Courtroom Dramas: Tech Giants on Trial and Election Day Dilemmas

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.

Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel.

Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant news stories in the areas of law, government,

courts and the aspiration for justice.

And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.

This is Amicus, a lot of you on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

My name is Jim Santel.

I'm your host both this hour and next hour as well as we explore

The great landscape of the rule of law, the administration of justice, the operation of government in our state, our nation, and even our world.

I so much appreciate that you have chosen to spend some portion of your weekend hours, your precious time in engagement with me and my producer Max.

We are together here at the Racine Studios.

of civic media, talking all about those issues of the rule of law, the administration of justice, and governmental operation.

Let me invite you in that vein to be a part of our discussion, a part of our exploration.

That phone number, as you know, is 855-752-4842.

One more time, that's 855-752-4842.

4842 and you can be a part of our discussion this weekend of a great variety of rule of law justice administration issues as we pursue those here both in this first hour and then also in this second live hour of amicus a law review as always our commission our purpose our mission is to provide education insight perspective

that may assist you in making your own determinations about how things should be in America, in the states of our nation, and even across the planet.

That is our mission reflected in the word amicus, coming from the Latin and also the legal term ami, meaning friend, friend of the court, friend of the community, once again honored and delighted that you as our friends have chosen to spend some time in discussion with me.

of these major issues what is what is on our agenda our ambitious but achievable agenda this weekend on amicus a lot of you we often on this radio broadcast raise lots and lots of questions that's the way you discover

things about the world.

It is the way that in many ways law schools are conducted, law classes are conducted.

It's called the Socratic Method.

It means you ask a lot of questions in the hopes that by asking those questions

providing answers, sometimes imperfect, incomplete, maybe even wrong answers.

Somehow in that process, a back and forth, the questioning, the answering, the debating in law school classes and in other forums, the truth or some sense of it percolates up to the top.

And it is in that vein that we often ask questions on this broadcast without clear resolution to prompt discussion.

To prop thought about what the rule of law means in America these days, this weekend we also have some answers.

We have answers from a number of different courts around our state, our nation, and yes, even some reference in our second hour to something that's the matter of struggle by a Canadian Supreme Court to our north, all of those things leading ultimately to some answers to questions

They may still be incomplete.

They may still be inaccurate from the perspectives of many people, but we do have a number of cases this hour that provide us with some resolution or some near resolution on some major questions, some issues, some challenges.

that have in fact been presented to federal district courts, to state courts, and we're going to talk about all of those.

We've got eight of them, believe it or not, eight.

Count them eight different decisions, providing you with some answers this weekend.

Again that they may be incomplete you may not be satisfied with them and that's the reason why among other things we have appeals It's also the reason why we have as we often talk on this broadcast a First Amendment right to object to what even our judges our jurists our justices have said That is also very much on display this weekend and Saturday today in particular as

Quite literally millions of Americans exercise that First Amendment right to be out there, to protest, to advocate in the streets and in the sidewalks in the public areas of our nation.

We're going to talk a little bit about that in reference to one of those cases coming up as we begin our exposition, our exploration, our discovery along the geography of the rule of law, administration of justice,

and operation of government.

There are some big cases that have grabbed headlines early this past week.

We're going to begin with those because I suspect they're also at the top of your list as well.

Things you have plainly noted, probably more than just the headlines, but let's dig into them a bit more.

Both of them, both of them from different courts, different sides, different geographies of our country.

play in the world of of technology and the ways in which technology has changed our world influenced us affected us and the legal implications of all of that.

Let's begin with a civil lawsuit.

that we have made a passing reference to in the past.

It has been going on for a long time.

It's been pending in the California Supreme Court in Los Angeles, the Supreme Court as in New York and in some other states of our union.

That is actually a reference to the trial court here in Wisconsin.

We would call them a county court, a circuit court in California called the Supreme Court.

It is the trial court where again, for the last many weeks, a trial has been underway.

Testing, testing whether or not major providers of access to internet forms and expressions can in fact be held liable for the implications for the effects of exposure to the internet by individuals.

We're gonna talk more about that in just a moment in the particular claims in this case.

