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.
I am your host for this broadcast, this hour and also next hour, this weekend, on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
Delighted and honored that you have chosen to spend some portion of your weekend in exploration with me.
of the major news events and understanding those news events in the areas of rule of law, administration of justice, and operation of government.
Here on Amicus, a lot of you, our goal, our mission, our purpose is to report on many
not all of the salient and important news stories of the week in those areas, but to provide some context, some background, some information that may not be in the public domain to help you understand as a friend of the community.
That's where the word amicus, a me, the Latin for that comes from.
As a friend of the community, this broadcast intended to provide you with that basic
introduction to exposition of discussion of those things and animate the major stories in those areas every week.
This week is no exception when it comes to our ambitious but achievable agenda and I will get to that in just one moment after I invite you as I always do to be a part of our broadcast this weekend.
You can call in and speak to Max, my producer and me.
That phone number is 855-
752-4842 one more time that's 855-752-4842 Max always reminds me that you can similarly drop your comments your questions your inquiries those things that prompt you to scratch your head about the news stories of the week you can drop those into our chat box and be a part of our exposition
Our exploration of these major news stories, this broadcast and always delighted and honored once again to have you participating in our radio broadcast here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
our agenda our syllabus this week's falls falls into four major buckets if you will we're going to be spending a lot of time talking about subpoenas again we'll tell you what that means where grand jury subpoenas come from and why it is they are interrelated with and frankly even foundational to
Virtually all Department of Justice investigations will be talking about some major investigations of, yes, once again, the president's adversaries, their names Jerome Powell, Natisha James, and James Brennan, will talk about the interface, the interconnection between investigations initiated as to those three, and grand jury subpoenas, much in the news, as federal judges and others inside the Department of Justice,
outside the Department of Justice have wrestled with the concept of subpoenas.
Whether subpoenas should issue or not, we'll talk a lot about that.
We're also going to begin this entire process by heading back to an account of a judge named James Bosberg.
James Bosberg, who was the one who, one year ago this weekend, a federal district court judge in the District of Columbia at the time, the chief judge of the district court, was the one who presided over a matter that effectively initiated the constitutional crisis in which we have been
up to this point.
We'll talk about what a constitutional crisis is.
We'll talk about what happened one year ago this weekend when we were on the air reporting on this story.
Yes, you recall it well.
It's that case involving hundreds of deportees sent without due process to that high security prison in El Salvador.
The subject of James Bosberg's
orders and directives at that time to turn the planes around.
And ever since that time, over a period of 12 months, James Bosberg continuing to wrestle with the Department of Justice inside this constitutional crisis.
Why?
Because your government, your Department of Justice has continued to dissemble and lie to him and tell him things that are not true or simply
disobey his orders.
That's the basic constitution, if you will, of a constitutional crisis.
We'll get back to that history.
And also the reason why one year later, after James Boseberg's orders effectively brought us into the constitutional crisis, identifying the non-compliance, the disregard of the Department of Justice with respect to his orders.
We'll talk about why he's back in the news this week.
One year later, this time, this time dealing with another issue that is having to do with the authoritarian regime in which we have been in since September 25th of last year.
We'll talk about the interface between James Bosberg's order of justice past week and authoritarianism.
Again, James Bosberg at the tip of the spear, if you will, in this fight with respect to the future of our nation,
Constitutional Crisis Authoritarian Regime will chat about all of that, including these issues related to subpoenas intertwined with all of that.
And yes, indeed, it's a lot.
We're going to also talk about United States attorneys.
I'm going to tell you a little bit about my history as an interim United States attorney, an appointment by an attorney general, and then appointment by federal judges, and then confirmation upon nomination by a president
Senate confirmation.
We'll talk about the process that has befuddled, apparently, this administration, trying to get it right with at least four, if not five, different United States attorneys and judges determining that these particular United States attorneys, because they have overstayed their presidential appointment terms, can no longer serve.
You recall, we have talked about this a lot in connection with Lindsay Halligan.
She was the now former U.S.
Attorney appointed by the president, supported by the Attorney General in eastern Virginia.
And when her time period came and it finished, she was directed to leave.
There was a finding by a federal district court judge that she no longer had the authority to stay there.
We'll talk more about that because the issue has come up again in a number of different areas, including, including New Jersey and West Virginia.
a Western District of Virginia, that is, and also right here in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, where, for once, the administration has gotten it right with respect to the soon departure of a presidentially appointed attorney general-supported U.S.
attorney there.
We'll talk about all of that.
U.S.
attorneys, where do they come from?
How do they get nominated?
What is this sort of complicated process?
by which they can be appointed for a term of days, must ultimately be appointed, if at all, by federal judges, and ultimately, ultimately, through the Constitution, upon a nomination by the President and confirmation
by the United States Senate.
Once again, it is a lot.
We're gonna talk about the process that in the end is not all that complicated.
This administration, again, getting it wrong in so many ways, causing not only more headlines about the status and the non-status of United States attorneys, 92 different United States attorneys nationwide will talk all about that.
We're also going to chat about a couple of new proposals, some new theories.
being floated by the Trump administration, by the Bondi Department of Justice.
We chatted about one of these last week.
That is a new rule being proposed by the Attorney General, advanced by her to try to strip local bar associations, state bar associations from oversight when attorneys misbehave.
We'll talk about the rule on ethics issues that the Department of Justice
is advancing in an attempt to steal from legitimate bar associations throughout the country the authority to oversee the conduct of lawyers and will introduce to you something called the McDade amendment and why it is that the McDade amendment which is a part of our national law is now being the subject of more discussion being run afoul of by this rule proposed by
the Attorney General.
And then we're going to talk about something called friendly adversaries.
Sounds curious, does it not?
Friendly adversaries, almost an oxymoron.
And yet it's another theory, it's another approach being pursued by your Department of Justice with the authorization of the Attorney General, with the approval of the President, to accomplish very quick and easy and often unseen changes, reversals in state law.
that have impacts upon the populations of states around the country and arguably impacts upon national laws as well.
Friendly adversaries, a new approach being taken by this Department of Justice to try to accomplish without the necessary legislative involvement that we'd otherwise anticipate
when it comes to changing the law.
We know that's the case under state constitutions, under federal constitutions.
It's typically Article 1, certainly in the federal constitution, in most state constitutions that prescribes to the legislative branch decisions about passing, and yes, indeed rescinding, overturning laws.
We'll talk about how the Trump administration is playing around with a new system, federally adversaries, that gets around that.
and removes from you and your legislative representatives the capacity to be involved in legislative changes.
If it sounds troubling, it should because it is.
And finally, we're going to return to the United States Supreme Court as we always did.
No oral arguments this past week, although again, some coming up soon.
We'll talk about those in future broadcasts.
But we do have to talk about a major debate, if you will, debate used lightly.
between Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Katanji Brown Jackson that took place this past week, mostly in agreement, but talking a lot about, once again, the so-called emergency application or shadow docket.
