Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel, Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant news stories in the areas of law, government, courts, and the aspiration for justice.
And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.
This is amicus a lot of you on the broadcast stations of civic media My name is Jim Santel.
I'm your host this weekend this hour and also next hour for the broadcast Whereas always we review we analyze we assess the major issues in the area of administration of justice the
concepts behind rule of law, constitutional theories and principles, and also the operation of government, all of that, so very much in our news and our national attention these days, including just this past week.
Amicus, a lot of you, is always a forum for exposition and information providing about those very issues.
this weekend as is the case as was the case last weekend as well we are pre-recording for a number of reasons and so regrettably not taking phone calls but asking listeners once again to record to annotate your notes
your comments and be sure to ask me about them in our broadcast next weekend when we will be once again live this weekend, our show focusing upon almost exclusively events and circumstances, the rule of law events and circumstances in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Let me tell you a bit more about the syllabus that is ahead of us this hour and also next hour here on Civic Media.
We're going to begin with some new
breaking late this past week, including a major announcement by the Deputy Attorney General of the United States of America.
His name is Todd Blanche.
He's a number two in the Department of Justice, announcing a major change with respect to an investigation that up to now was not going to be focused.
by the Department of Justice in the Civil Rights Division of Maine Justice.
Instead was going to be reviewed in a shooting type atmosphere, another kind of analysis in the Department of Homeland Security.
The Deputy Attorney General just announcing that with respect to the murder,
of Alex Pretty on the streets of Minneapolis recently.
The U.S.
Department of Justice is now going to undertake an investigation of that.
That's the reversal of what the administration said previously.
I'm going to talk about exactly what the Deputy Attorney General said, significantly what he didn't say, and some concerns about the nature of the investigation, even as it proceeds inside the Department of Justice, maybe without
the civil rights division, which always does these kinds of things, maybe without the involvement of the major inter-office agency that is responsible for doing just that, that is investigating deprivations of life under the Constitution of the United States of America.
It remains the case that with respect to the
prior murder on the streets of Minneapolis, Renee Good, the Department of Justice has indicated that there is no investigation underway at Homeland Security or at Maine Justice.
We'll talk about all of that and the significant announcement that comes by the Department of Justice through the Deputy Attorney General announcing a
and investigation involving the death of Alex Pretty recently.
We'll also talk about another major news event happening just late this past week, and that is the arrest of journalists.
One of them, much known to the nation, his name is Don Lemon, we'll talk about how he was arrested just late this past week.
Apparently it appears on an indictment
returned by a grand jury.
We'll talk about that.
We'll talk about the circumstances under which all of that played out, and necessarily then that is the entree into our major discussion, again, about all things Minneapolis, but specifically about two judges who are attending to some of the overwhelming litigation, both civil and administrative,
trying to manage the work of the courts there in Minneapolis.
One of them is Patrick Schultz.
You've heard a lot about him this past week.
He's the chief judge there.
We did describe where he comes from, who he is, and then talk about his involvement, his involvement in these matters having to do with the arrest warrants that were indeed granted by a magistrate judge previously.
And those that were not and how that is connected to the recent apparent indictment and then arrest of Don Lemon, he was among those for whom the magistrate said there was insufficient evidence to issue arrest warrants.
Now Don Lemon appearing in the federal district court indicted along with others, along with others apparently based upon their presence in a church in St.
Paul in which the government alleges
Violative of the First Amendment, religious liberty rights of the parishioners, the congregants, the people there to engage in worship in that facility.
We'll talk all about that, but there's more with respect to Judge Schultz.
We'll talk also about his...
great concerns about what ICE has been doing on the streets of Minneapolis so much so that he initially ordered the appearance in his courtroom late this past week of the acting head of ICE to explain in particular why ICE was not following the directions of the court with respect to a particular individual but more generally.
the failure of ICE to follow what federal judges have been directing recently, and we'll talk about what the judge, Judge Schultz, has done very recently in codifying for us all, literally what he describes as hundreds of instances in which the Department of Justice is consistent with the constitutional crisis we have been in since March, has decided simply to violate.
to not adhere to, to disregard the decisions, the orders, the rulings of federal judges, including him.
Patrick Schultz.
United States District Judge Patrick Schultz, who is he?
What is he doing with arrest once?
What is he doing with the litigation?
And why is he codifying?
Why is he cataloging all of these instances?
And it's your Department of Justice violating fundamental principles of the rule of law and telling judges no.
That's one of the two judges we're gonna be talking about.
The other one is Judge Kate or Catherine Menendez, also in the news just this past week, also a federal district court judge in the district of
Minnesota will talk about the hearing that she has had again just this past week a lengthy hearing at which she questioned both the government that is the state
of Minnesota and the other government representative that is the United States of America on the merits and demerits of a case pending in front of her.
The request, the petition, the action in front of her asking the judge to throw ice out of Minnesota, asking the judge to enter an order directing that ice remove itself from Minneapolis and presumably other places in the state of Minnesota.
We'll talk about all of them.
and what Judge Menendez has in front of her.
She has not yet issued an order, but what she may do in the future when she wrestles with the case in front of her.
and she again has been involved in other matters as well.
We'll talk about some of the other judges who have been much involved in these cases in connection with what can only be called the overwhelming nature of the caseload.
Now facing the federal judges in Minneapolis, in the District of Minnesota, why?
Because of the great numbers of people who are
using their right, their access to the courts to petition for relief based upon alleged misconduct, misdeeds, misbehavior of ICE.
It is overwhelming the federal district courts in Minnesota.
We'll give you some examples of some of those as we talk generally about all of this.
And we're also going to insert into this something we began to chat about last week that has gotten increased focus when we think about that one of the first stories we're going to chat about today, which is
whether or not there should be investigations and charges against the individual ICE officers and with respect to
Alex Pretty, the Border Patrol officer is responsible for the murders of these two individuals.
The other one, of course, Renee Good.
The question is if the United States Department of Justice, if the federal government, whether it is through the US Department of Justice or Homeland Security, decides not to investigate, decides not to prosecute, therefore defaulting from my perspective on the obligations that it has to pursue.
misconduct and misdeeds by federal officers.
If that decision was in fact made, what are the other remedies out there?
And the answer is there are state remedies as well.
And in that connection, we're going to talk about some of the things that Stephen Miller, that senior advisor in the White House has said about the complete, as he has described it, the absolute, as he has described it, immunities that go along with federal officers for this kind of conduct.
Basically saying that they cannot be touched, cannot be investigated, cannot be prosecuted for violations of the law, including the constitutional right to
life.
We'll talk about why that's simply wrong as a matter of law, longstanding practice and policy and procedure of the Department of Justice and in particular, particular the practice of state authorities that do in fact have obligations and at a minimum authorities to prosecute individuals who are violative of state constitutions and state laws, even if
even if their federal officers will talk about why Stephen Miller's blanket immunity statement and the related statement made by our vice president, JD Vance, along those same lines is simply wrong.
We're gonna be talking about something called Supremacy Clause Immunity.
It's a bit wonky, which we sometimes do on this broadcast.
Yes, we're going to go back into law school to talk about what this immunity is all about and then explain why, in fact, in any state court judge
view of these situations.
If in fact there is a state court prosecution of the people responsible for the deaths of Alex Pretty and Renee Gould, why it is that any judge looking at these circumstances would come to the conclusion that the the immunities under this particular concept do not apply.
