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.
My name is Jim Santel, along with my terrific producer, Max.
We are in the studios here in Racine talking this weekend as every weekend about those major news stories in the areas of rule of law and operation of government and administration of justice.
This weekend's broadcast, no exception to that long-standing tradition.
Also, inviting you in this live edition of our broadcast to be a part of our discussion by calling in to Max and me at 855-752-4842.
That number one more time is 855-752-4842.
Max always reminds me that you can also be a part of our discussion posing your questions.
asking me those things that are not necessarily abundantly clear and evident during the course of our reporting on these stories, those issues that are interesting and engaging and informative for each and every one of you, including callers, those who might also text in to the chat box to be a part.
of our broadcast this weekend.
This weekend, again consistent with the name of our broadcast, Amicus, meaning friend, friend of the community, often used to be friend of court as well.
This weekend, talking a lot about the major issues of this past week, there is an abundance of them as you well know.
I'm gonna begin by talking about guns once again, America, because it has been back on the docket of the American Supreme Court.
We'll chat about a major oral argument of justice past week that once again...
is going to change the way that we think about the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, not to be outdone by that oral argument.
The United States Supreme Court once again back in the news on its so-called shadow docket, its emergency application docket, issuing a couple of orders in cases that have not yet percolated up to it for its merits review, one of them having to do a major congressional map in the city and state of New York, having to do with the future of elections there, impacting presumably with great effect.
the conduct of the midterm elections in November of this year.
A second one on the other side of our nation, this one coming out of California, having to do with the disclosures of the status of trans students in schools, in the classrooms of America.
Both of those, the subject of shadow docket, emergency application orders, you can probably guess
The results of those will talk about what the majority said in both that election case and that LGBTQIA case.
We'll also tell you about what the dissenters said, even in the midst of orders that are skeletal, if virtually non-existent.
And we'll tell you why those cases are meaningful again going forward.
Moving from the Supreme Court,
to the courts directly below it in our system of jurisprudence in America.
We will talk about our own seven circuit court of appeals.
Another very significant decision overturning a decision that we talked a lot about on this broadcast, overturning a ruling.
You may remember this one by Judge Sarah Ellis, imposing some appropriate constitutional restrictions on the conduct of law enforcement in the city of Chicago.
Recall these stories.
the judge coming within inches of finding that federal law enforcement is in contempt for not following her directives.
The Seventh Circuit, a divided panel, two to one, just this past week, overturning, overturning Judge Ellis and finding that she reached too broadly.
in making those determinations, vacating, vacating her order in a way that's also somewhat peculiar.
We'll tell you about the peculiar procedural aspect of that disposition by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
There, of course, a three-judge panel, and then we're going to move to the next rung on our federal judiciary, and that is the federal courts, including one state court as well.
We'll talk about courts in Minnesota and New Jersey,
both of which are continuing to wrestle with what is our continuing constitutional crisis in America, evidenced in part by the fact that we have got an administration, we've got a Department of Justice.
that is routinely saying no to federal district court judges or at a minimum, not following what they say.
We'll talk about what a Minnesota judge has said just this past week to the United States attorney in that district in the district of Minnesota with respect to the either volitional or unintentional or simply negligent decision of the federal government not to return properties.
to detainees, improperly, unlawfully detained.
We'll talk about what the judge in that case said, and then we're going to go out to New Jersey for another ruling from a district court judge there who's now requiring that federal agents and federal officers sign basically an acknowledgement of receipt of the orders the directive is given to them about how they are to conduct themselves
in our streets, in our nation, in New Jersey, when it comes to law enforcement, an extraordinary remedy to problems identified there in New Jersey.
Again, in a situation where the judges are finding the constitutional crisis is in their courtroom's front and center, and the federal government, your federal government, your United States Department of Justice, is not following what judges are saying.
Thus, as we approach, approach just one week away, the one year anniversary of our nation being in a constitutional crisis.
We'll talk more about that next week.
We think about all of these continuing instances, these illustrations that show us the nature of the problem that we are facing.
And then a state court judge, a state court judge in New York telling Columbia University what it's got to do with those student protestors, rescinding the punishments against them.
for their violations, alleged violations of campus rules in their protests of 2024.
We'll talk more about what a state court judge did in that connection, and then necessarily toward the end of our two hour broadcast, we'd go back to the United States Department of Justice, a lot of things going on there, including some bar problems.
That is issues related to the conduct of Department of Justice attorneys, lying, misrepresenting, misbehaving in the federal courts, finding themselves as they should before bars around the country seeking to discipline them, arguably, maybe suspending them, maybe admonishing them, maybe terminating their licenses.
We've got two illustrations of that just this past week.
We've got Pam Bondi.
Pam Bondi, the attorney general who's seeking to stall those state bar disciplinary proceedings while the Department of Justice figures out what to do, that a major announcement that arguably infringes upon the independent authority of those bar associations to monitor the conduct of lawyers who are the benefits, beneficiaries of bar licenses in their states.
One of those states, of course, is Florida.
And we heard just this past week that Lindsay Heligan, you recall her name well, she was that short lived United States attorney, improperly illegally appointed by the president to serve as the US attorney, the chief federal law enforcement officer in Virginia.
Now facing her own problems with the Florida bar where she has been the subject apparently of continuing investigations
with related to what?
With related to those stunning, shocking misstatements about fundamental constitutional rights that she delivered to a federal grand jury that at least in part resulted in indictments of two people, James Comey and Letitia James.
Those cases now dismissed a lot going on there, but Lindsay Halligan, as some of you have asked, now facing disciplinary proceedings
no longer the U.S.
Attorney there now, now facing disciplinary proceedings in Florida for her conduct, her misstatements of the law.
We'll talk as well about what the administration is, is not doing, is doing, is not doing.
It's flip-flops with respect to its attempt to rein in those major law firms in America that it feels are violative of its views about the way the world should be
Working and the administration of law should be administered in our nation will tell you about the flip-flops of the Department of Justice and this administration and then we'll talk once again about the Attorney General yet another major policy announcement stunningly stunningly reversing prior administrations and permitting the attendance by political appointees at partisan events.
We'll talk about why that's so important why that is significant and the specific
Content of this major decision that the Attorney General herself has announced this past week changing the ways in which political people Officials appointed by the president can now attend partisan political events all of that all of that and more coming up here on This edition this installment of amicus a law review as always inviting your questions and comments text max and me
Call Max and me at 855-752-4842.
We'll make you a part of our discussion this weekend as well.
That discussion, as I indicated, beginning with guns and beginning as we sometimes do with a bit of history.
This past week, on March 5th, we observed the 256th anniversary.
of something we all know as the Boston Massacre, referred to in England as the incident on King Street, of course, in Boston, and what was then the colony, and then eventually the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Recall this well from civics and from social studies when you were in grade school, maybe in high school, maybe college, maybe beyond.