Some differing views about that articulated by these two sitting associate justices, much along the lines of which we have identified here on this broadcast.
We're going to talk also about a recent application
under that process, the emergency application process, advanced by the Solicitor General, his name is John Sauer, as you know, an attempt to end a parole protections, basically asylum protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitians in this country.
We'll talk about that application for emergency review by the United States Supreme Court.
And then as if that's not enough,
We're going to review the latest poll on what all this has done to the reputation of the United States Supreme Court here in the early months of 2026.
A major year, of course, in American history as we begin to observe the 250th anniversary, about 238 years under our Constitution, the Supreme Court now finding itself in terms of polling reputation among the American population at a low level.
that it has not seen, it has not witnessed in about a quarter of a century.
We'll tell you all about that and offer some reasons why that is.
I suspect you can offer them yourselves.
But let us begin.
Let us begin our broadcast again, reminding you not only that you can be a part of our discussion by calling in at 855-752-4842.
but by commenting on and questioning and posing inquiries about any of these issues as a part of the commitment that we have here on Amicus provides you with insight and education and affording you those opportunities.
to be educated and to expand your own views so that you can make decisions on the legitimacy, the illegitimacy, the rightness, the wrongness of judicial decisions, legislative actions, executive actions, all of that, all of that, the subject of our syllabus, our work here on Amicus a Lot Review, which continues right 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.
A lot of you on the broadcast stations of Civic Media once again inviting your participation in the broadcast being produced by my excellent producer Max.
We're coming to you from the radio station of Civic Media located in Racine.
We are going to begin as indicated before with a little bit about James Bosberg.
He is probably the Federal District Court Judge.
We've talked about more than
any other federal district court judge in the past year or so because he has been so much in the news there are others out there recall well Paula Zinnis for example in the district of Maryland she has been presiding over continues to preside over matters involving Kilmar, Abrego, Garcia you recall other judges like Sarah Ellis in Chicago trying to wrestle with
law enforcement federal law enforcement on the streets of that city recall a judge named maim frimpog trying very desperately also to establish rules and regulations for the conduct of federal law enforcement in los angeles many other judges in portland in other places around the nation james bosberg at the top of the list why it was
a year ago, quite literally this weekend that James Bosberg had before him, an emergency application to the district court to stop your federal government from deporting by placing on planes without due process somewhere between 230 and 250 folks who were then shipped off to that high security prison in El Salvador, where most of them
remain to this day.
Many of them further transported to other nations.
Kilmer, Abrego Garcia, as you know, also then brought back to this country.
He is the subject of, again, the presiding, the proceedings presided over by District Court Judge Paula Zinnis in Maryland.
James Bosberg, however, at the time directing the United States government to turn those
Plains around to bring those 200 300 deportees back to the United States of America receiving the response of the Department of Justice that the answer is no Maybe being lied to along the way perhaps being Misrepresented to about what's going on there certainly the subject because of that of a lot of Contempt proceedings which have been going on in front of him for months Let's talk before we get back to all of that
about James Bosberg and who he is and why he has become such an important player in American jurisprudential history James E. Bosberg who was born in 1963 he was appointed in 2011 by President Barack Obama unanimously unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate that doesn't happen a whole lot more these days
Interestingly, getting support across the aisle, he was previously appointed and served as a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia 2002 to 2011, right before he became a federal district court judge.
He was appointed to that position by whom?
By George W. Bush.
What is the Superior Court?
The Superior Court is basically the local state court, if you will, of the District of Columbia.
Interestingly, in the structure there, it is the Department of Justice that staffs those courts with assistant United States attorneys.
They take care of what would be in any other state, other territories, the so-called state crimes like murder.
and bank robbery and assault, those kinds of things that, again, in other areas, in other states, would be handled by district attorneys in circuit courts or state courts.
That's the superior court in the District of Columbia.
You know as well that during the course of his tenure, he has, as I indicated, been the subject in the past year of an awful lot of attention because of his criticism
of this administration, not only with respect to those people who were deported to El Salvador, but because of his continuing involvement in cases in which the power and the authority of this president have been at issue.
Along the way, along the way, he has been a part, he's actually been the presiding judge
of the united states for intelligence uh... surveillance court you probably know that as the faiza court this is one of those courts again that is appointed the members appointed by the chief justice of the supreme court to make decisions on matters not in the public domain having to do with the issuance of for example subpoenas and other orders to protect our national security actions not done in the public domain because of the sensitive nature of that work the faiza court
James Bosberg, again a former now, former member of that court at one time, the judge, the chief judge of that court as well.
You know as well that because of his activity, James Bosberg has been the focus of a lot of attacks by this administration, by this president, and by the
Department of Justice in itself, itself, when the judge blocked the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act for those deportations to El Salvador, it obviously attracted the attention of our president, as those things often do, and our president posted on social media that Bosberg was a quote,
radical left lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker and an agitator and called for his impeachment.
There have been moves, obviously, to impeach him as well that have not been successful, that one of those introduced by a representative named Brandon Gill.
He has been the subject of a misconduct complaint by the attorney general, alleging once again that he is engaged in misconduct, misbehavior when it came to public comments about President Trump and his administration.
in the context of a judicial conference of the United States of America, not in the public domain, the kinds of things that judges talk about all the time, the complaint from the Attorney General seeking a public reprimand of him, a referral to the judicial conference so that it could pursue further remedies for their punishment of him in the end, that also dismissed.
by the representatives of the chief judge of the circuit that's responsible for overseeing that dismissed complaint on December 19th of 2025, the public announcement of that dismissal.
in January of just this past year.
Lots of activities, lots of attention that he has drawn from this administration because of his attempts to enforce the law.
Well, what has this all been about and why is he back in the news once again?
Again, it is because of his statements, his directives, his orders to this administration that have for the most part not been followed, that he has then followed up with questions and hearings.
threatening to find various members, finding lawyers.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel and we are talking as we often do.
about our nation's status embedded inside the constitutional crisis began a year ago at this time in the courtroom of a judge named James Bosberg.
He's in the District of Columbia.
He's a trial judge there presiding over many cases including that now infamous case involving the due process less that is without due process deportation of a couple of hundred
of individuals from our nation to El Salvador.
And it was in that time and in the months following when James Bosberg asked questions, demanded answers from the Department of Justice, and was getting Stonewall lied to, dissembling to him, indicating that there is simply no response to him.
that we have entered into this constitutional crisis, which is the status when one branch of government, in this case, the executive branch, the Department of Justice, looks at another branch and says, no, we're not doing that.
We're simply saying, no, you can appeal decisions.
That's not a constitutional crisis.
You may have disagreements, as we often do.
Virtually every day in this nation.
That's what keeps us healthy and vibrant.
Those are not constitutional crisis because the remedies to those disagreements are through the process that continues.
