You're listening to Civic Media.
You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.
Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.
This is Amicus, a lot of you, on the broadcast stations of Civic Media and my name is Jim Santel.
I'm your host for this broadcast, post this hour and next hour.
as we explore the geography, the world of rule of law, administration of justice, and the operation of government, all of those different theories, concepts, and approaches to our lives merging into one broadcast this weekend as always.
We are coming to you live from Radio Park, the studios of WRJN, one of the broadcast stations of civic media in Racine, Wisconsin, and we are taking
your questions, your inquiries, your comments, your perspectives at 855-752-4842.
Max and I delighted and honored to receive those from you.
Also encouraging you to take part in our discussion by dropping those same questions or inquiries into our civic media chat box.
And we'll be certain to make those a part of our broadcast this weekend and in future weekends as well.
It has been once again a significant week in the areas of rule of law and the administration of justice here in the United States of America and right here in Wisconsin and other states throughout our union.
Our commission on this broadcast is to bring to you some insight, some perspective, some education and some basic fundamentally agreed upon information
about what those rule of law issues are all about so that you can make decisions about how to interpret and understand them.
That is where we pull our name, Amicus from, Amicus from the Latin meaning Ami.
Amicus Curie, a brief submitted to a court in support of that court to provide it with information or insight or perspective that should help it decide cases or cases that are going to be pending in front of it in the future.
amicus a law review commission to that basic mission on your behalf on behalf of the community this week as in all weeks a week chock full of significant rule of law news and Issues to discuss let me tell you a bit about our syllabus this weekend on amicus a law review We're going to begin with a little bit of analysis of where the supreme court stands in this
the second month of 2026 anticipating that in the next four months or so there are going to be some major decisions in a number of different areas, some of which we have talked about, some of which we have hinted at by virtue of describing the docket of the Supreme Court.
I'll tell you with a number of cases that are pending right now before the Supreme Court.
They added more in just this past week.
We'll talk about the schedule of anticipated oral arguments
between later this month and early April, which is about the time that they begin to conclude their oral arguments and go into a fairly aggressive mode of authoring those opinions and releasing them to the American public.
And then we're also going to talk about a major decision issued just this past week.
as a part of yes its review of what's going on in politics in america having to do with california having to do with texas will talk with you about the latest when it comes to those efforts to redraw congressional maps in california and texas in particular
providing you with some information about what the Supreme Court did just this past Wednesday in clearing the way for California to use that new congressional map endorsed by the people of California.
Also following, of course, the initiating major movement by the people and by the legislature of Texas to enact new lines in that state.
Both of those, both of those jockeying in an attempt to try to change the composition of the United States House of Representatives in that election coming up in November of this calendar year.
A major case involving voting.
and access to the poles and the line drawing that is going to affect the balance of power in Washington DC.
Certainly in a year from now, actually a little less than a year from now, the 120th Congress being sworn in on the second day of January of 2027.
Then we're going to spend some time talking, as we often do, about the work of other federal courts out there, lower courts, and in particular, we're going to focus this weekend on three federal district court judges issuing decisions in three different areas.
all of which have garnered the attention, the rule of law attention, of America and have attracted the interest of, I would say, all Americans in areas of climate change and the response of this administration to it, legislatively, enacting various rules and regulations to the EPA.
We'll talk about a judge who is reviewing the attempt by the Pentagon, and yes, the president, to sanction, to censure
to Senator Mark Kelly, who is a senator from Arizona, for his comments about the obligations of military officers to disobey rules, regulations, directives, orders from
superiors when they know that those are unconstitutional.
That, again, in front of a federal district court judge just this past week, will tell you what he said about that effort to sanction Mark Kelly.
And then we're going to talk about a major rule of law decision.
It is brief.
And it is significant, it has to do that five-year-old and his father, who were taken into custody while they were seeking asylum in Minneapolis as a result of the ICE surge in that particular city.
We're gonna talk about what the judge said there in releasing them, granting a writ of habeas corpus, releasing their bodies into the community once again, ensuring their continued liberty and non-detention by the federal government.
A major
brief but major decision issued by the federal district court judge there telling us all what the rule of law means and telling this administration that it needs to conform its attitude, its perspective, and its conduct to the kinds of things that all Americans insist upon under our Constitution.
Under our state of laws and under the balance of powers that have been our tradition for nearly 238 years That all in the federal courts of America that we are going to discuss this weekend And then we're going to turn to the other side of that actually just internal to a major agency of
the federal government, and that of course is the United States Department of Justice.
We talk about this issue a lot.
We talk a lot on this broadcast about the incompetence of the lawyers, many of the lawyers who are in charge of the department today, the dissipation, the removal.
and the departure of many experienced lawyers in the Department of Justice, both at Maine Justice and in U.S.
Attorney's offices throughout the nation, including most recently Minneapolis, the impact that that has, and then the ill motivation, specifically when it comes to the administration of civil rights, constitutional principles, and basically the delivery of justice on behalf of the American population.
We've got illustrations this past week of all three of those, one of them having to do with a decision to dismiss a complaint brought by the Department of Justice against a federal judge.
This is the Department of Justice seeking sanctions against a federal judge for something that he said in a conference among other jurists many, many months ago that complaint against him dismissed now.
We'll talk about what a
a trial lawyer appearing in front of a federal district court judge in Minneapolis has said, this has gotten a lot of attention.
We're going to focus on it.
The Assistant United States Attorney, the Department of Justice, designee in the Minneapolis district court to handle this onslaught of habeas corpus cases that we've talked about before.
We'll tell you exactly what it is she told.
the federal district court judge in her exasperation, her basic exhaustion trying to handle all of these cases, her very descriptive language that yes indeed in this administration gets removed from that position.
And that's exactly what happened to her.
We'll describe that situation.
And then also an under-reported story in the Department of Justice, but one that harkens back to things we have talked about before.
And that is a fellow named Ed Martin.
He used to be the nominee to be the U.S.
Attorney in the District of Columbia.
That went nowhere when the United States Senate, even before a vote on him, refused to take up his nomination.
He then went down the street over to the Department of Justice where he has been, among other things, the pardon attorney.
He has been the head of something called the Weaponization Working Group, among other tasks.
We'll talk about the spat between him and the Deputy Attorney General, a fellow named Todd Blanche, and why that has gotten Ed Martin in serious trouble inside the Department of Justice for his misconduct, including some allegations totally unconfirmed at this point about his misuse or abuse of some grand jury materials, but more importantly,
They used to communicate and to engage with his superiors that have gotten him a change in assignment, at least for now, inside the Department of Justice.
We'll talk about all of that calamity going on inside the principal location, the principal focus of criminal and civil litigation in the federal system in America.