The headline, however, is that the social media company Meta, M-E-T-A, and the video streaming service YouTube, you know all about both of those, a jury finding that those two major entities in America did in fact harm a young user, damaged a young user with some design features baked into, right in the middle of both Meta and YouTube,

And according to the verdict of the jury and also the allegations in the complaint as it was tried in these past several weeks, those particular design features were addictive.

They were addictive and they led according to the jury verdict.

to mental health distress.

A jury found that on Wednesday of this past week.

It is undeniably a blockbuster case because it changes the way in which we think about liability of entities like META and YouTube and others, including a couple of other entities that settled.

prior to this litigation.

As a result of this major jury verdict, again, this is not coming out of a judge, although a judge plainly presided over the trial, but as a result of a jury determination, again, people consulcted

From the community to make this determination, the result of that is that META must pay $4.2 million in combined compensatory that is making the plaintiff whole and also punitive damages.

And YouTube, YouTube responsible now for $1.8 million.

Those are no small amounts, a six million dollar verdict overall.

It is undeniably a bell weather case.

It is significant.

It is huge.

Again, a 20 year old woman, she is now 20 years old.

She identifies herself as KGM when she was youthful.

She accused those social media companies of creating products that were to her and presumably to others as well addictive.

Just as addictive she maintained and this is significant as cigarettes and digital casinos now that's relevant and that's important because as we know our courts have previously been involved in cases against cigarette manufacturers and casinos including digital casinos on the same basis that the product that they're selling the thing that they're producing out there Causes addiction and therefore mental health issues the same theory here

Citing features like the infinite scroll, let me say that again, it's the infinite scroll, and algorithmic recommendations.

We know what those are as well.

Recommendations based upon algorithms about what you see, what you consume next.

KGM, again the plaintiff in this case, Sudmetta.

which owns, as you well know, Instagram and Facebook, and also YouTube.

That's owned by Google, claiming that they caused her anxiety and depression.

That was in the complaint.

Again, controversial.

First time it's been.

brought with respect to Metta and YouTube, these social media providers.

The verdict in this particular case, it's one frankly of thousands, thousands across the country brought by teenagers and others in various courts around the country, namely, namely asking that juries, judges,

find that these providers are responsible for the consequences of what they're putting out there.

It validates here, it supports what has been out there in the media, discussed a lot in the media, including on social media.

A relatively novel legal theory, not tested before until this and these other cases have gone to trial.

And that theory, that theory that plainly the jury embraced in this case was that social media sites or even apps can in fact cause personal injury.

That's controversial.

And going into this particular trial as these other trials also begin, it remains a controversial notion.

The jury obviously

Agreed with that fundamental legal notion that again the social media sites the providers can in fact be held liable for doing things that cause harm to the users of their products But it's likely also highly likely as a matter of fact representatives of Both of the defendants that went to trial here again meta and YouTube have indicated they're going to appeal this and they're going to appeal it principally on the legal basis that the

underlying legal theory is unsound that in fact the companies cannot be held responsible because of things like the infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations.

Those are features of the product here but are not in themselves they will argue and they did argue during the trial cannot be the basis for liability

be going to be going to be asking the the appellate court to review that again it is a state appellate court that's going to be determining whether or not the jury verdict can stand on both factual and legal grounds as well.

The reference once again to cigarettes and to digital casinos

came up during the course of the trial.

You may recall that as late as, well, a number of decades now, last century, the later latter portion of the last century, big tobacco, tobacco companies in this country had argued, had argued against claims against them, that their products were addictive and that they harmed users.

And then you may recall all of that discovery produced indicating that big tobacco product, tobacco providers,

did in fact know about the addictive nature of their products found responsible in many ways for the harms in that case, physical in nature caused by their products.

The same kind of thing here.

A product in this case, social media by its very nature, causing harm.

That at least is what the plaintiff maintained.

And the jury agreed with that.

TikTok and Snap.

Others both settled.

They were not a part of this trial as it went to the verdict of the jury.

They settled with the plaintiff for some undisclosed terms before the trial even started.