But when one branch of government looks at another and says I'm not going to file the law, that could be the president looking at the legislature and saying no.
That can be, as in this case, the president looking at the judiciary and saying, no, that's when you have a constitutional crisis.
James Bosberg back in the news again this week in connection with another status in which we are in, and that is the authoritarian regime, the authoritarian state that we have been in.
I count it since September 25th.
That's the date.
That's the date on which this administration, through the Department of Justice, first sought
an indictment against one of the president's political enemies, adversaries, his name, James Comey, followed up by more indictments against individuals like Letitia James.
It is in that context that those kinds of indictments, you know well, those have been dismissed.
basically because the attorney, the U.S.
attorney responsible for those cases improperly appointed, we'll get back to that in a later segment of this broadcast.
But all of those, all of those representing authoritarianism, when an executive begins to pursue political foes and adversaries without facts, without a factual predicate, without a legal predicate, but simply to gain political advantage, suppress the actions,
of one's political foes, that's authoritarianism.
And that is also the status in which we are in.
James Bosberg now once again playing in that particular area as well just this past week.
When it comes to what?
When it comes to the Federal Reserve and the chair of the Federal Reserve, you know who that is, that's Jerome Powell.
Federal Judge James Boesberg this past week once again in the news throwing what can only be called a major roadblock into a criminal investigation Initiated again by the Department of Justice at the encouragement of this president's president of Jerome Powell What does the judge do the judge is quashing?
That's the legal word for stopping rejecting
saying you can't go forward with this, quashing grand jury subpoenas that were issued to the central bank, that is the Federal Reserve, by federal prosecutors, those are your federal prosecutors in the U.S.
Department of Justice, over what some testimony that the Chair, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, gave to the Congress
about some renovations underway at the headquarters of the Federal Reserve right there off of the mall in Washington, D.C.
Again, that's a lot.
It's a lot.
But the focus of this is just this.
James Bosberg, this past week, issuing a 27-page decision.
It is caustic.
It is blistering.
criticizes the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Washington and that Washington U.S.
Attorney's Office that's led by Janine Pirro as you well know former Fox News host for pursuing a case pursuing an investigation against Powell when it appeared according to the judge James Bosberg that the only reason to do so the only predicate the only basis for pursuing this was because the president asked you to do so to seek vengeance to seek some sort of
action against Jerome Powell because he perceives Jerome Powell as someone who doesn't do his bidding.
We know well that it is because the Federal Reserve is an independent agency that Jerome Powell is not obliged to take orders from the president.
That issue now pending before the Supreme Court, a lot of interconnectedness to all of these stories, but the Federal Reserve remains, remains an independent authority.
causing the president to say, let's investigate its chair.
Let's investigate him for something that he said about these renovations to the Congress and see if he committed perjury.
You may recall that when this announcement was made about the investigation of Jerome Powell, Jerome Powell took the extraordinary step of going public and was very clear about his statement, not only about his own independence, but that he had done nothing wrong.
And
Of course, all of this comes from Jerome Powell's and the others there on the Federal Reserve, failing to follow exactly what the President wants to do when it comes to lowering borrowing costs and race, doing things that the President feels would be in the best economic interest of the country.
The Federal Reserve has said no.
And as a result of that, Jerome Powell finds himself not yet, not yet at the receiving end of a grand jury indictment, but grand jury subpoenas issued in the context of this investigation, presumably to get information about the renovations, about the statements, that are part of this investigation.
And it is that that leads to this blistering 27 page decision by the judge,
That is, again, that's James Bosberg, who says this about these subpoenas that are not going forward, because the judge identifies the illegitimate nature of them.
He says this, there is abundant evidence that the subpoenas dominant, if not sole purpose, is to harass and pressure Powell, either to yield to the president or to resign and make way for a Fed chair who will.
He continued on the other side of the scale, the government, meaning the Department of Justice and Pam Bondi and U.S.
Attorney Piro has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the president.
And as a result...
The extraordinary thing happens this past week.
A federal district court judge has said, you cannot go ahead with those grand jury subpoenas.
Let's talk a little bit about the process on that.
Yes, indeed.
This is a mechanism available to US attorneys, available to the Department of Justice, going to the grand jury and using that device.
to issue documents, they're called subpoenas, directing the production of documents.
It can also be for the production of testimony.
In this case, for the production of documents relevant to this investigation, the judge takes a look at this in response plainly to the complaint raised by the Federal Reserve and by Jerome Powell and says, what's the basis for this?
What is the basis of the investigation that you have ongoing before the grand jury?
U.S.
Attorney Pirol.
What is the basis of the prosecution intended, perhaps forecast by this investigation out of the Justice Department?
And he finds none.
And therefore he says you cannot proceed with these grand jury subpoenas.
That's an extraordinary remedy.
And Judge Bosberg, again, back in the news this past week,
Why?
Because now, now, in addition to continuing to affirm this notion that we are in a constitutional crisis, also once again underscores the authoritarian nature of this administration, seeking to pursue without facts, that's his finding.
Seeking to pursue without the law, that's his finding.
An investigation that has no close to use the emperor's reference there.
James Bosberg this past week determining that the Department of Justice is without basis to pursue this investigation, not to say the investigation cannot continue, but plainly stymied dramatically by the fact that these grand jury subpoenas will not be issued, and the Federal Reserve has no obligation now to provide the information sought, presumably pushing back dramatically on the strength
and the power of this investigation.
That happening just this past week.
Again, as an aside, as I just mentioned, the Federal Reserve also the subject of focus by the United States Supreme Court.
It's got that case involving the President's attempt to fire Lisa Cook.
You recall that she is one of the members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.
He wants to fire her also because he doesn't like the decisions that she has made.
that case, whether the president has the authority to terminate, that's also pending before the Supreme Court.
It looks as if the Supreme Court will not give the president that authority.
And we know as well that the term of Jerome Powell is coming to an end in the near future.
He'll remain on the Federal Reserve Board itself, but the president's recently named a new chair who will have to receive the confirmation of the Senate
going forward a lot going on with respect to the Federal Reserve.
The significant action here is that the Federal District Court Judge, James Bosberg, says this in conclusion.
He says, in sum, the President spent years essentially asking if no one will rid him of this troublesome Fed chair.
That's a reference, of course, to Henry II.
You may recall that well.
who reportedly said in history, will no one rid me of this turbulent or troublesome priest?
He was plenty talking about Thomas Beckett and there were some members of the King's group then at that time who went off some of his soldiers and killed Thomas Beckett.
After Beckett said, will no one rid me of this turbulent or troublesome priest who had been making decisions about the conduct of the church in England?
under the reign of Henry II, Thomas Beckett gets killed when the king says, rid me of this troublesome priest.
The judge makes passing cryptic reference to this and saying the president essentially asks if no one will rid him of this troublesome fed share.
The judge then goes on to say he then suggested a specific line of investigation into him.