Five colonists shot during the course of that melee event.
got a huge, huge amount of coverage, both here in what would eventually be the United States of America.
At that time, the colonies of Great Britain, also back in Great Britain itself, one of the major events of the Revolutionary War.
Significantly, it was inside that particular event that we also saw, among other situations, the emergence of John Adams.
One day would be our second president, as you know well,
He was the lawyer.
He is a lawyer and was at the time defending those British soldiers who let loose on the colonists, killed five of them.
He defended those British soldiers in the criminal prosecution of them for murder.
And John Adams, lawyer, defense attorney, future, future public official in the emerging United States of America,
Resulting in the acquittal of six of the nine British soldiers who had shot those colonists in the Boston Massacre, March 5th, 1770, 256 years ago this week.
A little bit more recently, 18 years ago, 18 years ago,
And a little bit of change in terms of days and weeks was the announcement by the Supreme Court of something that changed dramatically.
For the first time in our nation's history, our understanding of yes, that second amendment, you know the language well because it has been so much in the focus of our national conversation in recent years.
The Supreme Court.
at the pen of Antonin Scalia and others, making up the majority of the Supreme Court, finding for the first time in our nation's history, never before interpreted this way, that the Second Amendment does in fact establish in each and every one of us a constitutional right, a right of constitutional, not statutory, not just common law exception, a constitutional right to use and carry a weapon.
in our Homeless for Self-Defensive purposes.
That case is heller.
It changed the way we think about the Second Amendment and followed, followed just four years ago by another case, five to four Bruin that expanded that understanding of the Second Amendment into the public domain.
We'll talk about why all of those issues, historical and more recent, are significant as we get to this major oral argument also about guns before the Supreme Court in 2026.
All of that as Amicus, a law review, continues here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.
Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get
this hour and next hour as well as always want to thank you express my appreciation that of my producer max for your joining us for some portion of your weekend as we talk about these major rule of law issues in america we necessarily focus a lot on the courts on this broadcast because that's where a lot of the action is taking place not exclusively
but we know that between our Supreme Court and our federal appellate courts and our federal district courts, and yes indeed, not in any way overlooking the importance of our state courts, right here in Wisconsin, our Wisconsin Supreme Court, our appeals courts, and also our regular.
Circuit courts in which trials are conducted every single week I've had the great privilege in recent years even after my time when I practice principally in the federal district court in the eastern district of Wisconsin and also the seventh circuit the appeals court in our circuit area I've had the great honor and privilege in recent years of practicing a whole lot more in the Wisconsin circuit courts both through my volunteer work with the
Children's Court as serving as a guardian at Lightham with the Legal Aid Society, and also serving on behalf of those people who are facing eviction through something called the Eviction Defense Project of the Legal Action of Wisconsin.
all of those things and others have brought me into the wisconsin circuit courts on a regular basis and it has been my privilege and honor to serve in all of those forums in recent times that includes that includes of course many cases that end up before the supreme court
commenting necessarily during the course of this broadcast, reporting on many of those cases that have made their way from the state courts.
You know well that the constitution envisions that you can in fact appeal from the highest court of a state directly to the Supreme Court.
Most often cases come to the Supreme Court through the lower federal appeals, federal district court and appeals courts and make their way up in that mechanism as well.
that is how that is how one of those cases reaches the supreme court this past week involving firearms and before we even get to that major case called him money
Let me tell you also, just mention that the Supreme Court had three oral arguments all together this past week.
One involving the federal defendants' waivers of their right to appeal.
That's a case called Hunter versus United States.
And yet another oral argument involving the federal authority over intrastate transportation.
Interesting concepts both.
That a case called Montgomery versus Kareeb.
transport moral arguments coming up later in this month and into march all of that anticipating course this time we are beginning to enter when the united states supreme court issues these major decisions
Many, not all of which we have discussed on this radio broadcast, but all of them affecting our lives and our livelihoods.
Let's talk about one of those cases, returning to a favorite topic of the
Supreme Court, necessarily on the minds and the conversations
of Americans that is firearms in America.
What is the breadth, strength, the scope of the Second Amendment?
I already mentioned in our first segment, the recent history of the
Second Amendment, including this case called Heller, announcing for the first time that you do indeed have a constitutional right.
to carry and use a weapon in your home for self-defense purposes.
And the follow-up to that, there are many other guns cases, of course, but this major case called Bruin, B-R-U-E-N, coming out of New York, a challenge there, or once again, the Supreme Court struck down an attempt to regulate firearms in that state, but also went on to say, at the pen of Clarence Thomas said, before you can justify, before you can be successful,
in defending a restriction on gun rights in America you've got to be able to find some historical antecedents some way to look back in history look back in time and say we've done this before that's the standard of Bruin we're going to get back to that in just a moment or so but it changes the analysis and requires that legislators and yes indeed courts that are reviewing the work of legislators
Take a look back in time, not necessarily assessing the impact or the effect, the reasons why, the connection between legislation and the attempt to remedy a problem in our society, but rather substituting that appropriate cause and effect standard with a different one.
And this has been in place again for a number of years, this type of analysis requiring a backward looking view.
and determining whether or not a piece of contemporary legislation, in this case once again, involving the enforcement of our federal laws with respect to firearms, can be justified.
And can it be justified at all if it is not supported by some sort of history?
Have we done this before?
What have we done in the past?
And that leads us to the case called Himani.
He is the defendant in the case a little bit about his history, August of 2022.
Federal agents arriving at Mr. Himani's home in suburban Texas and they are armed to the search warrant.
They come in and they search his home.
And during the course of that search, Mr. Himani tells the agents that he kept a handgun locked in the safe.
He also said he's being very forthright with them that he has used marijuana as he said about every other day Pointing them also to about 60 grams of marijuana that happened to be in the house at that time Agents also found some cocaine in his parents closet and as a result of all of that the FBI arrested Mr. Hamani Cused him of violating a federal law that bars drug users and addicts from owning or possessing guns.
That's the key
piece of federal legislation that has been out here for a long period of time.
It's one that I used routinely, as did my colleagues, as do my colleagues in the federal system to this day in the Department of Justice, charging people with violating that particular law.
You may say, gee, that sounds awfully familiar because it is.
You may recall well that this is the federal prohibition that was invoked with respect to the prosecution of Hunter Biden.
He was eventually convicted by a jury of just that, being a drug addict, using drugs while possessing a weapon.
You know as well that that conviction ultimately overturned, pardoned by the President of the United States of America.
When we get back, we'll talk about the Imani case and specifically what the Supreme Court was wrestling with just this past week.
Here on Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus on the Broadcast Stations of Civic BDU.
You can be a part of our discussion both this hour and next hour by calling or texting in.
The number is 855-752-4842.
Be a part of that discussion that continues with firearms in America.
Firearms, the subject of a major oral argument just this past week on the 2nd of March on Monday in a case called United States vs. Himani.