Again,
talking in a law school sense about what immunities are and what they're not, what they do and what they do not do, all of that coming up here on Amicus, a lot of you.
So let us begin with those two major news stories that animate our discussions, not only about who can and should investigate and prosecute, but also about who is being investigated and prosecuted.
The big news coming out of Washington DC actually
two items, but especially this coming from the Deputy Attorney General of the United States of America.
His name is Todd Blanche, and he has announced just on Friday of this past week that the Department of Justice will conduct an investigation into the death of Alex Pretty.
He, of course, is the VA nurse
who's killing by federal agents in Minneapolis has resulted in not just national attention, but a backlash in Minneapolis around the country, including here in Wisconsin.
People responding to this hugely.
over-the-top aggressive so-called immigration crackdown that is now costing the lives of people in America.
Deputy Attorney General, announcing late this past week that they're reversing their early decision that contemplated that a fairly narrow use of force inquiry with respect to the death, the murder of Alex Pretti, would be pursued by the Department of Homeland Security, a department
that is not skilled with due respect to the civil servants who are there and even the political leaders who are there.
That's not the agency that does these kinds of things.
What is the agency?
It is the Department of Justice and it is the Civil Rights Division in particular led by the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
Her name is Harmeet Dillon.
She is the
Senate confirmed President Xi appointed head of the civil rights division Todd Blanche telling us late this past week that in fact there will be an investigation but curiously indicating that it may not be as broad as it otherwise should be He said this he said I don't want the takeaway to be there is some massive civil rights investigation I would describe it as a standard investigation by the FBI
We'll talk about why that's so meaningful and why it also raises concern even in this turnaround about the investigation of this death on the streets of Minneapolis as amicus, a lot of you, continues.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amica Salaroview on the Broadcast Stations of Civic Media.
We are devoting.
Virtually all of our time on the air of civic media this weekend to updates and commentary observations perspectives about what's going on in Minnesota and in Minneapolis in particular beginning with these late breaking stories about an arrest and yes the announcement a reversal by the Department of Justice saying now through the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche that there will be an investigation of the murder of Alex Pretty.
that previously announced as a use of force investigation to be conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, now apparently going to be pursued by the Department of Justice.
That is a good news item, and yet some concerns based upon the nature of that investigation.
As the deputy attorney says this, I don't want the takeaway.
That is by Americans to be that there is some massive civil rights investigation.
Well, Mr. Deputy Attorney General, describe it as you will with whatever adjective you like, but there should be an investigation.
Yes, it should be a civil rights investigation to determine whether or not Mr. Prettys constitutional rights were deprived his right to life.
there on the streets of Minneapolis.
The Deputy Attorney General went on to say, I would describe it as a standard investigation by the FBI.
Well, all investigations are that to be sure, but it should be a professional investigation, a complete investigation, a focused investigation.
Why not say that?
He went on to say that investigation, to the extent it needs to involve lawyers from the Civil Rights Division, it will.
To the extent,
it needs to involve lawyers from the Civil Rights Division, it will.
That is not a strong statement of commitment to this civil rights investigation that has been the tradition of the Department of Justice in these instances for
Decades if not more under administrations both Republican and Democratic under attorneys general of all ilks and all persuasions It is the civil rights division that's consistently said Typically within moments maybe hours maybe a day or two of this kind of situation where there could be there could be a violation of federal civil rights laws and the Constitution it is the assistant attorney general who announces yes, we're going to open an investment
investigation and make a determination about whether there were any violations of the law and then determine whether or not anyone should be indicted by a federal grand jury.
That should have been the announcement.
It is tepid instead.
Coming from the deputy attorney general is movement in the right direction.
I do not know what a standard investigation is other than to say it should be robust.
It should be full-throated as should every investigation.
And somehow, describing this one as being something less than massive, is curious to say the least, leanest to say all of this, all of this happening after increased pressure on the Department of Justice, on this administration, on the President to do something in the wake of the death of Alex Pretty, and yes, also Renee Good.
And yet a third individual also shot, although not fatally, on the streets of Minneapolis.
That major announcement, keep that in mind as we talk in just a moment or so about the standards both for a federal investigation, again, under the Constitution, federal officers subject to federal investigation, it makes perfect sense.
And then also as we talk about the options that still may be out there with respect to state authorities, the state attorney general, Keith Ellison, others in the state of
Minnesota to pursue a separate, a parallel.
proceeding or following a federal criminal investigation prosecution, we'll talk about the standards for that under something called the Supremacy Clause Immunity.
And then the other major news story that also has tendrils into yet more as we discuss here on the broadcast about what's going on with respect to arrest warrants and reviews by federal magistrate judges and the chief judge of the federal district court in Minnesota.
What we know breaking late this past week is that former CNN anchor, his name is Don Lemon, and three other people, three other people, have been arrested on charges that they violated federal law during a protest at a church and worship services were going on, the churches of the St.
Paul, Minnesota, and confirmed by officials of the Justice Department late this past week,
reviving a case that was effectively dismissed, rejected, dismissed by a magistrate judge fairly recently.
Now, what's happened?
What do we know about this so far?
Well, it appears that the arrests of Don Lemon, there was a second journalist and two protesters, come about a week after three other demonstrators, also at the same church, who took part in this action.
It's called the city's church.
All of this happening on January 18th, we're taking into custody.
The prosecution, obviously, of Lemon and of the other journalist, her name is Georgia Fort, F-O-R-T, will raise an awful lot of issues, as all of these circumstances do, about the prerogatives of journalists to report, to ensure that the First Amendment rights, again, are protected not just for journalists, but also for all of us, and that the representations made by
journalists that they are there to report as opposed to being a part of the event itself are at least regarded by magistrate judges and federal judges and should be by the Department of Justice as well.
The significance of this is that the federal magistrate judge who reviewed the evidence, initially approving charges, did that with respect to only three people.
Their names are Nakima, Levy, Armstrong, Sean Till, Ellen, and William Kelly.
The federal magistrate judge there in the district of Minnesota previously said yes.
There is a basis for finding that they have engaged based upon a criminal complaint.
that was presented by the Department of Justice, basis for finding that those three should in fact be arrested.
But significantly, he refused at the time to sign a arrest warrant, said, no, there is not sufficient probable cause with respect to Don Lemon and the others.
And he cited insufficient evidence presented by the Department of Justice to do this.
The history on this very recent, but it's relevant to what happens here, is that the Justice Department was then unhappy with that, petitioned a federal
appeals court to force the chief judge to issue the additional warrants only to be denied.
And that opens up the discussion that we're going to have about a judge named Patrick Schultz right after this break here on Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus, a lot of you.
We are talking about recent developments coming out of Minneapolis, invoking and prompting discussion about the First Amendment, journalists in particular, the announcement just late this past week that Don Lemon, former CNN anchor, who according to him and his attorney was there to report.
to report in a journalistic setting on the disruptive, admittedly disruptive action that's taking place at City's Church in St.
Paul on January 18th.
It is significant that the Department of Justice announces the arrest of Lemon.
and others after a federal district court judge declined to issue arrest warrants in the first place, citing insufficient evidence.
So we're gonna get back to that as we talk about Patrick Schultz in just a moment or so.
Both a district court judge and an appeals court refused to overturn the decision not to charge Don Lemon and the others.
And in the wake of that, we have the arrest of Don Lemon.
And so,
It necessarily prompts the conclusion that the U.S.