He being the president, him being the fed share.
which had been proposed by a political appointee with no role in law enforcement who hinted that it could be a way to remove Powell.
That's what a federal district court judge said about the conduct of the U.S.
Department of Justice, a U.S.
attorney by the Attorney General this past week, and that in words that are stunning, should be stunning to everyone, regardless of your political perspective, your partisan views about what's going on in America today.
a federal district court judge quashing subpoenas saying, no, can't go ahead, not when we've got no basis to do it, upholding the rule of law but along the way also underscoring with respect to this attempt to investigate and presumably one day to prosecute Jerome Powell based upon some unfounded perjury charge saying that that is also authoritarianism of the highest order.
That's why the judge invokes this reference again to British King.
and the death of Beckett.
When we talk more about all of this, it necessarily includes others who have been the focus and the subject of the president's ire, and that includes Patricia James.
She is back in the news this week, again with respect to a subpoena as to her in upstate New York, not in eastern Virginia, in upstate New York, and then James Brennan.
James Brennan is also back in the news with respect to some subpoenas that apparently are also going nowhere where in connection with an investigation of him, also presumably premised upon no viable information.
All of that and more as we continue here on Amicus, Allah Review.
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 the final segment of our first hour here on Amicus Allora View.
Thank you once again for spending some time with my producer Max and me.
As we talk about these major issues in the rule of law, we are talking right now about the continuing attempts by this president, by this attorney general to pursue individuals through the criminal investigative process of people for whom there is no factual predicate to pursue.
Nothing legally, nothing factually to support an investigation or prosecution, resulting in many instances in the quashing of subpoenas.
Federal judges telling the Department of Justice, there's no there, there, you can't go ahead with this.
That's the case with respect to James Bosberg saying to the Department of Justice, you can't proceed with these grand jury subpoenas with respect to this spurious, unfounded investigation of Jerome Powell.
But there's more.
Let's talk about Letitia James.
You know that she is the attorney general of the state of New York, a lot of focus on her.
She was one of those individuals who was actually indicted by this administration for allegations involving some sort of curious bank fraud, probably not supported by the facts either.
But ultimately her case dismissed by a federal judge who found that the US attorney there, her name is Lindsay Halligan, had no authority to bring the case in the first place.
There's a lot.
It is very convoluted.
But Letitia James, back in the news, why?
She has also been the subject of an investigation in upstate New York, in upstate New York.
And the investigation there has been pursued by an ex-Trump campaign lawyer, his name is John Sarcone, S-A-R-C-O-N-E, who also was briefly appointed as the U.S.
Attorney.
It turns out that he too.
He, too, was disqualified because of the nature of the appointment process, not using the proper procedure.
But while he was a U.S.
attorney, he issued some subpoenas with respect to an unrelated investigation of Letitia James that had to do with whether or not her civil cases that she has brought against the president, Donald Trump, in his private capacity, in his public capacity,
and also cases involving the National Rifle Association, whether those are legitimate, question whether it is appropriate even to initiate a criminal investigation, but that's what the focus of these Sarkoan grand jury subpoenas has been.
And even as he is a disqualified federal prosecutor,
Just this past week, we get a ruling from US District Judge Lorna Schofield, S-C-H-O-F-I-E-L-D, who says once again that the grand jury subpoenas that were previously ordered quashed, they're no good.
She has said this past week that I'm going to affirm that decision.
I support the decision to quash, to discredit, to disregard those subpoenas.
The district court judge Schofield says this, the federal government has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits or serious legal questions coupled with a balance of hardships, tipping decidedly in its favor.
In other words, government has not made a case.
Any harm from the investigation specific disqualification is abstract at best.
Whereas granting a stay would reinstate an official.
She's talking about the U S attorney who brought these.
This case, this investigation is pursuing these grand jury subpoenas would reinstate an official who acted without lawful authority, a clear injury to state government.
And there she's talking about Leticia James.
The public interest likewise favors ensuring that government power is exercised only by officials with lawful authority, each factor that she is examining, that is the judge, and determining whether to overturn the decision to quash the subpoenas
all of that all four standards taken together way against granting a state that's a long legal way of saying this judge once again says the grand jury subpoenas cannot proceed in part principally because of the illegitimacy of the person
who has been issuing them through the grand jury process.
Again, that coming out of the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Albany, lots of problems there with respect to the legitimacy of the U.S.
Attorney.
And now these subpoenas coming out of that office also quashed by a federal district court judge there.
And then we've got what's going on in South Florida.
CIA Director John Brennan, former CIA Director John Brennan, again, the subject of an investigation about whether or not, whether or not he gave to Congress in 2023 and in the Russia investigation years earlier, some information that he should not have given to them relates to his testimony, legitimacy of that.
And again, that's been the purported subject, as uncertain as that is, that has fueled an investigation.
In this case, coming out of the Miami U.S.
Attorney's Office,
The prosecutors have issued two rounds of investigative grand jury subpoenas, suggesting that at some point down the road, James Brennan might be indicted.
The first one, prosecutors gathered some documents late last year from Brennan and other former intelligence officials about this 2017 intelligence report on Russian meddling that Brennan had worked on.
and that's the focus of the congressional testimony that made reference to there's a second round of subpoenas uh... in january to several former government officials seeking years of documents including records once again on the two thousand sixteen russia investigation yes we're back to that again
And both of those, both of those have apparently produced virtually nothing.
And the story here is that while the subpoenas did issue, we've got prosecutors reportedly inside that office who are pushing back, resisting strongly, any pressure to pursue this further.
The investigation has come effectively to the conclusion that there's no there there.
And the career prosecutors are facing a new wave of pressure according to a lot of reporting.
from the department from the president and are struggling to delay bringing the case to a grand jury saying no there's no basis to do it we cannot ethically go down that road again another involvement of grand jury subpoenas here we've got prosecutors are saying no this once again a part of the great problem we have under an authoritarian government
pursuing the enemies and the foes of the president.
When we come back, we'll talk about United States attorneys, we'll talk about new Trump theories in the rule of law, and we'll talk about the Supreme Court, all of that in the second hour of Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Santel Welcome to the second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast and all things related to the rule of law the administration of justice the operation of government Honored and delighted once again that you've chosen to spend some of your weekend in Exploration with me and my producer max of all of these issues we spent the first hour talking once again about the constitutional crisis in which our nation has been in
for well over a year now, about a year or so ago when James Bosberg first was being told by the Department of Justice information was not true, being told we're not going to do that, Judge, simply lying to him, dissembling with respect to the orders that he was given.
And then also this recent development in which that same Judge, James Bosberg, has quashed the subpoenas issued by the U.S.
Attorney,
and by the Attorney General, the United States of America, with respect to this investigation of Jerome Powell, a very significant event.
And in underscoring as well, the other great crisis in which we are in, in this rule of law time, and that is the authoritarian nature of what the Department of Justice is doing, that is going after the President's political partisan foes.
