, access to civil rights on our campus, including especially sporting events.
The Trump administration obviously
obviously arguing in favor of the states.
And we know as well that a lot of the argument from this past week tended to support the Trump administration and the advocates from those states.
We know that just this past year, in the previous term, that the Supreme Court
with the support of a majority, had found that states can indeed engage in limitation on gender transition care.
We'll talk about how that issue reverberated again this past week when we get back to the oral argument here on Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amica Salaro.
We are talking about the United States Supreme Court.
This major oral argument having to do with the issue of whether or not transgender women can be participating in, be involved in women's sports.
The big takeaway, the Supreme Court appears, underlining appears, to be heading in the direction of upholding.
a pair of state laws from West Virginia and Idaho that bar the participation, prevent the participation of transgender athletes from girls and women's sports team.
Right before the break, I was talking about the fact that the Supreme Court dipped its toe a bit into this issue back in June at the end of the last term when the court upheld a Tennessee law that banned some medical treatments for transgender adolescents and said, yes, indeed, legislatures can do that.
at the same time as they affirmed the right of state legislatures to do that, they plainly wanted to distance themselves from that decision-making.
You recall well that the Chief Justice, John Roberts at that time, cited some scientific and policy debates about gender transition treatments, reminders, and kind of threw up his arms and said those questions should be resolved by, as he said, the people, their elected representatives and the democratic processes, indicating that the Supreme Court should not have to wrestle with
all of this.
It's too complicated.
It's too much of a social argument out there.
And I raise that because Brett Kavanaugh.
in the oral argument of justice past week seem to pick up on that very point that maybe this is beyond the capacity of federal judiciary judges and the federal judiciary generally and the supreme court in particular to handle it the justice Brett Kavanaugh saying they're asking the lawyer for the Idaho athlete why the court should as he said jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country while there's
still, as you say, uncertainty and debate, well, there's still strong interest on the other side saying this is a difficult question.
And in the end, again, indicating that perhaps the Supreme Court will defer.
to the legislatures in those states, rather than wrestling real directly saying, yes, you've got the authority to do just that.
Again, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Katanji Brown Jackson repeatedly suggesting that the two athletes should have an opportunity to narrowly challenge the laws as it applies to them.
The other reason why this is so very significant is that during the course of the oral argument,
The justices are confronting these very, very difficult questions about when boys and girls can be legally treated differently.
And the parties all sides of the justices raised a series of hypotheticals about whether boys and girls are different when it comes to their aptitude in all sorts of fields, including things like calculus and chess and high school performance in general.
Some, and the reason why that's important, some of the justices seem to agree and seem to be inclined to resolve the case without delving into any of those similarly situated arguments as they describe them.
Amy Coney,
Barrett again seized on the broad nature of this argument.
She says, I think it opens a huge can of worms that maybe we don't need to get into here.
And the Justice has also touched on the intense public interest in this, the outcome of the case, noting that the Olympics are coming again to America in 2028, other elite athletes again competing here in the United States of America, all of them watching closely what is going on.
Justice Alito saying, there are an awful lot of female athletes who are strongly opposed to participation by trans athletes in competition.
And he asked the lawyer,
for the Idaho athlete, he says, are they bigots?
Are they deluded in thinking that they are subjected to unfair competition?
And the attorney for Ms.
Hecox, who's again one of the petitioners here, says, I would never call anyone that.
But she added, you don't legislate based on undifferentiated fears.
She pointed to findings that shows that while transgender people have excelled in women's sports,
they are actually few and far between.
Neil Gorsuch weighs in.
He was the one who wrote way back in 2020, of course, that the word sex includes everyone in the LGBTQIA community, that case called Bostock, you may recall that.
He repeatedly asked about the history of discrimination in this country.
against transgender people.
He indicates along the way that some of the laws passed by Congress in the past, and in a particular court ruling way back in the 1960s, a long, long time ago, 60 or more years, he referred to that as perhaps not our finest hour, but his position on this matter was somewhat unclear.
And as a result of that, again, justice is appropriately asking questions of both sides in all directions.
It is difficult to predict with absolute certainty if someone tells you they know exactly how the Supreme Court is going to come down.
They are lying to you.
But it appears at least that some members of the Supreme Court are hunting for a way and may find a way of supporting the constitutionality of these statutes.
They can do it broadly.
We know from our past discussions, they often swing broadly for the bleachers, so to speak.
They can announce a broad principle that permits state legislatures to do this.
They can do it more narrowly, perhaps in focusing on the statute on Title IX, which is important to one of these two cases and talking about the
language of Title IX.
They could talk more particularly about the particular circumstances that the two petitioners who are there in front of them, Becky Pepper Jackson and Lindsay Hecox, maybe they decide in that context they can draw a very broad brush across this canvas.
They can describe their result in a very narrow way.
And that I suspect is the way that the Supreme Court is now wrestling with this, making a decision against
about what the...
Court overall will say almost certainly some dissenters to whatever the court in the majority side says.
Again, the minority looking at all this and saying, let's give the individual petitioners here right to go back.
Let's decide this narrowly to go back to the lower court and have their individual merits decided.
Not an easy issue.
None of that easy.
And as I often say, it's a lot.
It is a lot to consider.
It is good to listen to the Supreme Court even over.
a three-hour period of time here on Amicus Law Review.
We'll summarize that.
We'll summarize next week's oral arguments on next week's show, and we invite you back again for more discussion about the rule of law and government and the operation of America in 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.