Department of Justice has obtained an indictment with respect to Don Lemon.
and the others.
That's the only basis and an arrest warrant can issue from that.
That's the only basis in the wake of this history that those arrests could go forward.
We have not yet seen that indictment at airtime here at the time of the recording of this broadcast, but plainly that will be forthcoming and we'll learn more about exactly what it is that the government is charging Don Lemon and the others with.
It is significant again because it is raising all sorts of First Amendment issues.
Don Lemon appearing in federal court late.
this past week, and now that he has been arrested, he is now a part of the judicial system, as are the others.
Likely, almost certain to challenge the prosecution's case by arguing that they were not protesting, they were not engaging in criminal violations of the law, but rather covering the case as journalists.
Here's what Don Lemon said.
He said, once the protest started in the church, we did an act of journalism, which was report on it and talked to the people involved, including the pastor,
members of the church and members of the organization.
That's it.
That's called journalism.
Again, all of this is going to be the subject of a huge amount of focus in the days ahead as the lemon and other arrests proceed, presumably based upon indictments as to them, more charges coming out of
St.
Paul and the District of Minnesota based upon these events that happened in the St.
Paul Cities Church on January 18th.
And all of that, all of that leads back again to Patrick Schultz.
Let me talk a little bit about who he is and why he is story.
Both historically and recently is so important to the rule of law.
Patrick Schultz, he has been serving since 2022 as the chief judge in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
He's a federal district court judge.
It is significant that he was born in 1960 in Duluth, Minnesota, grew up there, graduated in the college in 1981 with a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude in history, minor in sociology, legislative aide to US Senator David Durenberger, attended Harvard Law School, editor of the Harvard Law Review, graduated in 1985 with a Juris Doctor degree, magna cum laude.
Now it's significant as well to understand his background,
as someone who is plainly impartial these days as every federal district court judge should be, but plainly has what we would describe as a conservative background, allowing himself in many ways appropriately at his election with people who are known as Republicans or conservatives.
After law school, he was a law clerk from 1985 to 1986 to Antonin Scalia.
At that time, Scalia was a U.S.
Circuit Court judge in the District of Columbia Circuit.
He had that his Schultz had accepted an offer then to go to the Supreme Court to serve as a law clerk for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor But shortly after all this is happening Ronald Reagan nominated Scalia to the Supreme Court He was confirmed and then and then Scalia basically brought then
Law Clerk Patrick Schultz, along with him to the Supreme Court.
And as it turned out, Justice O'Connor said, yes, of course, you remain with Justice Scalia.
Now Judge Patrick Schultz was in private practice for a while.
He left private practice in 1995.
He was at the faculty of Notre Dame Law School.
And the reason why that's significant is he taught civil procedure and evidence in sports law.
And he wrote a major law review article that is cited
And bandied about to this day was called on being a happy, healthy, and ethical member of an unhappy, unhealthy, and unethical profession.
It is and remains to this day one of the most widely read law review articles.
Vanderbilt Law Review made the article the focus of a symposium.
Washington Post calling it one of the nine works every law student should read.
And interestingly, bringing this current, one of Schultz's first students there at Notre Dame was Amy.
And he helped you later on get a clerkship with Justice Scalia.
All of that by way of background.
It is significant again that in December 14th of 2005, President George W. Bush.
2005 nominated Patrick Schultz to serve on the U.S.
District Court of Minnesota after there was a vacancy there.
His appointment on April 26th of 2006 and after that became the Chief Judge of the Federal District Court on July 1 of 2022.
I tell you all that to indicate that this is not a Biden appointee.
This is not a Obama appointee.
This is someone who comes from the conservative
ranks of the judiciary and in that connection learned, studied, competent, reliable.
and providing an awful lot of the news of this past week.
It is significant that when he first took the job and becoming a Chief Judge of the Federal District Court in Minnesota, his plan, as he said, was to be nearly invisible.
He said he was going to be a low-key Chief Judge.
He said, my hope is to be the Benjamin Harrison of Chief Judges, one that no one remembers.
Well,
It turns out a number of years later here, four years later to be particular, this mild-mannered judge who has got this stellar background has taken the lead.
At least with respect to this past week in managing the things that are going on in the District of Minnesota and responding in ways unequivocally critical of this administration, of the President, of the Attorney General, of what's going on in the streets of Minneapolis these days.
Now, what did Judge Schultz in particular do?
A number of things.
A number of things he's issued, something he's written as well, early, early in the week.
He was very concerned about the decisions being made by ICE with respect to behaviors on the streets of Minneapolis.
In a remarkable, a remarkable display of upsetedness and concern, the judge early on, Judge Schiltz,
directed that the acting head of the U.S.
Immigration Customs Enforcement, that's ICE, appear in his court late this past week to explain exactly why that leader should not be held, yes, in contempt of court for violating court orders that were rising, deriving from the Trump administration's very, very aggressive immigration crackdown.
And that was going to happen.
In a fairly brief ruling, early this past week, Patrick Schultz, again chief judge, said he recognized that ordering the ICE director, his name is Todd Lyons, to personally come to court to defend himself, that Judge Schultz said.
He said it was an extraordinary step.
But he also said it was necessary because, quote, the extent of ICE's violation of court orders is likewise extraordinary.
Judge Schultz said he'd been extremely patient with the agency, even though it had sent thousands of agents to the state.
and had done so apparently without preparing for the legal challenges and lawsuits that were assured to result.
The judge early on saying the court's patience is at an end.
And the order in particular derived from a case involving Juan Hugo Tobay Robles.
He is an Ecuadorian man who entered the United States illegally.
about 30 years ago, been in custody after ICE agents detained him on January 6th.
On January 14th, Judge Schultz had ordered ICE to allow Mr. Tobay Robles to challenge his detention at a hearing, do it within a week, that Judge said, or release him from custody altogether.
And as a part of that order from Judge Schultz, he determined that ICE was holding Tobay Robles under an improper reading of federal law.
This is all what Judge Schultz is saying.
of hundreds of those kinds of cases, keep that in mind, that have unfolded in the courts there and in the district in particular since that time on Monday of this past week.
Judge Schultz in particular finding that the ICE has failed to obey his instructions and that Mr. Tobey Robles had not yet had the hearing.
that he directed that Mr. Tobles have, but remain in custody, a violation, a clear violation of what the federal judge told the Department of Justice to do, judge saying, this is one of dozens of court orders with which respondents have failed to comply in recent weeks.
The practical consequence that Judge Schultz wrote of respondents failure to comply has almost always been significant hardship to aliens, many of whom have lawfully lived and worked in the United States for years,
and done absolutely nothing wrong.
Judge Schultz directing that the acting head of ICE appear in his courtroom, and only a couple of days after that, rescinding that order.
Not because the judge is satisfied that ICE is acting well, but because, because...
the government has given, has given to this particular petitioner, Mr. Tobey Robles, the relief that the judge directed, basically purging itself of the contempt that Judge Schultz otherwise would have imposed.
Even so, in doing that, in doing that...
lifting this requirement that the ICE head appear in court to explain himself and explain his agency.
Judge Schultz, again, the chief judge, excoriated ICE, saying it had violated nearly 100 court orders stemming from all of this, this immigration assault, if you will, and had dissipated more judicial directives in January alone than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.
That's what the chief
judge of the federal district court, Judge Schultz wrote late this past week.