Interestingly, interestingly, of course, as this goes forward, in addition to the appeal, which means we'll hear more about this case in the future, the jury's verdict there in California, it is in Los Angeles.

follows a ruling in the same week by a New Mexico jury in another lawsuit that was brought by the State Attorney General there.

When we come back, I'll tell you more about that case.

We'll talk more about the consequences of this major lawsuit coming out of California when Amicus, a law review, continues here on 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 started.

My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus.

A lot of you are here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media as always along with my producer Max inviting you to be part of our discussion pulling in at 855-752-4842.

You can also drop a note, a comment, a question, something that's causing you to scratch your head into our chat box.

As we talk in this first hour about eight different decisions coming out of various courts

of our nation beginning with a California state court that is the superior court there in Los Angeles in which a jury a jury not a judge a jury found that meta and YouTube are negligent in a social media addiction case

jury finding that those companies had in fact harmed a young user she was a minor at the time now she's an adult with some design features that were addictive leading to some mental health distress and challenges that were also a part of that trial.

Right before the break telling you about another lawsuit similar to this one New Mexico jury another state obviously this one brought by the Attorney General there in New Mexico in that particular case similar in terms of its claims finding that meta was liable for violating state law

by doing what?

By failing to safeguard users of its apps from child predators brought by the attorney general there, appropriate given the jurisdiction of attorneys general in our nation.

The jury deciding this past week that META should pay a whopping $375 million in that case.

Again, all of these cases, others that are pending out there, all of them testing this trend.

that follows on the wake of decades ago cases against big tobacco finding that the product itself produces harm and therefore the producers of that product should be held liable the california superior court los angeles verdict is plainly one of the first victories against these tech giants

And it's unclear.

It's unclear whether this will spread further.

We know it's gone to New Mexico, other places.

Eight other cases have been brought by individual plaintiffs slated to go to trial in various spots.

Set of federal cases brought by states and school districts in Oakland, California.

at the U.S.

District Court of Northern California are also scheduled for jury trials this summer.

So we've got a lot of people who are going to be summoned in to serve on juries testing this theory successful just this past week.

We know that all of this, all of this comes

in the wake of concern about social media.

It has mounted undeniably globally.

In 2024, the U.S.

Surgeon General of the United States of America called for adding warning labels, warning labels to social media, explaining and describing for users that the platforms had been found to be, were associated with mental health harms for adolescents, for youths.

In December,

among other things, Australia actually barred children under the age of 18 from using social media for these very same purposes.

Malaysia, Spain, and Denmark are considering similar rules, nationwide legislation that would prohibit access to social media by youth.

Again, premised upon this theory now tested in the Los Angeles court.

In the opening statements of this trial, yes, in which Mark Zuckerberg and others did testify about the impacts and from his perspective, the lack of liability for companies like his.

But during the opening argument, the lawyers for KGM, again, she is the plaintiff.

She is the youthful plaintiff.

She's now an adult at the time, identified by her initials only because she was a minor.

The attorney presented the jury with internal company documents from both the companies, showing that the executives, just like the big tobacco situation, actually knew about.

They knew of and they discussed some of the negative effects of their products on children.

The attorney, not only an opening statement, but throughout the trial, of course, arguing that features like infinite scroll,

Algorithmic recommendations and autoplay videos were designed specifically designed with knowledge by the social media platform executives to either entice or hook young users to compulsively engage with their platforms.

The plaintive herself testified about her childhood using social media as both a creative outlet, she said, and also an escape.

From bullying at school, she said she spent hours a day on Instagram, posted hundreds of photos using beauty filters to mask her insecurities, this all her testimony in the course of the trial to the jury, which she said led to some of her mental illness.

The result of this, again, significant in that the verdict is perhaps among the first,

in the nation.

More of them will be decided by juries, not only in California, but across the nation going forward.

Meta and YouTube found negligent this past week.

In this major blockbuster case, it's a civil action, not a criminal case.

Nobody's going to jail.

And finding in particular that they're responsible because of the various features of their product for producing

the harms identified as mental illnesses and other distresses suffered by the plaintiff in that case.