Case brought under Section 922G3, G3 of Title 18 of the United States Code, federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms, prevents you from having a firearm owning one, selling one, possessing one, someone who is an unlawful user of any controlled substance.
Yes, indeed, firearms back again before the Supreme Court.
The question, then, can a marijuana user?
Be banned from having a gun.
Just that simple.
What about someone who regularly takes Adderall or Ambion or other drugs?
Supreme Court wrestling with those questions on Monday, lots and lots of interesting illustrations about the execution, the invocation of that law.
The constitutionality of a federal law that bars drug users and addicts from owning or possessing guns is that constitutional.
Can you do that?
Can federal prosecutors prosecute you for having a gun, using a gun, transferring a gun when you are a drug user or an addict?
Again, this, the statute under which Hunter Biden was famously prosecuted and convicted in the not too distant past.
A majority of the Supreme Court justices seemed, heavy emphasis on seemed, to be fairly concerned about the federal gun law.
Maybe too broad they indicate a lumping together occasional drug users.
perhaps with people who are addicted to drugs who threaten genuinely threaten public safety and security.
So you've got Amy Coney Barrett asking this.
She says, is it the government's position that, by the way, the Trump administration supporting the law, supporting the continued constitutionality of this prohibition?
Amy Coney Barrett saying, is it the government's position that if I unlawfully use Ambien or I unlawfully use Xanax, then I become dangerous?
What is the government's evidence?
She said that using marijuana a couple of times a week makes someone dangerous, underscoring the practical implications of invoking this law.
Not immediately clear how the justices are going to resolve this, but we know that it is the second, second major case Supreme Court has before it, having to do with guns and the second amendment during this trim.
The other one that we've talked about at great length in the past.
This question about whether or not whether or not you as a private gun owner perhaps concealed carry with your gun can come on to the premises of private property But nonetheless invited there by virtue of the fact that I will say it's a gas station.
It's a golf a golf course It's a grocery store, but they've got those signs posted that say no firearms allowed Is that constitutional can can owners of private property?
who are nonetheless operating quasi-public institutions and agencies and operations, can they prohibit you from bringing your guns onto those premises?
That's the other major case the Supreme Court is wrestling with, but here you've got perhaps a more specific invocation of it.
The Second Amendment, again, before the Supreme Court,
the constitutionality of a section called the Gun Control Act of 1968.
This particular piece of legislation, again, lots of history on the broadcast this morning, enacted as a response to what to the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King in 1968.
That's when this was first enacted by the Congress, saying that if you're a drug addict, if you're habitually using drugs, if you're using drugs at all,
You cannot own a weapon, cannot use a firearm.
The law bans gun possession by anyone who, according to the language of the law, is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substances.
And of course, it has been amended a couple of times, but that's the basic focus of it.
And as I indicated before, the question before the Supreme Court,
is whether or not there is an historical antecedent, something in our past that we've done before that justifies this law.
That's the so-called new test under Bruin.
And that's one of the things that the Supreme Court was wrestling with in determining whether Mr. Hamani, Ali Hamani, who's this Texas gun owner who challenged this law when he was arrested for telling law enforcement that, yep,
he is using marijuana,
whether that is a proper invocation of the law, whether that is a proper law to begin with.
The lawyer who is representing Mr. Amon, who is explaining that those
laws focused on someone who is drinking to such excess that they can't care for themselves or their affairs,
posing a public safety
risk, not on people who, for example, used marijuana or even alcohol just casually.
Neil Gorsuch joining Amy Coney Barrett on the bench, of course, pointed out that there might have been a much higher bar for what it meant to overuse alcohol at the time of our country's founding once again, going back to days past.
That's the invitation made by Bruin, made by Justice Thomas.
The justice saying justice Gorsh is saying John Adams took a tanker of hard cider with his breakfast every day James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day Thomas Jefferson said he wasn't much of an alcohol user He only had three or four glasses of wine a night again looking to history and Assessing the impact of drugs in this case alcohol generally asking about habitual users of
drugs, alcohol, as a part of understanding our history.
Later in the argument, Chief Justice John Roberts speaks up and he appears to raise a concern that limiting the law to people who are addicted to drugs in this century could require judges who have these cases in front of him, of them overseeing the administration of the particular prosecutions, requiring those judges to assess drug use on a case-by-case basis
and an individual by individual basis causing all sorts of additional burdens for judges who
now in addition to determining what happened either through a jury trial or pleas of guilty now have to determine whether or not a particular defendant is a habitual user and on an individual basis a case by a case basis.
Elena Kagan weighs in as well.
She is probing how courts should handle drug use for substances that impair users, but that might not be addictive.
Again, all these gradations of the law, she used a hypothetical about a particular drug named Ayahuasca.
And that, of course, is a psychoactive brew from the Amazon that causes hallucinations.
And she talks about, Ayahuasca says, that when you're in its grip, you basically, she says, reality dissolves, all right?
And she asked the government not be able to restrict a person who uses the drug, but it's not addicted to it.
She asked Mr. Hamani's lawyer.
And
the response from the lawyer was, well, judge, it depends.
It depends on how lasting the impact is.
Lots of questions back and forth about all of this happening before the United
States Supreme Court just this past week.
Of course, all of this a part of the government's attempt to retain the law
as interestingly as a way of ensuring that we're safe and secure because the law is an attempt to restrict gun use, restrict gun access, the administration arguing in favor of the continuing application of the law in the federal district and appellate courts around our country as a way of
ensuring that gun violence does not increase beyond the catastrophic level at which it is right now.
An interesting argument
an important argument coming from the solicitor general before the united states supreme court unclear unclear
exactly how this case will be resolved but likely likely if you read the tea leaves a bit closely likely a majority maybe a mixed majority from left and right maybe ultimately determining that there
are just too many unknowns about this language and for that reason the statute can no longer stand
could also require that and maintain the statute, maintain the law for prosecutors to use in their quiver of prosecution arrows, maintaining the law, but saying you've got to make these determinations, these special determinations about whether or not the law is applicable to this particular defendant, the case by case analysis that the Chief Judge seemed to invite.
So possible the Supreme Court could maintain the
law.
and also simply impose some additional fact-finding on the federal district courts as they pursue that effort.
All of that coming out of the
United States Supreme Court just this past week in oral arguments.
More coming out of the United States Supreme Court, and yes indeed, the shadow docket.
Alive
and well.
As the numbers continue continue in the double digits in this first more than one year of the new administration Supreme Court on two occasions just this past week siding with petitioners seeking emergency urgent emergency review of lower court decisions before the cases are resolved two times overturning those lower courts
on the arguably on the merits but without much exposition of why they're doing this doing it quickly and telling the petitioners that yes they can get what they want even though the merits of their cases I've not yet been decided let's begin in California Supreme Court on Monday just both of these emergency docket cases happening on the first day of this past week Supreme Court on Monday siding with a group of religious parents
who are temporarily seeking to block California from using policies and practices in place there in California that generally prohibit, that generally bar public school teachers from identifying transgender students to their parents.