Jerome Powell is one of them.
Leticia James is another one.
We've got a federal district court judge in Albany who said no, those subpoenas cannot go ahead either, principally because of the inadequacy of the appointment of the U.S.
Attorney who is spearheading that investigation.
Nonetheless, that investigation there with respect to what the Attorney General in the state of New York has been doing in her civil cases.
Again, it's a lot.
whether that's legitimate.
Again, the underlying predicate for all of these investigations, simply not there.
And then we've got the James Brennan investigation, South Florida, where we apparently have internal U.S.
attorney, assistant U.S.
attorneys and a U.S.
attorney decision making about whether to proceed with this case against him purportedly for
perjury for making some misrepresentations about his involvement in the 2016 investigation of Russia involvement in our election at that time.
Again, it's a lot.
And it appears that prosecutors in that office have said that after the issuance of a couple of rounds of grand jury subpoenas that have produced documents, there's no there there.
There's no basis upon which to pursue
cases against James Brennan, perhaps against others as well, and underscoring once again not only this faulty and doomed to failure attempt by this administration to go after political enemies, but the way in which the process is working to prevent this from happening, the strongholds, through federal district court judges, through prosecutors who are refusing to sacrifice their ethical licenses,
on the altar of inappropriate prosecutions and investigations.
This is the reason why in this time of crisis, constitutional crisis, authoritarian regime, we still do have safeguards and guard rails against the misconduct and the inappropriate behavior of our U.S.
Department of Justice.
Let's talk about United States attorneys in perhaps a much more benign way.
We know that the issues related to them have been in part about overreaching, but also about the legitimacy of their very appointments.
Let's go back and do a little bit of understanding, a little bit of exposition about where we get United States attorneys.
Again, under our system, along with United States Marshals are the two federal officers in every single one of the 92 federal districts throughout our nation and our territories, where you've got a top official
appointed effectively by the president of the United States of America.
People, for example, who are in charge of other institutions, civil agencies, criminal investigative agencies, they're also appointed, but not necessarily by the president of the United States of America at those levels.
U.S.
attorneys are, and United States marshals are, and how this system works under a constitution is,
that typically in every single state and every single area of our nation, the senators get together, the two senators, and they will conduct a review of applicable candidates, and they make a recommendation to the White House about who they think should be the next U.S.
attorney, and if that recommendation is approved by the White House, the nomination is made
Not the appointment yet.
The nomination is made to the United States Senate and the Senate then conducts hearings.
They conduct a review and determine whether or not that nomination by the president, typically proposed by a one or two of the sitting senators from the state in which the districts are located, whether that nomination should go forward.
And it's fairly routine for the judiciary committee there in the United States Senate to put its imprimatur on
the nominees of the Senate, it may not be unanimous, it may be write down party lines, but typically, typically those proceed.
Federal judges also go through that same process, a whole lot more consternation, a whole lot more objection and review of those, but that's the process, how it normally is pursued.
And yes, it typically does begin with the United States senators, although that's not in the Constitution, it's just because of the way in which presidents and White Houses has deferred typically.
to the recommendations of the senators from the state in which the districts are located.
That's how it normally works.
What happens when one of those
Presidentially appointed Senate confirmed U.S.
attorneys leaves before the end of the presidential term.
Well, the answer is that there are a couple of things can happen.
One is that, yes, indeed, a president can appoint for a limited period of time, 120 days.
How often have we heard that in recent weeks and months?
120-day term, president can appoint an interim U.S.
attorney, has all the powers, all the authorities of the United States attorney, but only a term of 120 days.
we spent a lot of time talking about Lindsay Halligan in the Eastern District of Virginia who brought those spurious cases against Letitia James and against James Comey and in the end a federal judge saying you've outstayed your welcome you are beyond 120 days and you must go and in the wake of that initially she did not go a lot of consternation there and still mess in that office.
about that history and the continuing leadership.
There's a 120-day period in which the President's appointment without Senate confirmation can stay in office, and that's the linchpin.
And the administration through the Department of Justice continues to get this wrong.
We talked already about the situation in Northern New York involving the U.S.
Attorney there.
who overstayed his 120-day term, and therefore, the subpoenas are no longer effective under his rule and his regime.
His name is John Sarcone.
There's more of that, and in particular, coming out of New Jersey.
Let's talk, let's talk about Alina Habba.
H-A-B-B-A, you know well that she has been appointed as Habba as the United States Attorney.
for the New Jersey District.
And she too, she too has suffered from appointment woes.
One of the problems in that situation is once again the 120 day term without Senate confirmation.
The trouble began.
when Ms.
Habba was installed by President as the inter-U.S.
Attorney in March of 2025, ruled by the court again to be unlawfully remaining in office.
The administration then interestingly in that case, you may recall this, spent a lot of time deploying a whole series of increasingly, can only be called convoluted legal tricks, if you will, some strategies to keep her in the job, all of which a federal district court judge.
whose name is Matthew Brand, B-R-A-N-N, has rejected.
We'll get back to him in just a moment or so.
Before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals also supported the notion
that Ms.
Haba could no longer stay in that office because the 120-day period had expired.
Now, what happens?
What happens after the 120-day period?
Well, then it goes to the local federal judges.
It sounds like an odd situation, but that's the way the legislature has put this in place.
And that's what the courts have ruled, that after this 120-day period has expired,
absent the confirmation by the Senate of a presently nominated nominee, then it goes to the federal district court judges and they can appoint someone, could be the person who is inhabiting, encumbering that 120-day term, or could be somebody new.
And in this case, in this case, once again, the federal district judges there did not pursue
the appointment of Ms.
Habba.
Instead, instead, the attorney general scrambled by naming Habba as a senior advisor and who has apparently got some special assignment.
And that was basically not successful in that remedy.
And rather than pursue the normal effort then to fill the vacancy through a nomination of the president and then confirmation by the Senate or
or then alternatively, as I indicated, federal district court judges, the attorney general instead tried doing this, which is the subject of the most recent order coming out of New Jersey, and the judge there who's presiding over this.
Again, his name is Matthew Brand.
The proposal from the attorney general incredulously, curiously,
was instead of a Senate confirmed nomination, instead of the federal judges themselves choosing who the next U.S.
attorney should be, Bondi instead tried splitting.
Yeah, that's right.
Dividing up the United States attorney's role across three different lawyers.
Three different lawyers.
Let's turn this into a three U.S.
attorney panel effectively, and the judge promptly swatted that down.
Here is what the judge, Bran, said just this past week in deflecting and rejecting this latest attempt.
to try to clarify what's going on in the U.S.
Attorney's Office in New Jersey.
The judge said, why does the fate of thousands of criminal prosecutions in this district, again he's talking about New Jersey, potentially rest on the legitimacy of an unprecedented and Byzantine leadership structure?
He's talking about this notion of dividing the U.S.