That is under Pam Bondi, our attorney general in the United States Department of Justice.
And finally,
To round all of this out, we're going to go back to a couple of federal judges who've issued some major rulings of just recent days, one of them having to do with Luigi Mangione.
He is, of course, facing trial in Manhattan, both in the state and the federal courts for his assassination of that CEO health insurance executive in December of 2024.
We'll talk about a major decision made
by the federal judge in that case with respect to Mr. Mangione's possible exposure to the death penalty in the federal system, a decision that the Department of Justice is not happy about, and then we'll also talk about another decision rendered by a federal judge imposing a life term of imprisonment on that person who attempted to assassinate the president
while he was golfing in Florida.
All of that coming out of the federal district courts just this past week in the United States of America.
All of that, the subject of our discussion, our review, our analysis, our examination here on Amicus, a lot of you.
And once again, Max, my producer and I, taking your phone calls, your inquiries, your questions, your sharing of perspectives on these issues,
at 855-752-4842.
All of that is coming up on Amica's Law Review.
Our commitment once again to provide you with the information beginning at the top, the middle, and the bottom, near the bottom of our rule of law analysis so that in issues big, in between, and small, you can make decisions about how your government is working, how it is not working, and make determinations about what the law
The rule of law means to you what the administration of justice in America should be all about.
We're going to begin necessarily back as we always have at the United States Supreme Court that this week passed the 60 mark, the 60 case mark.
It now has 60 cases on its docket for this 2025, 2026 term.
And it may add a few more.
Last year it had about 65 by the time it was rendering all of its final decisions, but it's got 60 cases now on its stock.
It has scheduled just over 40 oral arguments beginning in October of last year and continuing into this coming month.
the month of February of 2026 and continuing through April 1, about 15 more oral arguments scheduled in front of the Supreme Court as it continues to address these major issues.
in the areas of presidential power, and voting rights, and polling, and all sorts of things related to civil and human rights that affect all of us in America.
We'll talk about this Supreme Court and one of its major decisions of this past week as Amicus Alaro view continues after this.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.
Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus, a lot of you on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
My producer Max and I are delighted we are honored that you've chosen to spend some portion of your weekend in examination with us of those major areas of law and government and the administration of justice.
We begin as we often do with the United States Supreme Court.
After my summary of the numbers, Supreme Court by the numbers, that is about 60 cases pending right now, they've issued already a handful of decisions, but many more coming up.
predictably in April and May and June of this year, and also entertained about 40 or so oral arguments.
They are now well into the 40s in numbers when it comes to the number of applications the Supreme Court has taken on a so-called emergency or shadow docket.
This is the docket by which they do not typically.
solicit and receive extensive briefing, do not conduct the extensive kind of oral argument that we normally anticipate, and decide cases quickly without decisions that include facts and reasoning and exposition of the sort that they usually provide in their so-called merit stock at.
Quick cases based upon the allegation, the representation, that an emergency decision is needed
questioning again what the nature of an emergency really is in this time and place in America.
As a result of all of that, now approaching about 45 of these applications for emergency review and a couple of them have recently come in connection with these attempts to redistrict in the middle of the decade federal congressional maps.
You recall well where this comes from.
You remember well that this began in the summer of last year when Donald Trump pushed the governor of Texas, his name is Greg Abbott, to redraw that state's congressional districts to add some Republican seats.
A brazen statement that we want more Republican centrist districts.
to maintain control of the House of Representatives when it comes to voting there in Texas and throughout the nation in November of 2026.
California lawmakers and the governor quickly responded to that.
They redrew the map there, and in the wake of that analysis, they created new maps that established what will probably be at least five safe, and by safe I mean predictably Republican seats,
in the delegation going to Washington after the election in 2026.
Now, that was the subject almost immediately of an appeal that went through the courts and ended up in the United States Supreme Court.
And long before this past week, the Supreme Court, as a matter of fact, in December, cleared the way for Texas to use its new congressional map in the midterm elections, said, yes, you can go ahead and do that.
Texas leaders had asked the court to weigh in on that after those lower courts, specifically a divided panel of federal judges, had temporarily blocked that map, said you can't go ahead and do that, which was designed to help, again, the GOP potentially pick up those seeds in November.
In a concurring opinion in the Texas case, again, the Texas
a resolution by the Supreme Court was we're not going to stand in the way of those new maps, that new set of lines drawn there by the legislature in Texas.
Sam Alito, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, gave a nod to what was really going on here.
He acknowledged brazenly, as he accurately did, that this is all about gaining partisan advantage by
both parties before the midterms and in the campaigns that are now in many places well underway.
At that time, in the resolution of the Texas case, Sam Alito wrote that it was indisputable, his word, not mine, indisputable that the so-called, as he said, impetus for the adoption of the Texas map was partisan advantage, pure and simple.
And the reason why he said that so brazenly was because, as we have also provided as a part of our
In the site, into the way that judges in the federal system work these days, the Supreme Court has long ago said that it will no longer play in the sandbox of politics, saying that the federal courts will no longer become involved in making decisions about gerrymandering challenges based on party politics and partisan perspectives.
Race?
That's different.
If you draw lines based upon racial considerations, that will get our attention, and we will resolve issues of whether or not your decision is based upon race.
But if you make the decision purely upon partisan politics, where you think you will get the most votes based upon whether the majority of the population is Republican or Democrat, or even as it is sometimes weighed, people in
Either in neither political party that the courts will not touch and so in December the Supreme Court with respect to that Texas new map said hands off We're not doing anything at all.
Well, the book end came this past week the book end came when the Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for California
to use its own new congressional map that's designed to help you can fill in the blank, the Democrats, as they vie for a majority in the United States House of Representatives.
The justices this past week rejecting an emergency request, same kind of thing, shadow docket, emergency application docket by the California Republican Party to override a lower federal court that had blocked the map before the upcoming November vote.
The decision there, again in California, plainly a victory for the governor, his name is Gavin Newsom, and the Democrats there who had devised this plan plainly in the wake of and direct response to what had happened
in texas once again when we get this week we get an unsigned order it does not include a vote count it does not include court's reasoning which is typical of virtue all of these decisions in the past several decades and as a result of that we have the governor of california saying donald trump said he was entitled to five more congressional seats in texas and the governor in california now says he started this redistricting war
He lost and he'll lose again in November.
That from the governor of California, following similar remarks from the governor in Texas.
Again, Greg Abbott talking about the victory there in affirming the new seats, the new line drawing in the state of Texas.
Now, once again, the reason for all of this, the courts do not become involved anymore.
in partisan gerrymandering decisions.
However, however, as you know well, if in fact there is an allegation of racial gerrymandering, that is you've drawn the line, it's based not upon political interests and where you think partisan voters will vote, but rather upon race.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel.