There's a lot going on there.
A group of Christian teachers and parents asked the justices to intervene on this emergency shadow docket basis, there it is, contending that the state had adopted this policy.
that requires public schools basically to hide, not to disclose, the transgender status of their students from their own parents and facilitate their social transition even over the parent's objection.
That was the policy
of the state of California.
California's attorney general, his name is Rob Bonta, B-O-N-T-A, counter that the challengers had misconstrued, misunderstood this law completely.
He explained to the court again, all this is in writing.
This is not oral argument, which is a part of the problem with the...
shadow docket.
He said the policies did not in fact prohibit the disclosure of information about the student's gender identities and in some cases actually required disclosure when there was a risk of serious harm to the student.
And so we've got a basic factual
misunderstanding, a dispute, a disagreement, a contest about what the law itself means.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court, again, siding with the religious members of the litigation, the religious parents, and some of the teachers as well, the court order on Monday, a conservative majority granting the emergency request of those parents based upon, again, the Second Amendment.
I'm sorry, the First Amendment, rather, the religious liberties of the First Amendment, saying that they were likely, that is, the Petitions, likely to succeed in their challenge to California's policies.
And as a result, the justices said the rules could not, could not remain in place, even while the litigation remains unresolved, even while the case continues.
The majority, again, in a very brief order, which is more than what we normally get in these cases, Supreme Court's saying that the parents have sincere religious beliefs, again, under the First Amendment, about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs.
The majority added that the California policies violate those beliefs, and according to court, they impose a burden on the parents' religious rights.
That's the implication of the Constitution.
Beyond that, the majority talked about a broader set of parents, and we'll talk about them as Amicus, a lot of you, continues here on the broadcast stations of
civic media.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
We're talking about some of the significant activities of your United States Supreme Court justice past week.
in entertaining this oral argument with respect to guns in America, also issuing a couple of significant decisions on its shadow docket, its non-marriage docket.
This one having to do with a request by a group of religious parents and some teachers to block California from using policies and invoking policies and practices that generally bar public school teachers from outing transgender students to their parents, disclosing that.
A lot of contest in writing before the Supreme Court, ultimately the Supreme Court saying California can't can't do this any longer, striking down the policies at least temporarily on its emergency docket.
but not without a significant dispute between the majority here and the dissenting justices.
The majority, once again, talking about the groups of parents, including a broader set of parents, beyond those with these religious objections, who, according to the very limited writing of the majority, have a separate right not to be shut out of participating in decisions regarding their children's mental health.
And finding that the state's policies most likely violate their rights to directly upbringing their children, their education in the public schools there.
On the other side, you've got the three so-called liberal justices led by Elena Kagan.
She criticized her colleagues for being hasty, a common claim here in these cases.
Essentially, prejudging Elena Kagan says,
a significant issue on an emergency basis without full briefing or oral argument.
Once again, articulating exactly the reason why this emergency docket is so problematic.
The court also acted before the appeals court in there in the Ninth Circuit had formally resolved the matter.
She says this, and here's the language once again.
The court is impatient.
It already knows what it thinks and insists on getting everything over quickly.
That's Elena Kagan.
She adds the majority could not claim that thought and care are not needed in a case involving thorny legal questions.
She goes on to say, if nothing else, this court owes it to a sovereign state, she's talking about California, to avoid throwing over its policies in a slap dash, slap dash way.
Through the justices, the majority push back on that.
They return the fire, if you will, and they say that the temporary order is not a sign of the court's impatience, but in fact, something that justices demand.
The court, as you know, has also got other cases in this same general category.
They're right now weighing the constitutionality of state laws that ban transgender athletes from participating on women's and girls' sports.
That's another case.
Also considering this case of a Christian therapist, again invoking the First Amendment in both its religious and its free speech aspects.
Colorado law that bars the practice of conversion therapy for gay and transgender minors, Supreme Court determining whether that's a violation of First Amendment rights of the Christian therapist, principally to speak, to announce and describe her practice
Arguably, arguably also a religious claim.
All of that, all of that pending in front of the Supreme Court.
Lots of cases involving religion, lots of cases involving LGBT rights, most often in recent times when religious petitioners have come to the court.
In this case, in particular, they are successful in getting merits decisions and here also getting a decision on the shadow docket non-final decision telling California to knock it off can no longer impose this requirement or this ban rather on the conduct of teachers when it comes to the identities of their transgender students.
More of that certainly going to be in the news coming forward.
There's more coming out of the Supreme Court.
in the category of an emergency docket resolution.
This one is politics, and this one again flies across the country to New York, a particular federal district, a congressional district right there in Manhattan.
An emergency ruling, the justices preserved the district, the line drawing of a Republican congresswoman.
Her name is Nicole Melioticus.
and Representative Maliatakis basically is saying that the line drawing, the revised version of her district violates her rights.
And for that reason, the Supreme Court on Monday also announced that would it keep in place the New York congressional map overruling, overruling a judge would found that the map violated the Constitution by diluting the power of black and Latino voters.
Again, Representative Malioticus had filed an emergency application challenging that lower ruling, asking the Supreme Court to pause that state judge's ruling, requiring her district lines to be redrawn.
And of course that those lines would have undeniably endangered that seat is significant because politically, politically this legal battle focuses on control of what is identified in New York as the 11th congressional district.
It is the only district in New York City that's held by a Republican.
And of course the latest in a series of these line drawing challenges before the Supreme Court, again on the emergency docket, we have seen them come out of California.
We have seen them come out of
of Texas as well.
And the Supreme Court in those cases, those cases, cleared the way for the states to use their new maps in the midterms.
Here in what is undeniably a win for the representative, the Supreme Court retains the old map, the GOP district in New York.
And once again, raising issues about the involvement of the Supreme Court in matters that are going to have an impact upon
the elections in November.
A 13-page dissent.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor is joined by Elena Kagan and Katanji Brown Jackson.
Once again, the same three who are contesting what the Supreme Court has done on this emergency basis, criticizing the court's decision.
Does this sound familiar?
And warning that the Supreme Court has inserted itself into the politics of a heated midterm election.
The justice, justices, including Justice Sotomayor says,
by granting these applications, the court thrust itself into the middle of every election law dispute around the country, even as many states redraw their congressional maps ahead of the upcoming election.
When we come back, we'll talk about the appeals court right here in the Seventh Circuit.
I'm Amicus, a lot of you.
This is amicus a lot of you This is the second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast here on the broadcast stations of civic media.
My name is Jim Santel I'm supported by my outstanding producer max we're in the studios here in Racine, Wisconsin Broadcasting throughout the state of Wisconsin and beyond also accessible online as well inviting your comments your questions your inquiries your observations about any of the many subjects on our aggressive
But achievable agenda this weekend, that phone number is 855-752-4842.