Attorney position historically always occupied by one person into three.
Bran asked that question and then he supplied his own answer.
He said, the government tells us the president doesn't like that.
He cannot simply appoint whomever he wants.
Once again, echoing the words of the other federal judges that we've also heard from today saying that the president doesn't like people.
And for that reason, he doesn't want them in office, whether it's positions of responsibility in agencies, or in this case, in U.S.
Attorney's Office.
Bran has stayed as ruling.
He's suspended it pending a Department of Justice appeal, which will almost certainly come.
But he warned.
He warned in doing this and saying that no...
Pam Bondi, you can't simply divide up the U.S.
Attorney's position into three and remedy this problem, the 120-day problem that you continue to have here and around the country.
Can't do that.
But he said if you appeal this, he's warning that the administration, if it proceeds, it will do so as he said at its own risk and that any further illegal appointments result in criminal charges being dismissed.
What is he talking about?
Well,
He is talking about the fact that criminal charges are derived from, ultimately, the authority of the United States Attorney.
U.S.
attorneys, as you know, they can issue criminal complaints that can stay around for about 30 days or so.
But they have to be ultimately presented to a grand jury upon the authority of a United States attorney.
If you don't have a United States attorney, if the person who is there, if a tripartite U.S.
attorney position is illegitimate as it plainly is as the judge is ruling, if you don't have a legitimate U.S.
attorney in place, what the judge is saying, I'm going to start dismissing criminal cases.
That's what Judge Brand has threatened appropriately just this past week.
coming out of the mess in New Jersey and the District U.S.
Attorney's Office there.
When we come back, we'll talk about the Western District of Virginia here on Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amica Salaro.
We're talking about U.S.
Attorney woes and the problem is that this administration is having and complying with the law when it comes to how you select, how you nominate, how you appoint United States attorneys.
Again, these folks are important.
They are temporary appointments.
They only stay around with the term of the president who has nominated and then appointed them
But they remain in office as the chief federal law enforcement officers.
They're responsible for everything, including agency oversight of investigations of the sort that we talked about in South Florida, in Northern New York, other places around the country.
There are people with power and authority.
And that's the reason why there is legislation.
There is a constitutional mandate when it comes to the appointments of them, most typically the president, typically upon a recommendation of a senator or senators from the state in which the district is located.
makes a nomination to the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee reviews, goes to the full floor of the Senate, and most typically, United States attorneys are confirmed, not always, when that doesn't happen.
Or it doesn't happen in timely fashion, yes indeed.
The President has a right.
under a statute that says President can appoint a U.S.
Attorney for a limited 120-day period, and when that 120-day period expires, that person no longer has the authority to act in that all-important capacity.
And that's where this administration gets into trouble.
What has to happen after that?
Again, if there is not a Senate-confirmed U.S.
Attorney at any time in this process, then it goes to the federal judges.
That's the statute under which we live and
work.
And the federal judges are the ones who then make the determination.
They can indeed pluck up the person who's been appointed by the president for that 120 day period.
But more and more, they're saying no.
They're saying no.
And that indeed is what is happening also just this past week.
Let's talk about the Western District of Virginia.
We talked about the Eastern District of Virginia.
This is not West Virginia.
This is the Western District of Virginia.
That is located in Roanoke.
offices in Charlottesville and Abingdon and Lynchburg and Danville and Harrisonburg all around a very large area of the state of Virginia.
What happens?
The United States District judges in the western district of Virginia will not have decided they will not extend the temporary term of the district's U.S.
Attorney
Making it again the latest court across the country to reject the United States attorney that was installed temporarily by Donald Trump the active and the senior judges of the district again, this is the western district of Virginia Agreed unanimously they issued a report a statement about all this not to appoint any US Attorney to fill the vacancy upon the conclusion of the term of a fellow named Robert trashy t.r.a Cci He is the fellow who was appointed
legitimately by the president for one of these 120 day terms.
The notice from the judges reads this way, the district judges prefer to await a nomination by the president subject to the advice and consent of the senate for this executive branch position.
They may be asking, well, gee, if they do not act at all, what happens?
Well, there are individuals called first assistant United States attorneys, and they can continue to exercise the authority of the United States attorney in those circumstances.
But once again, in the Western District of Virginia, the Federal District Court judges who are then responsible for the appointment of a judge have said, LVUS attorney have said, no, we're not doing that.
And instead, we'll await the proper procedure here, which is not a second 120-day term.
We know that that won't work.
Well, that's the lesson coming out of New Jersey and coming out of Eastern Virginia.
But we'll await a nomination and a confirmation by the Senate of a presidentially appointed United States attorney.
And that brings us right here to Wisconsin.
where, again, a very similar thing happened just this past week.
We know the president of the United States of America has appointed, and had appointed legitimately, on one of these 120-day terms, Brad Schimmel.
Brad Schimmel, again, firmly served as the attorney general of the state of Wisconsin.
He ran unsuccessfully for the Supreme Court.
He was previously the district attorney in Waukesha County.
President appointed him
to serve as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, located Milwaukee, located in Green Bay as well, but responsible for counties all up and down the eastern side of the state.
Federal judges in Milwaukee announcing just this past week that they have decided not to extend the interim U.S.
Attorney position of Brad Schimmel beyond this coming week.
and it expires on the 17th.
Again, under federal law, that's the way this process works.
And so the president's appointment of Brad Schimble will terminate.
And once again, the court has issued an order, a statement, they say, in doing so, the court intends no criticism or commentary on the performance or qualifications of the interim United States attorney or any of the attorneys in the United States attorney's office.
That is good to hear.
The judges went on to say that to the credit of the office, from the court's perspective, it has continued to represent the citizens of this district well.
Even so, they have decided, like the U.S.
District Court judges in other places around the country, including in the Western District of Virginia, not to continue, which they could have done, the appointment of Brad Schimmel.
And now we'll wait to see what happens next.
Presumably the president at some point will nominate someone.
It could be Brad Shimlet, it could be another person through the other alternative traditional process.
All of this going on at a time when issues related to the supervision and management of U.S.
Attorney's offices is much in flux.
Many of them have already been confirmed through that normal process.
Others of them are continuing as indicated right now in eastern Wisconsin and also western Virginia to serve the last days of a 128 term.
That can happen, but you only get one of those once again.
And that's the reason why you've had federal courts say exactly that.
When that term expires, you either have to get a judicial appointment.
through the judges or Senate confirmation.
When we come back, we'll talk about some new Trump theories coming out of the Department of Justice with respect to the rule of law in America as Amica Solaraview continues.
This is Amica Salava, my name is Jim Santel.
We are now turning in our exposition, our travel through the rule of law country this weekend.
I'm going to turn our attention to some new policies, some new proposals, some new ways of doing rule of law inside the Department of Justice.