I am your host for the remainder of this hour.
And also next hour here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media, as always, taking your questions or inquiries, your comments, your perspectives at 855-752-
4842, that number once again is 855-752-4842.
You can also be a part of our conversation, our discussion, our reporting on these major rule of law events and circumstances, developments in the areas of administration of justice by dropping those into the chat box of civic media.
We are going to spend some time now talking about more federal judges, in particular, three federal district court judges.
They're among the
many, many hundreds of federal district court judges nationwide, who are making determinations on these major issues that are coming across our news feeds, grabbing the headlines in every state in the union.
We're going to talk about one judge dealing with a climate report.
We'll talk about another judge who's dealing with an attempt to sanction
a sitting member of the United States Senate.
And we'll talk about another judge who is concerned about the custodial status of a five-year-old boy and his father taken out of their home, their residential area in Minneapolis, and detained while their applications for asylum in this nation are pending.
Let's begin with a judge whose name is William Young.
on Friday, on Friday of this past week, Judge Young is looking at a set of actions by the energy department, and he determines that the Department of Energy broke the law, violated the law when the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary's name is Chris Wright, W-R-I-G-H-T, hand-picked, hand-selected, five particular researchers, so-called scientists,
who reject overtly and publicly and proudly the scientific consensus on climate work and the selections of them made to support and to advance work in secret on a sweeping and very broad ranging new government report on global warming.
There's a lot to unpack there.
Now let's go back and talk about exactly what this all means and what the federal district court judge said just this past week in that district court in the district of Massachusetts.
The United States Department of Energy issued a report which downplayed minimize the dangers of global warming.
basically poo poo the notion of climate change at all in late July they did that without having held holding any public meetings making records available to the public soliciting comment basically just reauthorize reauthoring the report in the area of climate change and the reason why that so significant is it is the basis upon which then
the government's energy policies have changed since that time, including, including a very significant endangerment finding.
It justified this new report, justified the repeal of this endangerment finding, which was and remains to this day, a landmark scientific determination decision made that serve as the legal foundation, also the factual foundation for regulating climate pollution.
In other words,
all the policies, all the directives, all the executive orders that will keep our planet at least cleaner than it has been in the past, hopefully improving on that in the future.
Premised upon this notion that there is an endangerment finding that there is danger afoot if in fact
things do not change.
The report previously identified that endangerment finding and thus gave credence and thus gave support to this notion that the energy department and the EPA
can issue these regulations.
But the Federal Advisory Committee, Committee Act of 1972, which is the law that creates all this, does not allow agencies, including the Energy Department, to recruit, to solicit, to place in positions, to rely on secret groups for purposes of policymaking.
And so, the judge, again his name is William Young, he's in the U.S.
District Court.
for the District of Massachusetts, said this past week that the energy department did not deny, reporting that the energy department in his own court has not denied that it had failed to hold these open meetings or assemble a balance of viewpoints as the law requires when it created this new panel known as the Climate Working Group.
This again, the panel put together by Secretary Chris Wright with the five researchers
who reject the scientific consensus on climate change.
He puts them together, he handpicks them without any involvement to the public, without public hearing, without solicitation of others' involvement and perspectives.
They issue a new report that rescins the notion of endangerment in our climate.
Judge William Young faced with a challenge to that process
finds, again, that the Department of Energy had failed to do those basic things that it was required to do to solicit and secure that balance of viewpoints along the way.
So the court says this, these violations are now established as a matter of law.
He said the Climate Working Group was, in fact, a federal advisory committee designed to inform policy and not, as the Energy Department claimed, merely assembled to exchange facts or information.
That's a very significant ruling.
Let me repeat that again.
The judge finds the violations of the law, and that once again, this law, which is the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972,
does not allow agencies to rely upon secret groups getting together for the purposes of policymaking finds that the Department of Energy has violated that and that this particular new committee that issued this new report basically rescinding and revoking inside government the notion that we are facing climate change and global warming.
All of that illegally derived from this inappropriately constituted
a group that is empowered in a way that the law does not permit.
A senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund, which brought this lawsuit again with a group called the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that the ruling should undercut the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate climate regulations.
That's why this is so important.
And it goes on to note,
This says it was powerful for the court to issue this order making it clear that this is a legal violation and not how the government should be approaching policy the agency a disband of the climate working group shortly after environmental groups sued and argued that having done so any legal concerns were rendered moot, but the court again this past week disagreed and Judge Young did not a seed to request by the environmental groups to erase the report
from the public record.
He said, no, we're going to go ahead and make clear that all of this is on the record.
The lawsuit named both the energy department and the EPA as defendants and Judge Young late this past week.
wrote that he found no persuasive evidence in his words that the EPA had violated the advisory committee law but nonetheless found that the energy department in putting together this new group of researchers that had changed the predicate
for the issuance of environmental laws that they had worked in violation of the law.
Very significant in terms of a finding by a federal district court judge.
It is wonky.
It's inside what we call administrative law, but it is important because once again, the result of finding that the process has not been followed results in a decision, a determination ultimately that impacts the ways in which regulations are issued in America.
In this case,
having to do with something that's no less important than climate science and climate change in America.
That coming, that coming from Judge William Young, U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts just this past week.
Let's go to another judge.
His name is Richard Leon, L-E-O-N.
He's a federal district court judge.
He's in the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia, where of course there are federal district court judges
We talk a lot about them because that's the seat of government where a lot of these kinds of challenges involving government action are brought.
There's also, of course, the place where the DC Court of Appeals is located that produces an awful lot of the federal appellate decisions.
And of course, many of those end up where right down the street in the United States Supreme Court.
Well, this past week, a federal judge, again, his name is Richard Leon.
He is a federal district court judge there in District Columbia.
Um, says that he knows of no precedent, no U.S.
Supreme Court decisions, no rulings to justify what?
To justify all of this recent Pentagon activity in an attempt to censure, to sanction a sitting United States Senator who joined a videotape plea for troops to resist unlawful orders from the Trump administration.
A lot going on there.
Again, you know this story well.
You know there was Mark Kelly and a number of others who in November of this past year appeared in a video and it got widespread circulation.
They urged troops to uphold the Constitution and not to follow, not to follow unlawful military directives from the Trump administration saying that only is it their prerogative but their obligation.
their lawful obligation, their duty to the oath of office that they have taken as military officers, not to follow directives that they know are contrary to the Constitution.
The President, Donald Trump, accused those lawmakers in response to that video of sedition, and he threatened them.
He said this conduct is punishable by death in his social media post.
The 90-second video
by Senator Kelly, who also happens to be, again, a former member of our military, was first posted on a social media account belonging to Senator Alissa Slotkin.