It comes in a ruling once again, which he rescinds his previous order, directing that the ICE head appears says, okay, you purge yourself of that contempt, but, but I'm going to continue to monitor all of this.
And it's promised that if indeed there are more violations, he will make the same kind of directive.
He said, ICE is not a law unto itself.
The Chief Judge wrote, ICE has every right to challenge the orders of this court, but like any litigant, ICE must follow those orders unless and until they are overturned or vacated.
He attached to his ruling, this is the second ruling of this week, a list of 96 court orders from 74 different immigration cases that ICE has failed to follow since January 1, the first of this year.
The judge noting again in this written order and the attachment to it that is tally as he said this is a quote was almost certainly substantially understated
Why?
Because it had been hurriedly complied by extraordinarily busy judges.
We'll get back to that in just a moment.
Judge Schultz went on, even as he rescins the likely contempt order and the proceeding that would have preceded that, he says, this list should give pause to anyone.
He's speaking to us.
He's speaking to America.
He's speaking to the president.
He's speaking to the attorney general.
He's speaking to Homeland Security and he's speaking to ICE.
He said, this list should give pause to anyone, no matter his or her po-
political beliefs who cares about the rule of law.
That is the directive.
Those are the words of the judge Patrick Schultz just this past week as he identifies again all of the violations being undertaken by ICE.
even even in recent days and then we get back to something else that Judge Schultz was involved in and it necessarily goes back to the second matter that we talked about in this broadcast that is the arrest
of Don Lemon and others.
When we come back, I'm going to give you some substantial portions of a stunning letter that Judge Schultz wrote to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals in connection with these arrest warrants and the misbehavior and misconduct.
More of that from the U.S.
Department of Justice as Amicus Alaraview continues.
Thank you.
This is Amicus Solar Review.
My name is Jim Santel.
We're talking about all things Minneapolis, including the rule of law, being administered the pursuit of justice in the federal district court there in Minneapolis and St.
Paul.
And specifically focusing on Patrick Schultz, you should know his name, S-E-H-I-L-T-Z.
He is the chief judge of the federal district court, doing a lot of things this past week, initially summoning the head of ICE into his courtroom to explain what's going on.
Then we're sitting that order only when the ICE agency does what the judge says with respect to a particular petitioner and going on in that order excoriating ICE
for engaging in all sorts of violations of the orders of judges.
And this again, this again, a part of the continuing practice, which we have monitored and documented on this broadcast, about what?
This is the violation of the Constitution.
This is the constitutional crisis that this nation has been in since March, at the time that the U.S.
Department of Justice first began to lie to, to dissemble.
to provide bad facts, to simply say no to federal district court judges, and Judge Schultz now picking up on what James Bosberg first identified back in March of last year.
Now it is back, now it is reincarnated in Minneapolis as he documents these 100 different instances in which your government, the U.S.
Department of Justice, has failed to follow the directives of judges, including Patrick Schultz.
Patrick Schultz was in
the news for another reason related to these arrest ones much related much related to all of this and it goes back once again to the decision by a federal district court magistrate judge to issue some
arrest warrants for people involved in the ruckus, if you will, the disruption of worship at the city's church on January 18th in St.
Paul, and it's also his decision not to issue arrest warrants with respect to others.
And in the wake of that, again, the news at the top of this hour that apparently the government has secured a grand jury indictment with respect to those others, and they are now being arrested.
But even before all of that happened,
We necessarily need to go back to Judge Schultz and yes, a three and a half page, almost four page letter, authored by Judge Schultz on January 23rd.
And he writes this letter to the Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Appeals.
It is responsible for the District of Minnesota, among other places.
January 23rd was a Friday.
I'm going to read to you what Judge Schultz wrote because it's got a lot of history and a lot of explanation.
And it further expresses outrage about the behavior of the Department of Justice, even in connection with attempts to get these arrest warrants.
Here we go.
This is again Patrick Schultz, a Chief Judge of the District Court writing to the Chief Judge, his name is Stephen Colleton of the U.S.
Court of Appeals in Des Moines, Iowa.
He writes this, he says, I apologize, that is Judge Schultz, for addressing this letter to you, but for reasons I will describe, I do not have any other option.
Goes on to say, I'm working from home today as the program that my mentally disabled adult son attends each day is closed because of the extreme cold.
And here we begin.
He says, at 11.34 AM, I received an email regarding a particular case entitled, In Re, United States of America.
The order in its entirety reads this.
Again, this is inside the body of the letter to the Chief Judge.
He says, the motion of the United States to seal is granted.
The Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota is invited to file a response at his discretion to the petition for a writ of mandamus.
Any response is due by 2 PM.
Friday, January 23rd.
Now, a little background on this.
Again, what is a writ of mandamus?
Is a writ that is issued, if at all.
an application for a writ to compel a lower court or some other federal actor to do something that is ministerial, expected, regular routine in nature, that it's a writ of mandamus, less important for what follows in Judge Schultz's letter to Chief Judge Colleton.
He says, this is the first that I have heard of any petition for a writ of mandamus.
The United States did not have the courtesy to tell me that they would be filing such a petition, nor did the United States serve the petition on me.
unable to access any documents in this case because at the request of the United States, the case is sealed, apparently even from me.
So, Judge Schultz goes on in his letter, I have been given about two and one half hours to respond to a mandamus petition directed at me that I have not read and cannot read.
Apparently, Judge Schultz goes on, I am supposed to guess what the petition is about and guess what the mandamus petition says and then respond.
I will do so.
And here is when the stunning indictment with a small eye of the U.S.
Department of Justice continues.
It goes back and gives us some history related to what the magistrate judge initially did.
This is again, writing by Judge Schultz.
On the evening of Tuesday, January 20th, the United States presented an application for eight.
eight arrest warrants to magistrate judge Douglas Mikko, M-I-C-K-O, in connection with the disruption of a religious service at city's church on Sunday, January 18th.
That's the one we've been talking about with respect to these arrests and the Don Lemon and other, other indictments.
Judge Mikko was the magistrate judge who was on duty at the time.
Judge Mikko found there was probable cause to issue arrest warrants with respect to three of the suspects, but not with respect to the other five.
yet.
Eight altogether, eight applications.
He says yes as to three, five as to other.
Judge Schultz continues.
Minutes after Judge Mikko signed three arrest warrants, the U.S.
Attorney notified me that his office wanted a district judge to review Judge Mikko's decision, either by hearing an appeal of that decision or by considering the application de novo, basically meaning either review what Judge Mikko has already done or review it from start to finish, as if it's never been addressed before.
Judge Schultz goes on writing again to the Chief Judge of the Appeals Court.
He says, the first thing I did is ask our clerk's office to randomly assign a district judge to consider the government's request.
Turns out I was the judge, Judge Schultz Wright, who was randomly assigned.
And here we go.
It is important, Judge Schiltz writes, to emphasize that what the United States Attorney requested is unheard of in our district, or as best as I can tell, any other district in the eighth circuit.
That, again, is where the district of Minnesota is located.
I have surveyed all our other judges, Judge Schiltz says, some of whom have been judges in our district for over 40 years.
No one can remember the government ever asking a district judge to review a magistrate's judge denial of an arrest warrant.
When we come back, I'll tell you more about why that's
significant, what Judge Schultz's letter is all about, and the condemnation, yet again, of the actions of the U.S.
Department of Justice there in Minneapolis, as Amicus, a law review, continues.
Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel, Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant new stories in the areas of law,
government, courts, and the aspiration for justice.
And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a lot of you, the second hour of our broadcast on this weekend.
All things Minneapolis, the focus of our attention.
here on the broadcast.
Speaking in particular about the first of two federal district court judges, his name is Patrick Schultz, who has not only written some orders of this past week excoriating the Department of Justice for its behavior, and in particular the ICE agents who have been there in Minneapolis, and further, further responding to
the behavior of the U.S.
Department of Justice, including the U.S.
Attorney there in Minneapolis, who is apparently committed, was apparently committed and remains apparently committed as recent news reports to securing the arrest of all of the people who were targeted by the U.S.
Department of Justice.
The chief judge again his name is Patrick Schultz writing to the chief judge of the appeals court there in a circuit before whom this petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court judge to engage in this ministerial act of simply issuing the arrest warrants.
The judge, the district court judge complaining bitterly about the behavior of the U.S.
Department of Justice saying that this attempt
to seek an appeal of or a de novo review of the decision of the magistrate judge not to issue all the warrants that the Department of Justice wants issued three but not the other five that that has never ever been the subject of appeals or the kinds of processes that the U.S.
Department of Justice through the U.S.
Attorney is now seeking.
Significantly the judge that is Judge Schultz writing to the chief judge of the appeals court says you know I have surveyed all the chief judge
of all the district courts.
None of them.
None of them, he goes on to say, have heard anything about this.
He says, I've heard back from almost all of them.
And all of those responding have said that to their knowledge, no district judge has ever reviewed the decision of a magistrate judge to deny and arrest one unprecedented.
He's telling the appeals court chief judge.
The reason why this never happens is likely that if the government does not like the magistrate judge's decision, it can do two things.
And here, Judge Schultz is absolutely right.
He says it can either improve the affidavit, come back a second time, give us more probable cause to issue those arrest warrants, those ones that Judge Mikko found were insufficiently presented.
or you can present the entire matter to a grand jury and seek an indictment.
Judge Schultz goes on in his broadside attack on the U.S.
Department of Justice with respect to these arrest warrants to say this.
On Wednesday, January 21, I informed the U.S.
Attorney that because he was asking me to do something that was unprecedented, and because my colleagues had strong and differing views on how our district should respond to such a request, I would not decide whether to issue the five warrants sought by the government until I had a chance to discuss the issue with my colleagues at a bench meeting.
a group of judges getting along in private and talking about all sorts of administrative matters, which was scheduled for yesterday.
I also invited the Department of Justice to submit a brief, a memorandum, give me some legal underpinning, some foundation for this, the judge writes, regarding the authority of a district judge to review a magistrate judge's decision not to issue an arrest warrant, which the department did late yesterday.
The judge goes on to describe in some additional paragraphs on the third
page of his extensive letter, the reason why those meetings were postponed, and ultimately to indicate that because of some delays caused by the presence of the vice president and also the attorney general there in Minneapolis, other things related to this, that the meeting among his colleagues was going to be postponed, that, he says, was not satisfactory the Department of Justice, it is claimed that there was a national security emergency.
and that therefore the Department of Justice needs action right away.
As the department sees it, again, this is in the letter written to the Chief Judge of the Appeals Court, if I do not issue warrants for the five additional suspects, copycats, that in quotes, will invade churches and synagogues this weekend and disrupt religious services.
Apparently the government believes that the arrests of the leaders of the city's church invasion, whose arrests have received
widespread international attention will not deter copycats, but arresting five additional suspects will.
The judge goes on to write, the government has also argued that I must accept this as true because they said it and they are the government.
Wow.
Language from the chief judge of the federal district court,
to the chief judge of the appeals court complaining bitterly and explaining in the end why it is an impossible, presented with an impossible situation with respect to these warrants.
And then goes on to say in the final paragraph, and that is where things stand.
The five people whom the government seeks to arrest are accused of entering a church.
And the worst behavior alleged about any of them is yelling horrible things at the members of the church.
non-committed, any acts of violence.
The leaders of the group have been arrested and their arrests have received widespread publicity.
There is absolutely no emergency.
This again from the pen of the author of this letter, Chief Judge Schultz.
The government could have sought indictments from a grand jury in subsequent dates, but chose not to do so.
The government can still take its case to a grand jury at any time it wishes.
Instead, the government is insisting that I do something
that as best I can tell no district judge in the history of the 8th Circuit has done.
I've told the government that I will discuss this request with my fellow judges in this upcoming meeting and give a decision that afternoon if the mystery petition
filed by the government, seeks an order from the Ace Circuit, forcing me to decide today, and again, he's writing this on January 23rd.
That was a Friday.
Instead of Tuesday, a few days later, whether to issue arrest warrants for the five protesters, I respectfully suggest the petition is frivolous.
That from the pen of the Chief Judge of the U.S.
District Court in Minneapolis, to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Ace Circuit, the latter's name, Stephen Colleton.
Telling telling the chief judge about the misbehavior the misconduct the substantive errors in what the Department of Justice the US Attorney has done But also giving them the roadmap that they should know about apparently they followed it when the judge says you've got other remedies you can either represent or you can seek an indictment and again returning to our top one of our top stories here in this installment of amicus apparently that is what they did and they have secured through the
grand jury process indictments against Don Lemon and three other people who have now been arrested in this investigation.
this pursuit of people at the city's church on January 18th.
Again, among them, apparently two journalists, including Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, who are maintaining, even in these early moments, that their conduct was not that, which is violative of criminal law, but rather doing what Don Lemon describes as journalism, pure and simple.
The upside of all of this is, and you should remember, Patrick Schultz writing one, two, three different things in the past week, all of them, all of them from his perspective, describing the misbehavior, the misconduct, the unprecedented nature of what the U.S.
Department of Justice is doing there in Minneapolis when it comes to trying to pursue the people that it believes
and apparently a grand jury has now found probable cause to believe have engaged in some violations of federal law at that protest at the church in St.
Paul, Minnesota on January 18th.
The takeaway once again is a United States Department of Justice, a U.S.
attorney not giving the district court judge more than hours.
to respond, not notifying of any of this and requiring that the courts, district court and appeals courts engage in immediate
Action why because there's an absolute emergency a meltdown urgency to get these people arrested That's what you take away from this letter this extraordinary letter now in the record books the annals of this history of this Incredible time in America where as we've talked about before the presumption of regularity between the Department of Justice and courts that presumption of regularity where judges previously could rely upon the legitimacy of the process and
and yes, in particular, the integrity of the representations being made factually, the integrity of the way in which the Department of Justice comes to judges, magistrate judges, district court judges, and asks them for criminal complaints, for search warrants, for other process as a part of investigations, all of that plainly, plainly the subject of Judge Schultz's excoriating letter.
to his boss, basically, the appeals court chief judge, describing this misconduct from start to finish with respect to these arrest warrants.
Now, that is not in any way to suggest that the grand jury process is not legitimate.
We don't know exactly what the grand jurors heard, but we do know that a federal magistrate judge previously looked at the same kinds of evidence, presumably, and determined that there was not probable cause to arrest them.
Now we have a presentation by the Department of Justice to a federal grand jury.
We don't know about that.
We may not know about the exact content of that for a very long time.
But we do know that that federal grand jury has now found something that a federal magistrate judge in his independent analysis did not find with respect to probable cause of a commission of a crime.