One more time, 855-752-4842.
Be a part of our discussion as we talk again, principally, although not exclusively, about the federal courts, also some state court action this week in the area of the rule of law.
Let's go from the United States Supreme Court, which occupied most of our discussion in our first hour this weekend, to the court...
and courts immediately below the Supreme Court.
Those are our many 13 or 14 appeals courts in the federal system, including the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that includes Wisconsin and Indiana and Illinois also when you are unhappy with a judgment, civil or criminal of any of the federal district courts in those three states.
You appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals if you're still unhappy with
its resolution of your case, then you seek what's called the writ of a certiorari.
You seek an appeal to the Supreme Court, unlike the statistically the Supreme Court is going to grant that they've granted about 60 of those rits this season alone.
but that people who want Supreme Court review.
At the appeals courts, again, the Seventh Circuit and most other appeals courts, you do get some form of review as of rights.
So what happened here?
Here's the background on this case, having to do with something pulled right once again from the headlines of our national and local media.
This particular case before the Seventh Circuit originates from a piece of litigation pending in the federal
district court in the northern district of Illinois.
That's basically Chicago and the surrounding neighborhoods.
It was filed by the Chicago headline club and some other media groups.
following what we all know today as Operation Midway Blitz.
The lawsuit led Judge Sarah Ellis.
We have talked a lot about her on this broadcast.
To issue way back in November, remember the sweeping preliminary injunction, restricting several of the routine practices and policies, even the tactics used by federal agents on the streets of Chicago.
Those restrictions you may recall include a limits on the deployment of tear gas,
and chemical munitions in addition to requirements that agents wear body cameras and display some clear identification.
when they're interacting with members of the press and protesters.
The case, once again, drawing a lot of attention, including right here on this broadcast.
The judge ultimately imposing some restrictions and mandates and conditions on the continued operation of law enforcement there in the city of Chicago, not shutting it down entirely, but saying you've got to abide by the law.
And here are the things you've got to do.
You may recall as well that the court was
was in engagement, a diplomatic way of saying in contest with the border patrol commander, his name was Gregory Bofino, remember him, and she was for a while actually going to be calling him into her courtroom to make sense of the aggressive tactics used during the course of this surge operation midway blitz.
That never happened in the end, but it underscored
The contest between the Federal District Court, who is directing that law enforcement behave and do things as our laws, including our Constitution mandate, and what appear to be on video and in other testified accounts, the violations of those mandates and violations of the Constitution that were happening on the streets of Chicago, all of that, all of that happens again, principally in the fall of last year, ultimately, ultimately.
the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case because the appeals court had sort of signaled in an interim basis that it would be skeptical of the imposition of restraints imposed by judge Ellis.
And they also said that their lawsuit had pretty much served its purpose.
Gregor Bovino, as you know, no longer there.
Not the situation is completely placid, but certainly much reduced in terms of the public notoriety and activity there on the streets of Chicago.
The case.
However, still pending, still appealed by the government to the United States Court of Appeals to the 7th Circuit.
And just this past week, just this past week, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals there in Chicago, taking up a review of Sarah Ellis' injunctive order, determines that she went too far, and sides with the administration, with the Department of Justice, with Pam Bondi and with Donald Trump, in Chicago,
in rescinding and actually vacating the order that was entered by Sarah Ellis, saying that was too broad, handing plainly President Trump a legal victory, vacating these restrictions that were posed by the judge during this controversial period, this enforcement campaign in Chicago.
The decision by the Court of Appeals in a two-to-one ruling issued on Thursday, concluding that the earlier injunction
by Judge Ellis was overly broad, too extensive, too much, they said, and raised constitutional concerns, needless to say, after this particular ruling, undeniably a success for the Department of Justice for the White House, which today, regrettably, are virtually the same thing.
Tonight, the Justice Department delivered a huge legal win in the 7th Circuit for President Trump in support of Operation Midway Blitz.
That is what your Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly celebrated.
That's how she celebrated in writing the outcome, describing this decision as this major significant victory for the administration's, as she said, law and order policy.
She added,
that the enforcement surge was a part of the president's effort to protect American citizens and went on to say that federal authorities were stepping in where local officials had refused to act.
Obviously that a very controversial position and opposed by the very local officials that the attorney general.
has identified the Attorney General, Pam Bondi going on to say, this President Trump is trying to protect American citizens while local elected officials refuse to do so.
The Justice Department attorneys were proud to argue this case.
We will continue fighting and waiting for the President's law and order agenda.
Well, in fact,
This is one of those rare instances where the administration and the Department of Justice has one.
We've seen in many, many instances, except in those emergency applications to the United States Supreme Court, lower appeals courts and lower district courts are not granting this president, this administration, this Justice Department the wins that they otherwise would have anticipated.
Three judge panel here, however, the seventh circuit led by Chief Judge Michael Brennan.
He comes from the, from Wisconsin, the Milwaukee area and Judge Michael Scutter and the two of them.
went further than simply dismantling and dismissing the government's appeal in this case and bringing the case now to a conclusion in favor of the White House, but they also ordered basically the Vacation, V-A-C-A-T-I-O-N, the Vacator, V-A-C-A-T-U-R, which is a legal step.
that treats the earlier ruling as if it never existed.
The judges, these two judges out of three, saying that the injunction issued by the district judge, again, her name's Sarah Ellis, had been granted, as they said, only on a highly compressed timeline of their words.
Interesting to use that phrase in connection with all that's going on with the Supreme Court.
And the two judges said that ultimately it produced an overbroad, constitutionally suspect injunction.
to prevent the possibility of this happening again.
The majority concluded that vacating, again, using this interesting but available judicial advice, vacating the ruling entirely was necessary.
Judge Frank Easterbrook, who is also a third member of this particular three judge panel, dissented.
While he shared concerns about how the case had been handled by the district court judge, Easterbrook argued that the court should not intervene simply because it was dissatisfied with that process.
And he said, dissatisfaction with the district court's handling of a suit should not matter unless at least one of the parties is dissatisfied.
All of that coming out of the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
2-1 decision.
The majority wins on the 3-judge panel.
and the administration wins and finds that it has a friend, if you will, at least in this three judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturning and actually vacating the lower court injunction that prohibited the law enforcement there from engaging in all of these tactics identified by Judge Ellis in her courtroom.
That coming out of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the district courts, as I have said,
So the administration not faring nearly as well in the course of the last 14 or so months and we've got more instances of that as once again we anticipate this coming next weekend the one-year anniversary of what we have identified on this broadcast as the constitutional crisis
that we announced that we identified that was illustrated by the decision the first time in recent history when the Department of Justice has begun to say no, we're not doing what you say.