And other representatives like Jason Crowe and Chris DeLuzio, Maggie Goodlander and Chrissy Hulahan, all of them appearing on this video as former military officers or former intelligence officers of the United States government.
All of them, all of them from the intelligence community, from the armed services, repeating this fundamental notion, which is a part of our laws.
It's a part of the Code of Military Justice.
It is posted all around our nation that says that no one, especially including military officers, can and should follow orders that are contrary to the Constitution and the laws.
The President responding badly to that, and you know what has happened since then.
The Secretary of Defense has announced through his office, Pete Hegseth, an investigation of the senator and others, announcing that, variously, that you're going to seek to censure him, perhaps to restrict his status as a former member of our military.
And Senator Mark Kelly, actually in the courtroom this past week, as his attorneys argued against what the government was trying to do here,
and attempting to block the Pentagon from punishing him for his comments made as he is a retired US Navy pilot, also, of course, an astronaut of ours.
The judge did not rule from the bench, but he promised that he would do so sometime soon.
He said that the government was asking me, that is, the judge, do something the Supreme Court has never done.
Isn't that a bit of a stretch, the judge said?
He went on to maintain that retirees are a part of the armed forces, but they are still subject to protection by the United States Constitution, including the First Amendment.
When we come back, we'll tell you more about what Senator Kelly's lawyers said to the judge, prompting this major decision.
from the court coming up here on Amicus Alara.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus Alara View on the broadcast stations of Civic Media once again, so please
that you have chosen to spend a portion of your weekend with my producer Max and me in reporting a review of these major issues involving the rule of law, the administration of justice, the operation of your government, including the federal district courts, were reviewing the decisions and the anticipated decisions of some of those, including a decision likely to be issued as soon as this coming week from the pen of Judge Richard Leon.
He's a federal district court judge in the District of Columbia who's hearing this case.
determining whether or not the pentagon can indeed go ahead and sanction or censure senator mark kelly for the things that he and other members of the intelligence community and the military have said about the obligations of military folks to disobey orders and directives that are violative of the constitution and the laws
The judge tending to agree in open court this past week with position advanced by Senator and former Navy pilot Mark Kelly's attorneys, saying that they aren't aware of any ruling to support the notion that military retirees, and yes indeed, still a part of the armed forces, but in a retired status, have any diminished speech rights under the First Amendment.
the attorneys for Senator Kelly arguing that the First Amendment clearly protects the speech in this case.
Any other approach would be to make new law, Senator Kelly's attorneys argued.
And indeed, it appears that Judge Leon agrees with them.
He said that the Pentagon's actions against Kelly could have a chilling effect on, as the judge said, quote, many, many other retirees
who wished to voice their opinion.
The judge once again said he was going to issue a ruling probably by this coming Wednesday and took the matter under advisement.
It appears that the judge, the federal district court judge, about to clip the wings of the Pentagon, of the president, of the secretary of defense.
in attempting to sanction Mark Kelly for the things that he has said which were in the end and remain in the end a simple articulation of what the law is not simply the code of military justice but also the law of the United States of America will anticipate getting a ruling from Judge Leon sometime in the days just ahead and finally
finally rounding out this first hour of amicus a lot of you and bringing us into the second hour the perhaps most major significant decision coming out of a federal district court certainly this week
Perhaps this month and maybe this year from time to time we have read in great detail the decisions because they're so compelling They're so instructive.
They're so insightful when it comes to what the rule of law is and so we have another federal district court judge He happens to be in the western district of Texas in San Antonio and you might be saying why is why are we going to San Antonio the federal court there?
Well, that's because that's where many of the detainees who've been apprehended or
arrested, taken into custody by ICE in Minneapolis have been transported to.
That is where they're now in detention.
And that's where they're now filing their own applications for habeas corpus, basically petitions to be released from federal custody based upon an inaccurate and unlawful and illegal arrest that was accomplished in another district.
You know this particular case.
You have seen the photograph of the five year old boy.
You've seen perhaps the photograph of his father along with his five-year-old son.
The father is Adrian Conejo Arias, I-A-R-I-A-S, five-year-old son, and both of them, both of them apprehended
by ICE as a part of that surge, that so-called immigration initiative in Minneapolis.
They are detained by ICE by your federal agents.
They are removed ultimately to Texas where they are in detention until they get the attention of federal district court judge Fred Byry, B-I-E-R-Y.
He once again a U.S.
district court judge and he has before him the application of Adrian Conejo's
Kaneo Arias and his five-year-old son.
and he is reviewing that and he makes a determination that indeed they were inappropriately unlawfully apprehended and are being retained and detained in federal custody absent the force of law.
He issues an opinion and an order of court that can only be appreciated by reading it out loud and hearing the words that Judge Byrie articulates in writing, not only releasing
Arias and his five-year-old son, but also telling the government that it only has to do better.
It's got to follow the law.
Listen to the things that Judge Fred Byrie says in releasing, releasing asylum seeker Adrian Conejo Arias and his five-year-old son up until this order were detained in federal custody.
The judge says this.
Before the court is the petition of asylum seeker Adrian Conejo Arias and his five-year-old son for protection of the great writ capital G capital R of habeas corpus He footstone that's foot notes that and notes and notes the basis to determine to describe this as a great writ
that is applied in situations like this.
The judge goes on to write, they, the petitioners, seek nothing more than some modicum of due process and the rule of law, period.
The government, he says, has responded.
It goes on to say, this case has its genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas.
Apparently, even it requires traumatizing children.
This court and others regularly send undocumented people to prison and orders them deported, but they do so by proper legal procedures.
A parent also the judge goes on to say is the government's ignorance of an American historical document called the Declaration of Independence.
33-year-old Thomas Jefferson, the federal district court judge writes in 2026, enumerated grievances against a would-be authoritarian king over our nation.
And as Amicus, the Lord of You, begins his second hour, I'll describe for you exactly how Judge Byrie codifies that declaration, why it's important to this particular petition, and what it tells us all about the rule of law, how it is, how it should be in America as Amicus, the Lord of You, continues after this.
This is the second hour of Amicus, a lot of you here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
My name is Jim Santel.
I'm joined in the Civic Media Studio here in Racine by my excellent producer, Max.
And together we're taking your questions, your inquiries, your perspectives, and your views on the matters on our extensive syllabus, that number 855-752-4842.
We are talking, as we often do, about the federal judiciary.
the federal judges in places around the country, 93 different federal district courts, hundreds of federal judges populating those benches in those courts, issuing decisions throughout the time of the United States government.