It is a fascinating time to be
here in the United States of America as we watch these kinds of misbehaviors by the U.S.
Department of Justice, not only the kinds of things as we discussed that involve the constitutional crisis decisions, basically to say no to judges, to lie to them, again, referencing people like James Bosberg, Paula Zinnis,
In the District of Maryland, we've talked a lot about her presiding over the case of Kilmar-Abrego-Garcia repeatedly, repeatedly threatening to hold the government in contempt there for its like misstatements, misrepresentations, and deceptions to her, and the list goes on and on just this past week.
We have got...
more recordings, more memorializations of that from the pen of the chief judge of the district court in Minnesota, and also excoriating the department and the U.S.
attorney criticizing heavily within the inches of reality here, what the process should otherwise be.
All of that, all of that takes its place.
right now in contemporary American history as we try to understand what's going on there with respect to these arrest warrants but also the behavior on the streets of Minneapolis of these ICE agents and yes also the border patrol agents who are responsible for the murder of
of Alex Pretty more recently, previously the murder of Renee Good by ice agents and yet a third person named Julio Sosa-Celis who is also the subject of a shooting there in Minneapolis.
We necessarily then need to talk about a judge also in the district of Minneapolis who has been wrestling with that
part of this matter.
Her name is Catherine Menendez.
Catherine Menendez.
Let me introduce you to her.
M-E-N-E-N-D-E-Z.
She has been serving since 2021 as United States District Judge for the U.S.
District Court in the District of Minnesota.
She is a colleague of Patrick Schultz's in that district.
Before that, from 2016 to 2021, she served as a magistrate judge of the same court, the kind of magistrate judge who, again,
in that district issued some of these arrest ones, otherwise not.
She was born in Kansas, Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Chicago in 1993, Juris Doctorate degree from New York University in 1997.
She is a law clerk for Judge Samuel James Irvin III in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
She becomes an assistant federal defender in 1999.
She served in the office of the federal public defender for the District of Minnesota until 2016.
She's selected at that time as a United States Magistrate Judge and is sworn in in April of that year.
On December of 2021, President Biden nominates her to serve as a U.S.
District Court Judge, elevating her to this new position, and she becomes a Federal District Court Judge.
When we come back, I'll tell you about what Judge Menendez has done just this past week in connection with the rule of law.
in Minneapolis and other places here on Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a lot of you on the broadcast stations of civic media.
We're talking all about Minneapolis as we necessarily need to at this critical challenging time in the life of our nation, people in Minnesota and Minneapolis, but around the country, 324 million people in America should be concerned about this, troubled by this as reported by federal district court judges in the district of Minnesota, the chief judge, Patrick Schultz.
Complaining bitterly about the behavior of the U.S.
Department of Justice, finding that the ICE
Authorities are not following the orders issued by federal district court judges.
That's a constitutional crisis of the sort that we've talked about repeatedly.
And now talking about Katharine Menendez, another federal district court judge, again, fairly recently elevated to the bench upon the nomination of President Biden.
She is confirmed by the United States Senate by a 49 to 21 vote.
And she gets her commission.
to be a federal district court judge in late December of 2021.
And then in that capacity, she is of course assigned judges, she is assigned cases, as are all the other judges of that particular district.
And in particular, she is assigned a case, a lawsuit.
about two or three weeks ago, claiming that the Trump administration's campaign there on Minneapolis streets called Operation Metro Surge, you've seen that a lot, violates state sovereignty, the sovereignty of the state of Minnesota under the 10th Amendment and should be blocked.
There are other challenges in this same petition.
It's a civil lawsuit.
alleging violations of the 10th Amendment, which again preserves rights to the states, and further establishes this concept of federalism that we have in our nation's composition.
Fourth Amendment violations, First Amendment violations, all kinds of things with respect to Operation Metro Surge violates the sovereignty.
of the state of Minnesota.
The surge, again, bringing about 3,000 of these federal agents into Minnesota, resulting in lots and lots of arrests, three shootings, as we know, two of them fatal, and hugely, hugely tense and difficult protests.
Judge Menendez has a hearing on this case, kind of a preliminary hearing, and although she did not...
issue a final decision, she is determining whether or not this surge of federal officers into the state was really just about immigration enforcement or whether there might be something else, something else by the government that's motivating the administration.
and Secretary Nome and the president by political retribution and coercion as the discussion proceeded.
So what is this all about?
Well, again, she has this hearing to determine whether there is a there there.
And although, again, she has not issued an order in particular, she's got argument from both.
The representatives of the federal government and also of the state of Minnesota needless to say they have very different views They're pressing judgment and as to immediately issue some ruling either blocking this surge or not doing so As again, we know heightened by all of this even since the first hearing in this case those two recent murders of Renee
A good and Alex Pretty have happened, heightening all of this.
Lawyer for the state reiterating that the call for some swift action, basically asking the judge to tell ICE to leave, depart.
Minnesota, she's asking the judge to stop what she called an invasion of federal agents.
She called on the judge to issue a temporary restraining order, not tomorrow, not next week today.
The lawyer for the city of Minneapolis also said on Monday that the events over the weekend show that the situation is absolutely untenable.
And a lawyer for the Trump administration, again, described the request for the order pushing back on those positions as a pretty staggering remedy that is telling federal agents to leave.
The judge, plainly wrestling, asking questions of both sides about what to do about this, she said in court, I think it goes without saying that we are in a shockingly unusual time.
She pressed lawyers on both sides for answers to her questions about the nature of the threat here.
She says, how do I decide when a law enforcement
response crosses the line from a legitimate law enforcement response to a response that violates the 10th Amendment and goes on to say that she has some concerns about the sweeping nature of this lawsuit.
She asked whether some of the claims of unconstitutional behaviors might be better addressed through separate, more focused lawsuits instead of the sweeping kind of omnibus petition that she has in front of her.
And she goes on to say it seems that part of the solution for this set of wrongs that you described is to bring cases about those wrongs rather than to say all of these things together means the federal government has to lead the state of Minnesota that plainly directed at the representatives of the state and of the city.
The Trump administration again defending what it is doing there.
the lawyer for the government, the federal government, saying we're here enforcing federal law and that the agents are acting within their authority, noting that Congress passed these immigration laws.
President Trump.
campaigning in a promise to crack down on illegal immigration, and that they are telling the judge is what you're seeing.
And along the way, the notion that all of these representatives, these officials, these agents of ICE and of other entities, including Border Patrol, should be sent packing, if you will, much too broad a remedy, that according to the government itself.
And the judge, again,
significantly.
Maybe the big takeaway of this hearing is asking about ulterior motives, asking once again what this is really about.
State and the city officials had claimed based upon a letter that has been written by the attorney general named Pam Bondi, as you know, sent a letter to Governor Tim Walls a while back that outlined what she described as three simple steps to bring back law and order.
We know this as a part of the public domain.
In the final step, in the final step,
which has apparently little of anything to do with immigration.
Then this from Pam Bondi to the governor to the mayor said that this agreement where we'll bring back law and order will allow the civil rights division of the Department of Justice to access voter rolls to confirm that Minnesota's voter registration practices comply with federal law.
The Secretary of State, his name is Steve Simon,
He has rejected that demand out of hand, calling an outrageous attempt to coerce Minnesota into giving the federal government private data on millions of U.S.
citizens in violation of state and federal law.