That was before Judge James Bosberg remember this on March 15th of last year.
when the Department of Justice began to tell Judge Bosberg, we're not doing what you're saying, we're not going to give you the information, or at least we're not going to follow your directives, when it comes to the status of those nearly 250 people who were flown out of this country in that weekend, in mid-March of 2025, taken to El Salvador, that high security prison, for the most part, with the exception of one of them, never to return to this country,
All of that without due process.
Judge Bosberg saying, stop it.
Bring those planes back.
Bring those detainees.
Bring those immigrants back here.
Never done by the Department of Justice.
And misrepresentations made to Judge Bosberg at that time.
And in the many months that have followed that the judge has identified as being circuitous, that diplomatically stated as being wrong.
as being attempts to hide the truth and prompting him to go down the road of contempt proceedings with respect to your department of justice and the people responsible for administering the laws of this country.
Well, there's more.
This time coming out of a district court in Minnesota, and another one coming out of a district court in New Jersey just this past week, again, joining the many, many cases, the many, many pieces of litigation.
in the federal district courts around this country in which the judges express wild concern and dismay and disapproval, identifying situations where the Department of Justice is not answering questions and not following what district court judges have said, reaching a very high level just this past week when a federal judge, his name is Jeffrey Bryan, B-R-Y-A-N, he is in the district court in...
Minnesota that's located in Minneapolis.
There's one just one district in Minnesota.
That is the district of Minnesota Judge Brian clashing with Minnesota's US attorney.
This doesn't happen very often at a contempt hearing in a series of what the judge himself identified as a testy and frosty exchange after the judge accused the federal government of violating multiple several serial court orders
to do what?
To return court property to immigrants who had been unlawfully detained.
How does this happen?
What happens is that the judge had previously indicated, along with other judges, as we know, in the District of Minnesota, saying that the rights of some 28 people, 28 people here in America, had been repeatedly violated because of the governments, the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security,
failing to return personal property taken from the immigrants who were illegally detained during this operation metro or midway surge in Minnesota.
And as a result of that, the detainees are ordered released and the judges say in particular, Brian says, returned their property to them.
That's what prompts the contentious hearing of just early this past.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus, a law review on the broadcast stations of civic media.
It's always taking your questions, your inquiries, your observations, that phone number, text in, call in at 855-752-4842.
We are now reporting on reviewing what happened in a fiery contest in another federal district court just this past week, this one in the city of Minneapolis in the district of Minnesota, an encounter between US District Judge Jeffrey Bryan,
And the United States Attorney there, his name is Daniel Rosen.
He is the Chief Federal Law Enforcement Officer for the District of Minnesota.
And this past week, the judge calling him in.
Looking for an explanation about why it is the government has still, still not followed the directives of his and of other judges directing that personal property that was previously taken from immigrants improperly detained, now released, but they still don't have their property back.
And in this test of hearing in which the United States attorney himself
appears along with an ICE representative and one of his the chiefs of the criminal division there engages with the district court judge on what happened here and what did not happen.
Brian's starting the hearing by calling it an extraordinary measure and saying it would be an historic low point.
For the U.S.
Attorney's Office, if he, the judge, held anyone in contempt signaling, he's serious.
He's not happy with all this.
Later, during the break, the judge acknowledged that he and Rosen had been a little testy and frosty with each other back and forth.
Bryant did not immediately rule on whether Rosen and others should be held in contempt and did not give a timeline for his decision.
Things were a bit calmer later on in the hearing when Rosen, the U.S.
attorney, saying there was no defiance, judge.
There was no disobedience.
He said compensation would be paid in cases where immigrants' property was lost and problems the U.S.
attorney assured would fall into the realm of human error.
the government believes the property was returned in other cases he said everything will be taken care of the belongings include identification immigration documents passports drivers licenses work permits and cash cell phones clothing jewelry the u.s.
attorney saying the government believes contempt is far beyond anything that ought to be considered here
And of course, that will be up to the judge to decide whether or not all of that action, even as those items of property are returned to people who are already improperly unconstitutionally detained by your government, whether that supports a contempt citation.
by the judge, lots of federal judges around the country.
Considering doing that, it's an extraordinary remedy, nonetheless one in which the federal district courts do have power.
They have authority as a part of their administration of these cases.
The action, of course, will go on.
In the federal immigration case, the judges had previously ordered the release of all of those immigrants
all of whom again had been unlawfully detained and ordered their immediate return of their belongings.
And that's the key.
During the course of all of this, the judge plainly working and living and breathing and quizzing the U.S.
attorney in the wake of what's going on in Minnesota, more than 1,000, 1,000 habeas corpus petitions, challenging the legality of those arrests made in Minnesota,
calling for the release of immigrants.
That is still going on in the federal district court there.
The volume of petitions, as we have reported on this very broadcast, overwhelming the court system, prompting some representatives of the Department of Justice to be overtly, not just concerned, but exasperated to the point that one of them, as you may recall, said, find me in contempt, judge, so I can get some sleep.
And of course, Patrick Schultz, who is the chief judge, identifying quite literally 96 different court orders in that district alone in which the government and ICE has violated the specific directives since January 1 of this year.
It is a major problem.
And aside from the specific remedies that may come from this fight,
between the u.s attorney and the judges there the fact of the matter is it is yet another illustration of the continuing contempt even though it may not be found technically judicially of this department of justice for what the federal district judges are ordering we continue to be in a constitutional crisis as long as that continues and indeed it's that same constitutional crisis that
grabs the attention of yet another federal district court judge this one across the country not in minnesota but in the district of new jersey new jersey also its own federal district the district judge here is michael farby ours
F-A-R-B-I-A-R-Z, Michael Farby-R's, and he is also now requiring immigration officials who appear in cases before him to formally declare in writing, publicly, officially, that they are aware of, that they know about the court orders that bar immigrants and migrants from being transferred out of the state.
There's a problem there, he says, the judge says, in that state, after the government is repeatedly told to keep immigrants
from being transferred out of the state while their cases are pending.
The Department of Justice, the Department
of Homeland Security continues to do it, once again, getting the ire of the, and the disapproval of the district courts there.
Judge Farbeyar is introducing this new process as an order just on Monday, second
time in a week that the U.S.
District Court judges in New Jersey have suggested that federal district, federal officials of the Department of Justice are intentionally
purposely violating the law and proposing some new checks aimed at preventing more violations, Mrs. Farbyar's warning that he might move to hold the Immigration Customs Enforcement Agency or its leaders in, let's all say it together, criminal contempt.
If they continue to sidestep his orders, he writes, local ICE leaders must square up to the serious problems in their midst of non-compliance for judicial orders, and they must get the problem solved.
a repeating mantra of all of these judges in many courts across America, a sportsman for the Department of Homeland Security not
responding to comment.
When we come back, we'll talk about other judges, in particular state court judge, also in the rule of law news this past week 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.