238 years, as we understand it, from the Constitution forward, and especially in the past year, they have been the safeguards, the guardrails against inappropriate unconstitutional behavior.
attempts to undermine the rule of law in america and we're talking a lot about the federal district court judges on this broadcast who are indeed the standards by which the rule of law is still being upheld even in the midst of these challenging times i would add to your list not only federal district court judge william young federal district court judge richard leon but also now federal district court judge fred byry he is in
the district of western Texas and he has in front of him this petition brought by Adrian Conejo Arias and his five year old son you know them because you've seen this all in the news they the two of them apprehended by ICE officials in Minneapolis detained while their applications for asylum in this nation are still pending unresolved and they are transferred to San Antonio where they fall
into the attention of the federal district court judge there, the federal district court judge noting that on a fairly routine basis district courts do in fact send undocumented people to prison and orders them deported.
But they do so by proper legal procedures and then contrast what the government has done in this case brought by Mr. Arias and his minor child, the five-year-old, brought against Kristi Noem, of course, is the secretary of Homeland Security,
Pam Bondi, who is the attorney general of the United States of America.
This fellow named Todd Lyons, you may recall him because he is the fellow who is the acting director of ICE.
He was about to appear in front of the chief judge of the federal district court there in Minneapolis to explain why he shouldn't be held in contempt.
for the failure of ICE agents and officials on the streets of Minneapolis who are not following the directives of the Chief Judge.
You may recall from our broadcast just last week, the Chief Judge there documenting some 100 different instances in which ICE has failed to follow what it is that the Federal District Court judges have directed they do.
Based upon that history, we now have a judge in a district far away in San Antonio picking up the same theme and invoking, yes indeed, the Declaration of Independence in anticipation of the 250th anniversary of the declaration this coming July, noting that 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson enumerated grievances against the king, and he notes in particular, this is in the written order.
that the judge enters granting the writ of habeas corpus to mr arias and his young son he notes that among the grievances that thomas jefferson articulates in the declaration of independence are these four he meaning the king has sent either swarms of officers to harass our people two he has excited domestic insurrection among us three
for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.
And four, he has kept among us in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislatures.
Basically saying, not so implicitly, fairly explicitly, that ICE, the Department of Homeland Security, the federal government is in violation of the
Declaration of Independence, the same kinds of things upon which this country is grounded upon, the foundations of our nation, our reasons for parting company with Great Britain, are now also the reasons to be dismayed, disappointed with, and to find disaffection.
from this government.
Then the judge goes on to say, we the people, obviously echoing the next major document in American history, the beginning of our constitution.
He says, we the people are hearing echoes of that history.
He then goes on to say this.
He says, and then there is that pesky inconvenience called the fourth amendment.
Let me repeat that.
This is what the judge writes in his order.
He says, and then there is that pesky inconvenience.
called the Fourth Amendment.
And he cites, as if the government does not know it, what the Fourth Amendment says.
And I'll read it out loud because it's in the order issued by Judge Byry.
He says, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.
And no warrants shall issue.
but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.
That is the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
And again, the judge felt obliged to codify that in writing in his very brief three-page order so that everyone understands exactly the basis for what he's about to do.
And then he goes on to say this.
These are his words.
He says, civics lesson to the government, colon.
Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster.
Let me say that again.
Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster.
That is called the Fox guarding the henhouse.
The Constitution requires an independent judicial officer.
That's what the judge writes.
He's talking about this notion that proper warrants under the Fourth Amendment issued upon a finding of probable cause by a federal magistrate judge or federal district court judge finding probable cause.
And that's not what administrative warrants all about.
And then goes on to say this, and it gets even worse for the government.
He says, accordingly, the court finds that the Constitution of the United States
Trump's this administration's detention of petitioner Adrian Conejo Arias and his minor son, the initials are LCR.
The great writ and release from detention are granted, that's the writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to the attached judgment.
That's the procedural document in which the court codifies and makes real the written judgment that's entering.
But the judge isn't done.
He was on to say this.
Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest, no bounds and a bereft of human decency and the rule of law be damned.
That's what a federal district court judge wrote about this administration, this government just this past week.
I'm going to repeat it because it's so important.
He says, observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, he's talking about the defendants in this case and their staffs and the people they enlist to do their bidding.
He says, their perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest, know no bounds and are bereft of human decency and the rule of law be damned.
The judge isn't done.
He says, ultimately, petitioners may, again, petitioners are the father and the son here, may because of the arcane United States immigration system, again, taking a shot at Congress for not doing what it is obliged to do, which is to clean up our immigration laws.
He says, petitioners may because of our arcane United States immigration system, return to their home country involuntarily or by self-deportation.
But that result, the judge goes on to say, should occur through a more orderly and humane policy than currently in place.
And then says, writes this, Philadelphia, 1787, September 17th.
Well, Dr. Franklin, what do we have?
A republic, if you can keep it.
He is quoting that off-repeated and often invoked story about Benjamin Franklin being asked by someone after the Constitution is signed, not yet enacted, but signed.
What do we have, Dr. Franklin, in response from Benjamin Franklin, a republic, if you can keep it?
And then he says this.
This is Federal District Judge Fred Byrie.
In the wake of all of that, admonishing instructing this government on what its obligations are, says this, with a judicial finger in the constitutional dyke, it is so ordered.
That's Judge Fred Byrie, U.S.
District Court Judge in the San Antonio Division of the United States District Court in the Western District of Texas, granting the release
ensuring the release from detention of Adrian Conejos Arios and his five-year-old son, presumably returning then to Minneapolis, their home, and making decisions about what happens next for them, but no longer in detention by virtue of the finding of this federal district court judge that they have been the victims of unconstitutional detention.
No small finding
not in significant language at all when it comes to civics, as the judge says, and an articulation of what our Constitution, what the Declaration of Independence, what our laws say about what our government is obliged to do, breached in this case, according to the judge, and now remedied by virtue of the release from detention of Mr. Arias and his son.
That coming out of the district court
of the Western District of Texas.
We've got other news going inside the Department of Justice.
The judge there in that case makes reference to the incompetence, the bungling, which we have also chronicled in other areas inside the Department of Justice.
Let's talk about three instances of that inside the Department of Justice that also make their way into the public domain just this past week.
All of them.
wedding this sense of bad intent, ill intent with profound incompetence.
Let's begin with Judge James Bosberg.
You may recall well, the judge, the former chief judge of the U.S.
District Court in the District of Columbia, he was the one who was presiding over those proceedings way back in March of 2025, in which time the petitioners sought
the directive from him to turn around those planes.
We're taking off transporting about 238 people from our nation to El Salvador without due process, without a finding that their deportation was illegal.
Well, in the wake of that, lots and lots of history, including Judge Bosberg, continuing to entertain hearings and proceedings, testimony, documents he wants to know.
who violated his directive to get those planes back, to return those people back to the United States.