When we come back, I'll tell you how Judge Menendez has responded to that in her hearing, once again, pushing back on this notion that this is all legitimate.
That, as Amicus, a lot of you, continues.
This is Amica Salaravu.
My name's Jim Santel.
We are talking about Federal District Court Judge Catherine Menendez sitting on the bench this past week.
And before her, a complaint, a civil lawsuit asking her to remove ICE and presumably Border Patrol from the streets of Minneapolis, she is pushing back.
on all sides indicating perhaps that the better way to do this is divide this all up.
But also, also, one of the most significant takeaways of this hearing is her very, very incisive questioning of the federal government lawyers about whether or not this is all about possible ulterior motives premised upon what?
Premised upon this now public letter.
issued by the Attorney General Pam Bondi to the state of Minnesota indicating basically that well we may we may stand down a bit if in fact you'll do a number of things the third of them related to the provision of voter registration practices roles in particular voter information to confirm that the practices comply with federal law according to the letter authored by the Attorney General this comes up
during the course of the hearing in front of Judge Menendez, the state and the city lawyers say that the motives for the Operation Metro Surge reached well beyond immigration enforcement and that this letter from the Attorney General is evidence of that, part of a broader campaign of payback against the President's perceived political enemies, including Governor Walz and Mayor, the Mayor of Minneapolis, Fry.
The state saying that it is personal animosity, this is retribution, motivating the Trump administration campaign in Minnesota.
The state lawyer also accusing the administration of trying to strong arm the state into changing its policies on immigration.
Going on to say the federal government is attempting to bend the state's will to its own.
That is not allowed under the Constitution.
Judge presiding all this again permitting the government the federal government to respond the Attorney for the federal government saying that this operation was in about enforcing immigration laws Saying there's nothing to back up this claim that they were here for another reason judge Don't believe what the state and the local lawyers are saying but judgment end is is not letting this drop She says that she is looking at a social media post by President Trump
that mentions Minnesota and saying, and this is all in caps, followed by, of course, the illustrative exclamation point, the day of reckoning and retribution is coming.
The judge notes that from the president of the United States of America during the course of this hearing, suggesting that she is inclined to believe.
that this is a time of retribution and that in fact what the state and local attorneys say this is actually the letter from Bondi is actually a ransom note.
The judge going on to say and asking about this letter
two governor walls that outline these several policy demands related to immigration enforcement and welfare programs, and then most particularly this request to hand over the voter rules as a way of resolving all of this again, the lawyer for the state calling that a ransom note.
That's what's in front of Judge Menendez these days.
There's limited precedent on this, not a lot of guidance on this kind of situation, the application of the 10th Amendment.
You see that the judge has some concerns about the process by which this was brought to her, the mechanism for her resolution of this.
She has not yet resolved it.
But once again, an intellectually fascinating and historically stunning hearing.
justice past week in front of another federal district court judge again her name Catherine Menendez this past week wrestling with whether or not she should throw ice and presumably other federal agents out of Minneapolis out of the state of Minnesota based upon violations of the 10th amendment this is overreach by the federal government they should not be here and that is the request will plainly be continue to follow up
on all of that in the times ahead.
I have made reference already to what's going on generally in the Federal District Court in Minnesota.
Let me give you a greater sampling of that.
Again, reported by the Federal District Court judges including, including the Chief Judge Patrick Schultz and others, they are in a word overwhelmed by the number of federal civil rights actions being brought in their court.
Minnesota is one district.
Here in Wisconsin, we have two.
There are three in Illinois.
In Minnesota, there is one federal district court.
And the judges who are there, they are competent.
They are professional.
They come from all sides of the political angle.
And so we do not have to ascribe to them a particular political motive.
We should not do that.
And we know that they are acting in an impartial way because of the nature of what they say and how they do it.
The district seven full-time judges and 10 partially retired judges have been inundated.
The partially retired judges called back into service literally hundreds of emergency lawsuits from whom immigrants were targeted by this ICE operation.
They're working according to the judges and staff weekends, nights to manage the backlog, juggling this crush.
of the individual cases under this very intense national attention, and all but a handful of these many, many cases that have now flooded the district of Minnesota as a result of this operation there.
Those same judges have ruled that the Trump administration violated the law in all, in every single one of them.
but for a handful.
And sometimes, as Judge Schultz has said, sometimes flagrantly, since November of 2025, this according to Judge Michael Davis, the courts of this district have thought of little else, he said.
He criticizes the Trump administration's disingenuous, his word, claim that one of his colleagues had given only a cursory review of arguments in a case pending before him.
Judge Davis
on to push back on the administration's criticism.
The judge says it is a grave error to confuse efficiency with lack of rigor.
The judge's alarm and it is nearing catastrophic levels has formed the backdrop of this otherwise catastrophic litigation clash.
inside the courts and as we know also on the streets of Minneapolis.
We've talked about Kate Menendez and the work that she is trying to do in this case and in one other that she has had in front of her.
We've talked about Judge Patrick Schiltz.
Let me tell you about a couple of others also in the Federal District Court.
We're also trying to handle
All of this, Judge Menendez saying, I think it goes without saying, we are in shockingly unusual times that in the context of our hearing.
There's also another judge, his name is Eric Tostred, T-O-S-T-R-U-D.
He issues a restraining order on Saturday requiring the administration to preserve evidence gathered from the scene of Alex Prettys shooting death.
You probably have heard about this.
It's the judge, Eric Tostred, for what it's worth.
He is appointed by President Trump.
And that judge is also weighing a class action lawsuit against racial profiling during the surge.
Atostra's docket has been deluged, overwhelmed with individual immigration cases for weeks, and he is ruled in every one of them.
that the administration has been illegally detaining people targeted for deportation without any opportunity for bond hearings, illegally engaging in the very immigration work that the president and others are touting.
Massive workload.
as a result of the impact of Operation Metro Surge.
Department of Homeland Security officials claiming that, again, this is a part of the necessary action being undertaken by the president and by Homeland Security to enforce immigration.
Let me tell you about yet another judge, U.S.
District Judge John Gerard, G-E-R-R-A-R-D.
He's a Nebraska-based judge who's come across the border.
And he's helping Minnesota work through this overwhelmed, this crowded docket.
He has ordered the release of a pregnant woman who is apprehended on her way to work.
and along with her husband and two minor sons, the Trump administration signaling that it was attempting to locate their words, not the judge's, the family.
And Judge Gerard has given them a deadline to comply.
A second visiting judge, yet another one also, this one from Missouri, coming across the border to help out in the deluge of cases there in Minneapolis.
His name is Stephen Bow, B-O-U-G-H.
He has threatened contempt sanctions against the administration for sending a woman out of state despite his order to keep her in Minnesota.
Again, more of exactly the kind of thing that the other judges are identifying, more of the constitutional violation, more of the fundamental breach.
of understanding between Americans and their government, that once again, not only the numbers of cases which the judges will handle, even as they work night and day along with their clerks and staff, reserve judges coming in, other judges coming into Minneapolis to handle this onslaught of cases, but also finding almost to a case that the Trump administration is engaging in illegal activities, directing that ICE and Border Patrol and the administration
of the Department of Justice and of Homeland Security behave better and being told effectively by those agencies, by the lawyers for those agencies, we're not going to do it.
The judges then threatening contempt.
We have seen this behavior repeatedly and it's going on once again in Minneapolis at the start of 2025 beginning once again in March of last year continuing through this time at a time of crisis in the city of Minneapolis when we have had three people shot two of them fatally.