We mentioned this first one in our broadcast of last weekend, but now we've got a little bit more clarity on exactly what it is the Department of Justice is proposing, not yet in place, but proposing that changes the way in which lawyers of the Department of Justice are held accountable for their statements.
We spent a lot of time in the first hour of this broadcast talking about the Constitution.
crisis that we are in.
Why?
In major part because lawyers of your Department of Justice have stood in front of federal judges and said no.
There has been a long record of not only contradictory statements, false sworn statements, all sorts of information that's
presented and then withdrawn simply telling the judges that they will not do that is the Department of Justice and the attorneys will not do what the judges say prompting again the judges themselves including people like James Bosberg to issue excoriating statements with respect to those attorneys threatening to find some of them in contempt
So damaged is the department's reputation for truth telling and honesty and integrity when it comes to engagements with the federal judiciary that one of our federal judges noted very despairingly that the court is left with little confidence the government lawyers can be trusted to tell the truth about anything.
That is a damning statement to make.
by any federal judge, but it's repeated by many federal judges around the country.
So what is happening here?
Well, the result of a misstatement, a lie, a misrepresentation in front of any tribunal is that you can get referred to the local, the state bar that license you to serve as a lawyer.
In the case of federal attorneys, you can be licensed in any state in the country and appear in the federal courts.
in any state in the country.
We know that as a result of what Lindsay Halligan said to a federal grand jury in getting the indictments of at least James Comey and perhaps let Tisha James as well, things that she said that were not true, that were not accurate, misrepresentations about the constitutional rights of defendants, that she has now been referred to the Florida bar and they will investigate whether her license should either be suspended, whether she should be admonished, be terminated completely.
that kind of thing repeating itself many times in America as this Department of Justice dissembles, lies, misrepresents, positions, factual, legal, before our federal judiciary.
So what happens is, as I mentioned last week, that the Attorney General has proposed a new process, a new rule.
in which she can ask any independent disciplinary authority, including the BAR, the Licensing Authority of a particular state, to suspend those ethics proceedings against a Justice Department lawyer on threat of some unspecified enforcement action.
And instead, and here's the greater clarity, send the matter to the department's own internal Office of Professional Responsibility.
That's OPR.
You probably have heard about them.
Those are the folks who do investigations internally of whether or not the lawyers of the department have engaged in misconduct.
Those proceedings often accompany decisions by licensing boards to review the same kind of thing.
But we know that an OPR review is not a serious substitute for a state bar investigation.
Even before this administration,
The office, which answers to a political appointee, not an independent state bar, had a reputation of operating pretty much like a black hole, with many investigative details almost never being made public.
interesting the OPR came into being was created as a compromise measure a long time ago to stave off calls for more some some more radical reforms inside the Department of Justice when it became clear that many of the lawyers inside the Richard Nixon Department of Justice were engaging the same kinds of conduct.
It has never been and has never had the power to subpoena testimony or information from outside the department.
At the moment, believe it or not, the OPR doesn't even have a leader.
There's no one who's in charge of it.
And so instead, the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, is responsible for overseeing that.
And he, of course, has also declared recently the administration is at war, war with the federal courts.
and as also, along with his boss, the Attorney General, suggested that many federal judges do not have the authority that they are exercising to support the Constitution.
That proposed rule should be a concern to everyone, again, concerned about the integrity of our lawyers who are representing you.
the people of the United States of America, and the methods by which they are held accountable should be by state licensing authorities, state bars, the Attorney General suggesting that the department should be substituted for that, or at least should take the initial initiative to review those cases before the state bar ever gets to them.
That's coming out of main justice just in recent weeks.
And then there's something else.
somewhat unrelated to that, but also having to do with the ways in which attorneys are engaged in litigation around the country.
And this has to do with a curious development that's happening in a number of states that is now being noted, not only by legal viewers, but also by the general media in particular, in which the Department of Justice, through its lawyers, will sue state officials, typically an attorney general, typically a governor,
to seek the overturning of a particular state law could be in a number of different areas and by suing they bring that issue into typically a court in that particular state and what is happening is because they're suing
Friendly adversaries, they're suing an attorney general, a governor allied with the president, allied with the attorney general.
What happens is very quickly those cases are settled, and the settlement is to disregard, to dismantle the very legislation, the very law that the legislature in the state has passed.
Again, that's a lot, lot.
Let me give you some examples of this.
Last June, the Trump administration brought Texas into court, claiming that a very old state law that once
was championed, believe it or not, by Republicans, violated federal law, and within about six hours the case was resolved.
Instead of fighting, Texas immediately settled.
Why?
Because the Attorney General, there you know who that is.
That's Ken Paxton.
He's a close ally of the president.
Simply agreed that the state law, the state law, which allowed undocumented high school students to pay in-state tuition at public universities, should be invalidated.
So the President, the Attorney General, sues the Attorney General to prohibit that...
that a particular state process to permit undocumented high school students to pay in-state tuition.
We've got to get rid of that, basically, is what the president says.
And almost immediately, the state officials through the Attorney General's office says, yes, we'll agree to a settlement, and the settlement invalidates the statutes.
It's one of a string of those kinds of things that are happening in this new
and violative legal maneuver that keeps the legislature from becoming involved.
It has allowed states to quietly break free from their own laws outside what would normally happen inside the state houses, which is to rescind, to modify, to somehow affect what the law is.
In Florida, for example, the Trump administration, this Department of Justice, in February reached a legal settlement
when the Republican-led state required the Department of Homeland Security to forgo to give up one of its authorities to admit immigrants for 15 years.
We don't like that policy anymore, so we sue the state.
Though reached with a state government, the settlement could affect
immigration policy for the whole nation because of the precedent it's setting there.
In Kentucky, for example, the federal Department of Transportation, again, federal agency proposing a settlement in a case with a pair of industrial companies challenging some decades old racial and gender-based preferences.
And that's what basically be a seating to agreeing to the businesses and agreeing to end the use of preferences in contracting nationwide.
That's been a part of our contracting system for decades.
Once again, suing in a state court.
with friendly adversaries who then agree to resolve the case quickly upon a settlement that says that the law that is being challenged is in fact invalid and the law presumably by virtue of the action in the court presumably signed off by a presiding judge resolving the case and dismantling the litigation.
It gets high marks for creativity, very low marks for a
Pursuit of the rule of law in the way that it's done both in the state system and the federal system when you want to change the laws in America What do you do?
Well, you can go into court and you can challenge them in a legitimate process The Supreme Court and other courts around the country have talked about the need to have a case or controversy where you're truly suing someone who is opposed to your view where there can be an exposition through discovery
through challenges in court, through trials where you have evidence presented by witnesses and documents to determine what the law should be and how it should be interpreted.