They've never returned.
Save one.
You know who that is.
That's Kilmer, Abrego Garcia.
He continues to do that, but along the way, but along the way, while the government, your United States Department of Justice, helmed by Pam Bondi and the deputy attorney general, of course, Todd Blanche, filed a complaint.
And they allege in particular,
that Judge Bosberg, during the course of a non-public meeting with other members of the judiciary, said some things that he should not have said.
Specifically that he made according to the complaint of your department of justice against this judge who has plainly been ruling against the department of justice accused him of making improper remarks during this closed-door Judicial conference meeting way back in March of 2025 almost contemporaneous with the time that he was finding that the government was not following his orders when we come back I'll tell you more about the complaint against him and I'll tell you
about what happened to that complaint just this past week.
Again, another reason for the Department of Justice not to be pleased, but all the rest of us to recognize the rule of law does still live in America.
All that went.
Amicus, a lot of you continue.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus, a lot of you here in the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
We are talking about things not going well this past week for the U.S.
Department of Justice, lots of incompetence, lots of bungling, lots of stumbling through our judicial system, focusing right now on this complaint that was brought by the Attorney General and others in the Department of Justice that accused James Bosberg, a federal district court judge, who is a fellow who is handling among many other cases that appeal to him, asking him to stop the deportation.
the removal of about 238 people from our nation to El Salvador.
Back in March of last year, the DOJ complained accusing Boseberg of making some comments during the course of a closed-door judicial conference in that same month, right after all these hearings are going on publicly.
According to that complaint, Boseberg in the course of discussion, behind the scenes, but not.
not inappropriate discussion with the Chief Justice, his name of course is John Roberts, and other federal judges saying that the Trump administration risks provoking a constitutional crisis by disregarding court orders.
That, according to the complaint, is what Bosberg had told these other federal judges even while he's plainly dealing in the public domain with exactly that.
the disregarding of court orders by the Department of Justice.
That meeting, that meeting had occurred just days, almost hours before Bosberg issued an opinion blocking the deportation of flights that the administration was carrying out under a centuries old law that continues to be the subject of an awful lot of reviews.
So what happens?
Well, we know that way back in December,
that complaint was dismissed, but it just became public this past week.
And so now we know what designated Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who's the Chief Judge of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, he's brought in to decide this case about whether or not his colleague, if you will,
the judge in the District of Columbia has violated judicial ethics.
Judge Jeffrey Sutton says that no, there's no violation here at all.
He concluded that the Department of Justice, and here's your incompetence, failed to back up its allegations with evidence and so fell well short of the standard required for a misconduct finding.
And that comes in a seven paced decision by Jeffrey Sutton shutting down this complaint against
James Bosberg.
Sen said the Department of Justice never produced the evidence.
It claimed it supported the allegation, even if the allegation was somehow meritorious.
Although the complaint referenced an attachment, purporting to document Bosberg's comments, the judge goes on to write, stunningly, no such material was provided.
and the Justice Department did not supply it, even after being contacted by the court to do so.
The judge is reaching out saying, where's your supporting document?
And that never happens.
The judge writes this, in the absence of the attachment, the complaint offers no source for what, if anything, the subject judge said.
And he adds that the filing failed to establish the context, the timing, or the precise substance of the alleged remarks.
So we don't even get to the merits of whether or not these things were properly said.
They were.
There's no concern about that.
But the judge basically finding that the complaint fails because you didn't even make a prima facia, a threshold showing of what it is the judge said.
The complaint also leaned apparently heavily on media coverage, discussing the accusation.
Judge Sutton also discusses that and dismisses the complaint on that alternative basis.
He says, that too is insufficient.
He writes, a recycling of unadorned allegations with no reference to a source does not corroborate them, noting that repetition alone does not convert speculation into proof.
Wow.
basically, once again, telling lawyers in the Department of Justice that just because you speculate on something doesn't make it real.
Even assuming Bosberg made the comments attributed to him, Sutton wrote, they would not amount to misconduct.
And here's the rub.
He emphasized that judicial conferences of the sort that these comments were apparently made in are designed to foster what the judge described as candid conversations among judges
about institutional concerns, including judicial independence and respect for court rulings, expressions of anxiety about executive compliance, Sutton concluded, falls squarely within the range of permissible topics at such meetings.
And so basically saying, even if
Department of Justice, you would provide me with a factual basis upon which to make this determination.
He says, I can't because he didn't give me the evidence, even if there was something to support what Judge Bosberg had said.
Nothing wrong with that.
That's what we expect judges to do, especially in a climate like this where there's a concern about the rule of law.
We know, as I have measured it, that it was from that date in mid-March of 2025 that we have been in the constitutional crisis about which Judge Bosberg and others have described.
But we also know that that's exactly the kind of thing that we want judges in these judicial conferences to be talking about so that they can not corroborate on specific decisions, not conspire together to produce results in particular cases,
but to ensure that the federal judiciary has the integrity and the consistency and the insight generally to note when it is being attacked and when there are challenges to the rule of law, that's what goes on at those conferences.
Nothing wrong with that, Judge Sutton writes, in dismissing this Department of Justice complaint frivolously brought.
effectively is what the judge says by Pam Bondi into the federal domain.
That happens again based upon what the federal district court appeals court judge says in resolving this particular case.
When we come back we're going to talk more about other situations indicating once again the Department of Justice
has got some internal problems with respect to its management of its caseload, and even management of its highest supervisors and people in charge changes going on in the Department of Justice.
And when we come back, when it take a caller who's been waiting on the line for a while, who's going to be commenting on something in our syllabus here on Amicus.
I love it.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amica Solar Review on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
We are live coming to you from Radio Park in Racine, joined here in the studio by my outstanding producer Max and together soliciting and encouraging enthusiastically your comments, your questions about the matters on our syllabus and that includes one of our
our frequent callers and our frequent engagers in conversation.
Mark, glad to have you with us again on this weekend.
Go ahead.
What do you have for us this weekend, Mark?
Yeah, thanks, Jim.
And in addition to what the judge wrote out, something I've quoted before from the Declaration of Independence, he has endeavored to prevent the population of these states for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners
refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither.
And then it goes on, you know, about appropriations of new land.
But I mean, let's remember that Donald Trump obstructed the immigration law that Congress had in place that had been written in a bipartisan fashion.
And Donald Trump, you know, encouraged Congress not to pass that law because it would have gotten signed down because he wanted to run on anti-immigration policies.
And it is just...
You know, part and parcel of what we have seen from this administration, that when they're actually deporting citizens, because they happen to be a foreign berth, what I ran across reading some history, that Roger Williams, a century before a Declaration of Independence, 1643, you know, posited that the Indians are as good as any Englishman, that by blood and nature, they're as good as any Englishman.