Others, also the victims of unconstitutional apprehensions and arrests, behaviors that we have seen on video, an awful lot of it we have not seen, and all of this, all of this going on.
At a time when we are living not only under an authoritarian government, that happened in September of last year, but also a government that cares not for the Constitution and the ways in which these things work.
When federal district court judges say things you follow, yes, you can appeal, but you don't deny the authority of those judges to act, it is troubling that even as the president promises some de-escalation, his language certainly doesn't indicate that.
that he has also sent Tom Hulman.
His borders are there.
A man who months ago also doubted the capacity, the validity, the authority of federal district court judges to act at all.
He poo-pooed along with our attorney general, the authority, the constitutional authority of federal district court judges.
He is the representative now who's on the ground there in Minneapolis, presumably to turn down some of the temperature.
on what's going on have yet to see that an awful lot of reporting that while the language coming out of washington is to deescalate that may not be happening yet and probably isn't happening yet it is also prompting federal district court judges once again this common theme who are the safeguards they're the guardrails for the rule of law in america judges now in the district of minneapolis coming in from other districts to help out
All of them, all of them saying, this cannot go.
This cannot be.
We have got to turn all of this back.
And raising then once again, what do we do about the future?
Well, what are the authorities right there in Minnesota?
What about Keith Ellison, the attorney's general?
What about the state's attorneys there?
Can they, in fact, can they bring federal, can they bring state prosecutions if in fact the federal government
does not.
If in fact, even in the wake of this announcement today by our Deputy Attorney General that the murder of Alex Pretty will be subject to some kind of investigation, maybe, maybe involving the Civil Rights Division, very concerning the language he is using, still no announced investigations with respect to the death, the murder of Renee Good, both of those, and all of this other non-fatal conduct, which should be the focus.
of the work of Harmeet Dillon's group, the civil rights attorneys, the attorneys inside the civil rights division, that's their commission.
That's what they should be doing.
Again, probably stymied by many of the resignations and firings out of the civil rights division, the reassignments of very good, very experienced attorneys.
This is when the consequences of those decisions
comes to roost this is when it comes home when you can no longer count upon your civil rights division to do the investigations of these massively important things at the hand of police and law enforcement authorities that's the commission given the civil rights division by the congress of the united states of america and we will see what will happen in the federal system when we come back some comments as well about what the state can do
depending upon what the evidence shows and their own initiative here on Amicus, a law
review.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a law review on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
Closing out these two hours with, yes, a little bit more instruction from the United States Supreme Court.
Need to know about a case called N. Ray Nagel.
N-E-A-G-L-E.
It's 1890.
going back a long ways.
It rose out of the attempted assassination of a Supreme Court justice named Steven Field in Nagel.
The Supreme Court held that the state of California could not prosecute David Nagel.
He had been deputized in this matter as a federal marshal.
He was assigned to protect a Supreme Court justice again named Steven Field and he shoots the
person who was going to assassinate the Chief Justice.
He kills fields would be assassin, even though unbeknownst to Nagel, who is the agent, the victim was unarmed when he was killed.
And the court went on to explain that the prisoner is held in the state court to answer for an act which he was authorized to do by the law of the United States, which was his duty to do as a federal officer, and says, if in doing that act, he did no more than what was necessary and proper for him to do, he cannot be held guilty of a crime under the law of the state.
Supreme Court goes on to say, when these things are shown, it is established that he is innocent of any crime against the laws
of the state or any other authority whatsoever, there is no occasion for a further trial in a state court or in any court.
Now, why is that important?
Well, in the case of Nagel, the Supreme Court determines that Nagel acted in a way that was necessary and proper.
And the reality is that that Nagel standard continues to this day.
It's important to determine whether or not
Federal agents to this day in Minneapolis have immunity as the vice president and as a senior staff advisor to the president has also said
They have complete immunity from prosecution, and that's simply not true.
What Ray Nagle tells us from 1890 is not categorical insulation of federal officers from local or state prosecutions, but circumstances under which state authorities can indeed prosecute.
Whether the federal government does so or not,
Modern courts will generally apply what's called Supremacy Clause Immunity, coming out of this Nagel case, when both of two conditions are satisfied.
First, when the federal officer was performing an act that he was authorized to do by federal law, probably satisfied here, and second, and here is the key.
In performing the authorized act, the federal officer, the agent, in this case ICE,
Border Patrol did no more than what was necessary and proper.
Let me repeat that.
The agent did no more.
The officer, the law enforcement did no more than what was necessary and proper.
That's the language you need to hold on to.
Supremacy clause immunity only goes so far.
And judges can determine that if in fact the conduct of a federal officer in this environment was not necessary and proper,
Then in fact the immunity the supreme clause supreme clause immunity does not the supremacy clause immunity does not apply and so I tell you this as a Final instruction here on this edition of the broadcast to indicate to you that the information the legal information given to you by Stephen Miller Who very notoriously recently said to all ICE officers you have federal immunity and the conduct of your duties and anybody who lays a hand on you or tries
to stop or obstruct you as committing a felony.
That language is inaccurate and it's wrong and it is misleading and it also fails to deter agents who do have responsibility.
not just under supremacy clause immunity, but also under state and federal law for the conduct in which they engaged.
When our vice president repeats that sort of statement, that agents there, the federal agents are completely immune for their conduct, that too is simply not the law.
And they need, although they walked it back a little bit, they need to correct that and tell America, as we are discussing here on this broadcast, that this thing
This thing called supremacy, clause immunity, has teeth, it has meaning, but only under the circumstances, once again, where there's a finding of official authorization and that the agent who is engaging in the act that we are analyzing was performing that act, doing no more than what was necessary and proper.
The final question then would be,
is the assassination, is the murder, is the killing of Alex Pretty and Renee Good in these recent weeks necessary and proper under the circumstances.
I would submit to you that it was not, it was not close, and that if there are other circumstances, others avenues, other procedures and processes, other mechanisms, other paths to follow, short of murder, which is what we have seen, short of pulling out a weapon.
and killing Renee Good and Alex Pretty.
If there are other avenues, that's exactly what Inray Nagle, which is still Supreme Court precedent, compels those agents to do.
And it is the reason why, depending upon what happens here, whether the federal government pursues this investigation or not, as to Alex Pretty, perhaps one day picks up the pursuit of an investigation of the Good killing as well.
Despite what the federal government may or may not do, the state has not only responsibility, but authority under the law.
And it comes from the United States Supreme Court in 1890.
telling state officials that there is no such thing as absolute immunity and that there can indeed under circumstances where the things that are alleged were not completely necessary and proper to ensure the safety and security of the situation.
If that is the finding of the investigation, there's no immunity and prosecution can proceed, yes indeed, in a state forum.
That's the lesson coming out of N. Ray Nagel, and that is the lesson also that people like the Attorney General, Keith Ellison, and the Mayor and the Governor there in Minneapolis and Minnesota respectively, are explaining to the world.
That is also the obligation that our Attorney General.
and our deputy attorney general, and other representatives of this government should be conveying to America.
It is a problem that in 2025 we saw a constitutional violation of highest order and the crisis we're facing.
Now we need to have a government that is honest with us about the law and the facts.
We do not have either.
We'll talk more about all of that and other things in the rule of law as Amicus Hallarview continues next weekend live.
on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
Have a good weekend everybody.