Thank you for spending some portion of your weekend hours in exploration with me of some of these major news stories, lots of them having to do with decisions of judges who are unhappy, unhappy, displeased with the conduct of our federal government, including one judge in New Jersey, another one in Minnesota just this past week, threatening contempt.
threatening to issue citations of contempt against members of our federal government officials in the Department of Justice, officials in Homeland Security who are not according to the judges following what the judges have directed to do.
Here's an interesting wrinkle.
This one coming out of a state court judge's courtroom.
His name is Gerald Leibovitz, L-E-B-O-V-I-T-Z, I'd ask rather, and he is in the New York state.
And this particular matter, his particular focus, has to do with the conduct of the officials, the presiding leadership of Columbia University.
Remember way back in the spring of 2024 when protesters, pro-Palestinian protesters and demonstrators took over Hamilton Hall.
Remember the views of that, a campus classroom building and renaming it.
On the next day, a phalanx of New York police came in and ended their occupation.
After a long disciplinary process and under pressure from the Trump administration, Columbia University issued some very serious punishments as to about 20, actually 22 current and former students who had been involved in the occupation.
And those sanctions, including everything from expulsions to suspensions and the revocation of their degrees.
Now, now upon his review, challenges in the state court, Gerald Liebowitz, the state court judge, who is reviewing the particular claims of those students, saying that those punishments must be vacated.
And that means at least some of those students will be able to return to campus.
Judge Gerald Liebowitz, ruling on Friday, the manor in which Columbia had issued these punishments, these sanctions was, as he said,
arbitrary and capricious and violated university rules and state law.
He issues a 46-page ruling and says that the sanctions imposed by Columbia University cannot stand.
And of course, he does all this in the midst and following his own description of what happened there.
You may recall about 100 people were arrested during that police sweep of the campus.
on April 30th of 2024, 44 were arrested in Hamilton Hall.
And of course, then the sanctions followed.
The police charged those arrested inside the building with misdemeanor trespass in 2024 in June, not too long after Manhattan DA's office dismissed those charges in part.
because of a lack of evidence in part on the understanding that Columbia would bring its own disciplinary proceedings.
And those records, those official police records were then used to pursue the sanctions, the academic sanctions by Columbia.
And that was one of the major problems identified by Judge Liebavitz in ruling as he did.
Despite the seal, when Columbia
brought its disciplinary charges against these 20 or so current and former students.
The sole evidence it used was the sealed police investigative information.
Judge Liebavitz finds that and he says that the use of this material violated state law and improper use of the law enforcement information.
In addition to that, the judge also says that Columbia offered no evidence of actions that any individual student had taken inside the hall, as opposed to the actions of a larger group.
the group of occupiers as a whole.
And that, the judge says, broke Columbia's rules, which require that individuals be charged for their own specific particular individual actions, not the actions of the group.
The judge basically vacating those decisions, those disciplinary decisions by the Columbia University officials.
Columbia's team now saying that they will be reviewing this and determining what their next steps are.
A major setback obviously for Columbia and arguably for the Trump administration, again, which had advocated not only for the charging of these individuals, but also then the serious punishments that Columbia had imposed upon those students in the wake of Hamilton Hall's occupation.
Fascinating.
interplay between, once again, academics and the law and justice, local law enforcement, and our general sense about how law enforcement should be operating in America.
That coming out of a state court judge in New York who is telling Columbia, can't do what you have just done.
Let's go inside the Department of Justice, once again, as we often do, to talk more about the kinds of things that Pambadi is authoring.
the kinds of things that she is directing with respect to the conduct of your United States Department of Justice.
We have talked a lot about this in the past.
Let's begin by some of the things that the Department of Justice is encountering with respect to what state bar associations are doing out there in the states.
You know that every lawyer, including me,
in order to practice here in the state of Wisconsin, I have to be licensed by the state bar.
And that means I have to be a lawyer in good standing to go into the state and federal courts in this state.
The lawyers who are representing you through the Department of Justice and the federal district courts, wherever they are, also have to be licensed somewhere.
It has been the practice in the past.
You don't necessarily have to be licensed, for example, in New York to be in the federal district court in New York.
You do have to be licensed to appear in the state courts, of course, but you have to be licensed somewhere.
And so what is happening, of course, is as these lawyers are appearing in these federal courts and variously lying or dissembling or not providing information, not doing what federal judges are telling them to do, finding themselves running a foul of the...
orders of the judges finding themselves in harm's way finding themselves confronting these contempt possibilities what is happening of course is that state bars around the country who license those attorneys are beginning to get referrals and are beginning to review the conduct of those lawyers with respect to their appearances in those federal courts the things they say the things they do the representations they made
And state bars have an independent authority.
That's a very important notion.
They are not bodies of the federal government.
They are, in fact, state bar institutions that have independent authority as to the licensing of the attorneys to whom they have given this special privilege of practicing law.
So what has happened just this past week to interesting wrinkles on that basic concept?
First, we know.
that the Attorney General has announced that she is seeking to intervene in those state bar associations disciplinary proceedings against its Department of Justice lawyers, obviously reflecting this growing fear, this growing concern among Department of Justice officials, that attorneys who are doing the bidding of Donald Trump and the administration, which should not be their focus, their mission is to do justice on behalf of you,
and all Americans to serve the Constitution to take an oath to that Constitution to do the rule of law instead of doing the bidding of the administration.
As they are doing that, the growing concern is that they are being punished by those legal ethics organizations and may in fact lose their ability to practice law.
both in the particular state of licensing and also yes indeed on behalf of the Department of Justice.
The department in a notice posted online in the federal register this past week said it wanted priority in investigating any allegations of wrongdoing by its own lawyers.
Plainly that meant in an effort to rein in the power of these state licensing bar authorities to investigate or discipline its own lawyers.
In other words, we're going to go first.
The department, of course, as I indicated, does not have control over state bar disciplinary authorities.
And the proposal envisions merely requesting that a state bar association, according to this federal register notice, suspend any parallel investigations
until the completion of the department's review.
Now again, bar associations can do what they want.
They may decide to defer to this, but they don't have to.
And the notion that the Department of Justice is basically seeking to intervene to stop or at least to stall state bar discipline of its lawyers is chilling.
and it should be concerning to every American, regardless of political persuasion.
You want to ensure that the attorneys who appear, they should be appearing without partisan perspective, without any sort of political purpose.
Each and every one of them should be advancing the rule of law, supporting what the law requires, supporting, yes, the Department of Justice in its administration of its
rule of law capacities, but not doing that in a way that is intended to again erase the line between the White House and the Department of Justice.
That, of course, has been all but erased during the course of the last 12 to 14 months.
The Attorney General announcing that the Department of Justice is going to try to hold back on these state law inquiries and investigations and maybe proceedings against federal
attorneys who may find themselves now the subject of disciplinary proceedings out there before state bars.
We'll see how that plays out.