It seems that a lot of the people that, you know, they're complaining about
are migrants from south of the border of native indigenous populations that and if you are supposed to be a believing christian all people are supposed to be worthy of of uh... equality equal rights for them to
humanity across the board right exactly right
Appreciate so much for the comment.
You would add, you would add to the list, already articulated by Judge Beery.
Again, this additional information, the Declaration of Independence is worth a read, not only because we're coming up with the 250th anniversary, but because it has all of these references.
Obviously they're talking about the King of England, but with very little interpretation, very little extrapolation, as Mark, you have just indicated, you can take that language and apply it to the present administration.
And it is...
compelling that you raise those issues, Mark, that the judge does so, and that it is providing instruction now, 250 years later, into how our government should work.
Mark, as always, thanks so much for your participation in our conversation.
I appreciate that hugely.
We're gonna talk about a couple of other things having to do with the Department of Justice as well, and then also take some additional callers here on the broadcast.
All of these indicating, again, the incompetence, the bungling of the Department of Justice.
This is a story that's gotten a lot of attention because it underscores the calamity.
inside the courts, presented by all of these petitions for habeas corpus, being presented by people to the federal district courts who are seeking relief when they have been inappropriately, improperly, illegally detained.
We talked last week about the huge imposition, the huge burden on the federal district courts, other judges coming in from other districts to try to help out.
the court staff, the judges themselves working day and night to try to remain ahead of that.
And the burdens that that poses upon the administration of justice, not only in terms of the adjudication of those cases, but remember, this is a federal district court.
It's the district of Minnesota.
The state is also one complete federal district that has other cases going on, other civil cases, other criminal cases as well.
Well, we know that just recently, US District Judge Jerry Blackwell,
he's one of those judges, has been ordering the government, as have other judges, to explain why it has not followed court orders in these immigration proceedings, including not releasing several immigration detainees that he has ordered to be let out.
That's Judge Jerry Blackwell, again, not just scratching his head, but throwing up his hands and saying, what's going on here?
I'm ordering them to be released.
Why are these people not being released?
Blackwell says in an order this week, the government's failures are alarming.
because the government's persistent non-compliance with orders in this district was extensively detailed just last week.
He is talking about this order entered by the chief judge.
We spent a lot of time talking about him last week named Patrick Schultz, S-C-H-I-L-T-Z, in which the judge wrote, the patience of the court is at an end.
And just this past week, we had something of a response.
an imperfect and incomplete response, but a telling response from a representative of your United States Department of Justice.
Her name is Julie Lee.
L. E. is the spelling of her last name.
She told Blackwell during a hearing of this past week that it takes 10 emails for me, she's speaking about herself, trying to comply with all of the orders of the judge for a release condition to be corrected.
She says, it takes me threatening to walk out for something else to be corrected.
She also says, and she says this on the record in public before the judge, she says she did not feel properly trained for the role she is trying to fill.
She has been assigned 88 cases in less than a month.
And she goes on to say that we are overwhelmed.
And because of that, she says this.
She says, sometimes, Judge, I wish you would just hold me and contempt your honor so that I can have a full 24 hours of sleep.
I work days and nights just because people are still in there.
She's talking about these detainees who've been ordered released, doesn't have enough time, doesn't have the administrative support, doesn't have the hours in the day to do this.
And then goes on to say this, and the language is not something that you haven't heard on television, but it is not common in the federal courts, I can assure you.
She goes on to say she's talking to the judge once again.
She says, and yes.
procedure in place right now sucks.
I'm trying to fix it, the attorney says.
I am here with you, your honor.
What do you want me to do?
The system sucks.
This job sucks.
And I am trying every breath that I have so that I can get you what you need.
Her comments, of course, are this rare look.
Inside the Department of Justice that again more incompetence more incapacity to handle these cases even why while the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General assure America that they've got all of this under control you have got again this attorney who's brought in she is on special
designated leave from the Department of Homeland Security, effectively into the Department of Justice, which represents Homeland Security, and expressing her wild frustration, her own physical exhaustion, as a result of all the things that she is being asked to do, and noting, the job sucks, the system sucks, trying every breath I have so I can get you what you need, and plainly failing in that.
the judge presumably having a certain amount of judicial sympathy for her but still maintaining that all of this has got to be done because why a federal district court judge and others among his colleagues have ordered that these things be done that's the rule of law that's the way our constitution works and when you've got governments that either because of incompetence
Or, alternatively, maybe even combination, simply because they do not regard the power of federal judges when they say no, our system breaks down.
That's the constitutional crisis about which these judges are complaining.
That's the constitutional crisis we've been in ever since Judge James Bosberg was told no by this administration.
We're not doing what you say.
And told to many other judges, federal district court judges, since that time,
a stunning, a stunning development in the court by a federal attorney telling a judge that she'd like to comply, she's not getting support, and she is at her wit's end.
That's your Department of Justice in 2026 under this leadership.
We've got more callers.
As always, I appreciate that so very much.
We appreciate calling in is Bill from O'Connor, Milwaukee.
Bill, thanks so much for being a part of our broadcast this weekend.
Thank you very much.
I'd like to say two questions.
Yes, one with those people failing to comply.
does not the judicial system have the right to send in U.S.
Marshals to force compliance.
And it's a great question, right?
How do you enforce this?
The answer, of course, is you need a federal judge, again, who issues the order.
And then if the order is your question contemplates is not being done, how do you enforce that?
Well, the U.S.
Marshals Service is inside the Department of Justice, right?
And so you'd require the United States Attorney or the United States Attorney General to go in and do this action.
Presumably, if it gets to that, U.S.
Marshals typically don't become involved in these kinds of things, but if necessary to go in, I suppose what you're recommending is have the Marshals go in and literally go into these detention centers and do the administrative work to get them released.
Is that the desperation that we've come to?
Bill, your question asks precisely that.
And so not normally in the normal course of things, we would anticipate that Homeland Security would indeed, ICE would indeed simply
follow what the judge has said and release these people.
But do we need more?
That's what your question calls upon.
You have a second thought as well.
Yes, I do.
Don't you think Trump has worn out all his lawsuits because he goes to attorneys like I go to toilet paper and they just don't last with him.
And these frivolous lawsuits he literally can't comprehend.
the morals, the honesty, the objectivity, the diplomacy, and the humanitarianism of his office.
He doesn't get that.
He believes he's a little king.
And when he saw these frivolous lawsuits that are nothing more than a joke, you know, they aren't going to get far.
Years ago, I was sued by a guy for $50,000 because he thought I caused his pain in an accident and my wife was upset and I was laughing when I read it and she said, what's so funny?