That's the case or controversy process through which all of these other pieces of litigation proceed and result ultimately in a decision, sometimes by a court, often by a court, sometimes by a jury, about what the legislation means, or, or.
most often going back to the legislature the people who created the law in the first place and say you know what we need to change our state law to conform to federal rules and regulations to conform to what we think the law should now say in the early part of the 21st century about how we conduct ourselves how the population wants us to behave as government officials that's the way it's done one of those two ways especially focused upon the legislative pursuit here
We have got a Trump administration through your Department of Justice filing lawsuits with, again, friendly adversaries, people who they know will accede promptly to a settlement that identifies the law as being unconstitutional, invalid, and agronistic.
too old.
Let's get rid of it.
Let's have the judge sign off on the settlement in the case we've just brought.
And the legislation is therefore invalid through this agreed upon disposition.
It is a stunning way of affecting changes in the law by excluding the legislature, excluding real adversarial advocacy in the courts and keeping you.
out of the process, happening again in Texas, in Florida, in Kentucky, and presumably in other places around the nation.
All of that coming out of your Department of Justice here in the early part of 2026.
edition of Amicus, the law of view would be complete without talking somewhat about the United States Supreme Court and This edition this installment is no exception to that.
Let's talk about what's going on in the Supreme Court Well this past week no oral arguments many of them coming up Let's do a little bit of statistical analysis and record-keeping.
They're just under 60 cases pending the Supreme Court
has issued opinions in just under 20 of those to this time, and we've talked about a few of those, many of those very important in particular areas, but big ticket items like, for example, the Future of the Voting Rights Act, issues related to LGBTQIA rights, other issues important to America,
Still awaiting decision among that those 60 or so cases other oral arguments still scheduled for later this month and then into the month of April Even so the United States Supreme Court much in the news this past week in a couple of areas that underscore once again some of the disagreements among the court and Fundamentally the disagreement between the great majority of the American population
and what this court is doing.
Let's talk about the first of those just this past week.
We have two Supreme Court justices who are appearing in a lecture series.
It's an annual lecture series in Washington, D.C.
We'll talk about what two justices of the Supreme Court sparred about in Washington, D.C.
and a little bit more information about what's coming out of the Supreme Court when Amicus, a lot of you, continues after this.
This is Annika Salarov, the final segment of our show this weekend, talking about the Supreme Court, not decisions being made, but actions, nonetheless, words being spoken by members of the Supreme Court.
And that includes the debate, so to speak, between Katanji Brown Jackson and Brett Kavanaugh.
It was a quasi-public annual lecture series at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., again, not too far from the Supreme Court building right there off of Pennsylvania Avenue.
courtroom packed with spectators, including a number of prominent federal judges, including, interestingly, James Bosberg, who we've spent a lot of time talking about.
He's there listening to all of this, and what is he?
among the others, hearing from these two.
Well, an awful lot of agreement about some concerns on the court, but they touched as well upon the shadow docket, this application process for getting a very expedited disposition through the Supreme Court.
Lots of controversy there.
Jackson, Katangi Brown Jackson, a very vocal dissenter in these cases, almost uniformly.
forcefully aired her views once again in the context of this public debate, critiquing the court's actions, and indicating that she bemoans she is not happy.
with the frequency and the way in which the court is deciding these major cases, as we have talked about on this broadcast repeatedly.
She says the increase in these emergency filings requested in order to challenge a lower court ruling that has not yet been finalized.
She suggested the number of filings would drop if the court was more stingy about granting them.
She was very unhappy with all this.
She has gone on to say, I just feel like this uptick in the courts will
this to get involved is a real unfortunate problem.
Among other things, Katanji Brown Jackson said it affects how lower court judges approach cases as they already have a preliminary sense of how the Supreme Court might approach it on appeal, creating a warped kind of proceeding, a warped kind of proceeding.
It's not serving the court or this country very well, just as Katangi Brown Jackson says.
Well, Brett Kavanaugh, again, expresses a concern, but he is usually in the majority on these cases, and he takes a little bit more measured or tempered view about all this.
He says the court has to act one way or another whenever the government or another litigant files an emergency application, sort of pointing the finger at the litigants and not the court.
Kavanaugh noted that the increase in government applications in this term is not unique to Trump.
He notes that the Biden administration also granted, appealed for, and then the court granted a similar number of like requests, although as we've accounted for before, the number in the Trump administration is astronomical in compared to the Biden administration and then also the previous administrations, the Bush administration and Obama administration.
Brett Kavanaugh says that the cause for successive administrations rushing to the Supreme Court is that presidents have in recent years relied more on executive orders because of the difficulty in persuading Congress to enact legislation and those actions are often challenged in court.
He's probably accurate about that.
The failure of our legislature to act or at least to push back on all these executive orders results in this problem in part.
And Brett Kavanaugh says in the end,
None of us enjoy this, noting that the court has in some cases opted to hear oral arguments and issue longer rulings in response to some of the criticism.
We have to have the same position regardless of who is president, he said.
He's speaking about the process there as well.
Some quasi-public debate about the legitimacy of this shadow docket in the public domain in front of federal judges, many of whom
are involved in the very cases that make their way to the court, James Bosberg, in the audience this past week to listen to what these two associate justices have to say about the emergency application docket.
We know as well that even as that is going on, a latest poll coming out of NBC News shows that the percentage of voters who have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence is at the lowest ebb ever with respect to the Supreme Court.
since the question was first act asked in the year 2000.
The poll shows that 22% of registered voters nationally said they have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence.
Another 40% said they had some confidence, but here's the big news item.
38% said they have very little or no confidence at all.
in legitimacy, the integrity, the decision-making of your United States Supreme Court.
The previous low for voters' impressions of the Supreme Court came, again, in the wake of the ruling in 2022 on Roe vs. Wade overturning that in the Dobbs decision.
That's when 27% said they had a great deal or quite a bit of confidence.
The number hit a high of 52%.
52% of the American population, December of 2000, that was, interestingly, just before the court issued that horrific decision, unprecedented in Bush v. Gore, that ruling that paved the way for George W. Bush to take office, a very polarizing decision to this day.
and basically buffeted the view of the court that it may in fact be a partisan entity.
Again, for the first time in a quarter century, the American public responding to what the Supreme Court is doing in all these areas with a nearly low rating, a low polling that we have not seen since the year 2000.
That also coming out of legitimate reporting just this past week.
And finally, in the area of things going on in the Supreme Court, the Trump administration, not to be undone by its previous resolutions of applications for emergency actions.
Asking the Supreme Court this past week to allow it to end a program, to terminate a program we've talked about on this broadcast, shielding hundreds of thousands of Haitians from deportation.
John Sauer, the Solicitor General, as you know, asking the justices on an emergency shadow docket procedure to block a lower court decision that found that the Trump administration had violated the law.
had acted in opposition to what the law requires when it terminated a temporary protected status program.
We talked about that a lot.
350,000 Haitians living and working legally in the United States, seeking to overturn that policy.
More about the rule of law, justice in America, the administration of government, next weekend as well, here on Amicus Law Review.
For now, 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.