But it is a significant development at a time when the Department of Justice not only is wildly understaffed as good attorneys leave the department, experienced attorneys depart because they can no longer sacrifice and do not want to sacrifice their
bar licenses on the altar of
positions and advocate for things
they know are wrong.
Rather than doing that, they're leaving.
The question is, for those who may stay, for those who may have left, have they already violated the rules
that are imposed upon them by the states that license their very capacity to practice law?
Arranged this past week by the Department of Justice in the federal register and in that connection.
Let's return to Lindsay Heligan, a specific illustration of what the Department of Justice is in fact wrestling with now.
You will call well.
All of you will call well Lindsay Heligan.
She was the temporary interim United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.
You will call well that the previous U.S.
Attorney there also appointed
by this administration was dismissed when Donald Trump heard the news that that administration, that U.S.
attorney was refusing, refusing to go before the grand jury and seek the indictments of two of the president's foes, their names, Letitia James and James Comey.
And when that previous U.S.
attorney was dismissed, a new U.S.
attorney was identified and named by the president to serve in that capacity, her name again, Lindsay Halligan.
That, of course, led to a huge amount of litigation.
But whether or not she had the authority to take that role on after the previous U.S.
attorney had basically expended all the time for these interim appointments.
And in the end, a federal district court judge, as we reported, as we discussed on this very broadcast, found that Lindsay Halligan's tenure, her appointment there by this president, supported by this attorney general, was illegal.
and had to be undone.
Now, interestingly, Lindsay Halligan did not leave right away, causing even more consternation inside the Eastern District of Virginia.
But who has authority to do what?
Who has authority to present cases before a grand jury to sign off on documents, criminal and civil?
And in the end, she did leave.
But that was not before she did the single thing that is now back in the news.
You recall well that when she went into the grand jury, virtually alone,
Without any experience, she misrepresented to the grand jury some fundamental things about criminal justice.
Among other things she suggested, more than suggested, that the defendants did not have a Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination.
That has gotten her into a good deal of trouble with the Florida Bar.
And when we come back, I'll tell you exactly how Lindsay Halligan and why she is now under investigation, the Florida Bar, for things she did as the United States Attorney in eastern Virginia.
That, as Amicus continues after this break.
This is Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Centel.
The final segment of our two-hour program this weekend, thank you so much for being a part of our exploration, our discovery of these major rule of law issues.
We appreciate especially the comments, the questions of our listeners, including Mark, who wrote in during the break about his frustration with ICE agents who are taking property, not returning it to migrants, even after federal district court judges, including the federal district court judge,
in Minnesota orders the return of that property.
Mark, we appreciate your comment, your observation about the obligation of federal law enforcement.
Yes, indeed, to abide by what federal district court judges tell them to do, a part of our continuing constitutional crisis.
Mark, appreciate that comment into our broadcast, spending these last moments talking about the consequences of not following the rule of law and enhancing, if you will,
the constitutional crisis, reporting that Lindsay Halligan, the former U.S.
attorney short-lived in the Eastern District of Virginia, before she leaves that post, she tries successfully to get indictments against James Comey and the Leticia James, and during the course of those proceedings, improperly, illegally, unlawfully, tells the grand jury about the law in a way that is inaccurate and misleading, including...
that there is no Fifth Amendment right to self-incrimination suggesting that the government can compel...
the defendants in a case to testify, suggesting there's a whole lot more information about the criminal conduct of the proposed defendants.
We're not even presenting to you today, but that'll come later.
Those comments and presumably other comments that she made in that official proceeding that in part resulted in the indictments of people in America.
Now the subject of an investigation by the Florida Bar Association, according to a letter that was sent to some folks who've complained.
about the conduct of Lindsay Halligan Lindsay Halligan presumably the most famous among the US Attorney candidates so US Attorney incumbents rather who have found themselves in trouble because of things they have done things they have said presumably
other assistant U.S.
attorneys and other department lawyers representing you in the courts of America, also facing disciplinary proceedings because of the things that they have done, the things that they have said, even in the midst of advocacy, what's the rule here?
You can be and should be a strong advocate on behalf of the government.
You should be able to rally all of the information
the known information upon which you can rely upon which judges can rely we've talked about that that presumption of normalcy the rule of regularity and in the wake of the erasure the erasing of much of that now we see that agents and officers and attorneys of our government being held accountable for the things that they do
out there in violation of the law.
Penn Bondi was also busy this past week rescinding a policy banning politically appointed Department of Justice employees from attending partisan events.
The decision by the Attorney General rescinding this policy again, telling political appointees, including people like U.S.
attorneys, assistant attorneys general, many other political appointees of the Department of Justice
Previously prohibited from attending even campaign events, fundraisers, the move restricting the rescinding the previous restrictions that were previously implemented by other attorneys general, including Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Federal employees, of course, generally still subject to restraint under the Hatch Act.
That's the law that aims to keep the government free from partisan influence.
But Pambadi this past week was sending a policy that said political appointees across the board cannot engage in partisan events, can't appear, cannot do other things to engage in those that no longer the rule inside the Department of Justice.
Another rule that falls in the wake of the complete politicization of this Department of Justice.
prompting once again an awful lot of criticism, including mine, about the breaking down of the wall between the White House and the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, consistent with what she has done this past week in rescinding that prior
good policy, basically saying that the Department of Justice is the entity, the agency that serves as the president's lawyers.
That is not the case.
That is not the constitutional design.
And she is wrong to do that and wrong to continue to advance that position.
in a substantive area that the Department of Justice also perhaps creaking around the edges as well as it announces and then rescins an announcement about something in court suggesting that maybe there's confusion inside the Department of Justice because of the numbers of people who have left the quality of those people, the experienced strain that has been experienced by the Department of Justice recently, the Trump administration.
earlier this week announced, and it was going to abandon these efforts to try to bring various law firms, remember this, into compliance, including law firms like Perkins Coey and Wilmer Hale, Jenner and Block and Sussman Godfrey, all of that, all of that, all of those particular law firms fighting, fighting against the Department of Justice.
going into court and saying the attempts by this Department of Justice, by the administration to bring them into line when it comes to various policies and the representation of clients, all those four law firms go into federal court and they get federal judges to say yes, the president cannot in fact impose these kinds of restrictions on private law firms.
There are many others that succumb to that pressure and followed what the White House has done.
Well, this past week, initially, the Department of Justice said it's going to abandon any of these efforts, even as to those four and others who are striking out against this administration.
We're going to abandon that effort completely.
The Trump administration early on saying that these executive orders will no longer be enforced only a day later.
Only a day later to announce to the appeals court that it's going back to enforce them.
What's going on inside the U.S.
Department of
Justice?
A flip-flop just this past week.
Next weekend, we're going to be talking more about the state of law in America, including
the constitutional crisis that is now one year old.
Have a good weekend, everybody.
The national news cycle never stops, but it can be hard to find news about your local community.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.