I said, no, and this won't make it to court.
And it didn't.
And the frivolity of that, that bill, right?
And all these frivolous lawsuits.
We know that Donald Trump has recently sued the Internal Revenue Service, the agency over which he supervises through the Department of Treasury over this tax data leak.
He's demanding 10 billion with a B dollars.
That is the latest in a series of these very frivolous lawsuits.
And your question, does he not get tired of them?
Does he not get get dissuaded from filing them?
Apparently not.
He continues.
I like to think the American public, you and others in America, here in Wisconsin and beyond, are in completely exhausted by it and recognizing that virtually everything that he is proposing in the courts to seek some remedies without any merit.
Bill, thank you so much for those two good thoughts and comments, expressing the frustration of America in the midst of a Department of Justice and administration.
that just doesn't understand how all of this proceeds.
Let's also talk to Cornell.
Cornell, appreciate you're being a part of our broadcast this morning.
Am I on?
You are on Cornell.
Go right ahead.
What do you have for us?
Yeah.
Well, uh, I've studied this 10th amendment and it says that we, the states have equal powers with the federal government and they've been so reckless to this ice, you know, they executed two people.
two people and they called them terrorists and it's just a terrible thing and I feel that these powers were enacted the 10th amendment in 1790 and I feel that that that would protect the states that they protect the sovereignty and enough is enough and also they're losing millions of dollars in commerce in Minneapolis.
for what the report I've got.
Constitutional and economic issues, both you're absolutely right.
Cornell talking about that, the 10th Amendment.
Power is not designated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited to the states, reserved to the states or to the people.
Great point, Cornell.
Appreciate your contribution to our discussion.
When we come back.
a few rule-of-law snapshots inside the Department of Justice and back in two other federal district courts as Amicus, a law review, continues right after this.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amicus, a law review here in the broadcast stations of civic media.
Thanking so very much our callers and others who have been a part of our discussion this morning about all things related to the rule of law, the administration of justice.
And including these developing stories about the incompetence of your Department of Justice.
And that, again, wedded to its ill intent.
And it's turning on its head the very purposes for which various agencies are intended to serve us and support us and protect us, in fact, becoming just the opposite.
Inside the Department of Justice, again, a name from the past.
who has plainly been demoted for his own misconduct inside the department.
His name is Ed Martin.
You may recall Ed Martin initially designated by the president to be an interim U.S.
attorney in the District of Columbia.
The United States Senate, even before he gets to a vote, rejects that notion.
He walks over to main justice and he's given a number of different roles.
He's given a role as the head of something called the weaponization group, apparently a group designed to address
past histories of the department, they really don't exist, but past histories in which the government, the Department of Justice has been weaponized against Donald Trump and others, and also appointed to be the position of the pardon attorney, which is inside the Department of Justice.
Well, Justice, past week, Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General, who has run afoul of and been in opposition to Ed Martin, virtually since the time of Ed Martin's time,
at the Department of Justice has effectively demoted him and has said that the weaponization working group will no longer be headed by Ed Martin.
He plainly will remain, at least for now, as the pardon attorney.
but it appears that the days in which Mr. Martin would have free reign to do whatever he wants have come to an end, the deputy attorney general and Martin butting heads for a long period of time.
Most recently, the deputy attorney general apparently criticizing Martin for his lack of legal experience, particularly annoyed when Martin would go around him sometimes to the president himself to complain that department's leadership was not being
Quickly moving quickly enough, being aggressive enough when doing all of this.
You recall as well, Martin was the fellow who showed up in his Colombo style trench coat in front of Letitia James home in Manhattan, maintaining that he is going to be bringing her into the halls of justice.
We know how that went.
Ed Martin.
Perhaps not long for the Department of Justice in the wake of running afoul, doing many other things, even perhaps some allegations involving misuse of grand jury materials, and yet some indication that maybe his next stop will be the White House itself having left his positions in the U.S.
Attorney's Office.
Maybe the Department of Justice, and now maybe going over to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
A couple of other rule of law snapshots in the area of federal judges.
We know that just this past week or so, Luigi Mangione has been back in the news.
In front of a federal district court judge, you may recall, he is the one who's facing the death penalty for allegedly killing that United Healthcare's CEO.
His name is Brian Thompson.
on the sidewalk the streets of new york in december of 2024 he has been indicted on a number of different charges both in the state and the federal system and your united states department of justice seeking the death penalty as to him
the federal judge who is reviewing that case presiding over it just this past week dismissing the federal murder charge against him because it requires legally that the killing was committed during the course of another crime of violence and prosecutors had alleged that the other crimes of violence were two stalking charges maintaining that man gione himself had stalked
Thompson online and traveled across state lines to carry out that killing the judge the federal judge looking at that Disagrees with them and she finds that the stalking charges are not in her view crimes of violence Dismissing two counts of his federal case murder and related firearms offense and it's the only count in the federal charges against Manjione that could have carried a possible death sentence so the news coming out of the federal court is
is that Mangione is no longer facing the death penalty.
Still playing the other federal charges, other state charges.
Mangione getting into it with a state court judge this past week talking about scheduling of the state case.
Mangione admonishing and reaching out to yelling at the judge in a state court proceeding.
It's the same trial twice.
One plus one is two double jeopardy by any common sense definition.
Luigi Mangione himself and his attorneys concerned about the scheduling of the state case in the midst of the federal case.
Lots of activity going on there, but once again, the big news, Luigi Mangione no longer facing the death penalty as a result of the findings of the federal district court judge.
And finally, the man who was convicted of trying to assassinate then candidate Trump gets a life sentence for that.
His name is Ryan Ruth and he was the one who attempted.
to kill Donald Trump at that Florida golf course during the 2024 election campaign.
He was sentenced instead to life in prison on Wednesday, the maximum penalty for attempting to assassinate a presidential candidate.
The 12-member jury had convicted Ruth last September after a wild trial in which Ruth had represented himself.
Federal prosecutors recommending a life sentence saying that Ruth had plotted
painstakingly to stake out Donald Trump.
at the Trump International Golf Club West Palm Beach.
They also noted that he did not express remorse for any of his actions.
Again, Ryan Ruth for that attempted assassination, getting the maximum under the sentencing guidelines, that is life imprisonment for that attempt on candidate Trump's life in 2024.
There is a lot going on, both in the federal courts, but in other places as well, federal judges, the bastions, the standards for the rule of law,
law, grand juries also in that category.
We know about government officers who are standing up to violations of our constitutional principles, and also you, not only in making your voices heard, engaging in the civil nonviolent protests.
having your voices heard, engaging with your elected officials as a part of what we call this great American experiment.
We'll be back for more on discussion of all of that next week on the broadcast stations of
Civic...
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.