No small case, no small jury verdict, again going to go up on appeal.

We know as well that the week was chocked full of other cases and that included on the other side of the continent, on the other side of our country, a case in which the United States Supreme Court also playing around

in the world in the geography of technology in this case the united states supreme court unanimously yes there are times when all of them agreed this is one of those instances this past week the supreme court nine to zero all of them agree that a major internet provider could not could not be held liable for the piracy of thousands of online songs

And what can only be regarded as a very closely watched copyright case.

When we come back here on Amicus, a lot of you, I'll tell you more about what happened in that case, the implication for music labels and publishers suing a company once again, saying that the company had failed to cut off the internet connections of subscribers who had been repeatedly flagged.

for illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted music, all that as Amicus Alara View continues.

My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

Delighted and honored that you are spending some portion of your weekend hours with me and my producer Max as we talk.

about some answers being delivered this past week by courts near and far across the land federal courts state courts appellate courts will get to all of that in this and into the next hour as well next hour as well we're going to pose more questions as we often do on this broadcast things that are pending

before courts, including things that were the subjects of oral argument before the Supreme Court this past week as well.

We know well that they've got about 60 cases on their docket.

They've actually decided just under 20 cases already, so a third of their docket for this term already resolved.

They've got about 40 more of them to go, which means that this is the busy time in America.

This is March, April, May, June, maybe even into July, when the Supreme Court begins to issue some of its major decisions.

many of which we've talked about in trying to read the tea leaves coming out of those oral arguments.

We'll get to some more of that from Justice Past Week in the second hour of our broadcast, but we are focusing right now on answers provided by

courts around the country, including the United States Supreme Court, that like that jury in California is playing around in the area of technology.

This case is called Cox Communications versus Sony Music Entertainment.

You can glean from the very title of the case what it's all about.

It's one of three cases issued, decisions issued in cases from the Supreme Court just this past week.

The upshot is that Cox, an internet service provider, neither induced its users' infringement of copyrighted works, nor provided a service tailored to that infringement.

And that's according to the United States Supreme Court.

Cox then not contributorily liable for the infringement of Sony's copyright.

Supreme Court again unanimously.

finding that this major internet provider Cox cannot be held responsible for the piracy of songs online by its users.

Music labels and publishers had sued Cox way back in 2018 saying the company had woefully failed to cut off those internet connections of those subscribers.

who had been identified as repeatedly illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted music.

They know who they are.

And the allegation here is that Cox failed to do enough to stop them from infringing the copyright, the copyright of entities like Sony Music Entertainment.

At issue, the subject before the Supreme Court now resolved nine to zero unanimously was whether providers like Cox could be held illegally

responsible?

Are they responsible?

And are they required therefore to pay huge damages?

You can well imagine the copyright implications of this had the Supreme Court gone in the opposite direction, probably billions of dollars or more.

If if Cox knew that customers were pirating music and failed to do a sufficient number of things, sufficient steps to stop

that internet access in its opinion on Wednesday.

Again, unanimous does happen from time to time.

Even with this course, the court did say that a company was not liable for quote merely providing a service to the general public with the knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.

The principal opinion written by Clarence Thomas said a provider like Cox was liable quote only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement and if it for instance actively encourages infringement no basis for finding that in this case

In this case, obviously, free speech advocates were urging the Supreme Court, lots of amicus briefs, friend of the court briefs, to side with the internet provider.

What were they doing?

They were kind of warning against the chilling effect on free expression if entities, if groups like Cox, if internet companies

could be on the hook, could be responsible for these penalties, maybe in the billions of dollars, for the actions of their users, and the same First Amendment advocates arguing that a ruling of that type, which the Supreme Court did not do, they did not do this, but revealing in the opposite direction, could have resulted in speech-related lawsuits against other kinds of intermediaries, including, for example, bookstores,

and social media platforms.

And that gets us back, of course, again, to the California case.

All of these tied together.

Cox communication just in terms of its scope and the importance of this case again presented during the course of oral argument all the briefs submitted to the Supreme Court also confirming exactly what the nature of the issue the problem the challenge is Cox provides interest net service to more than six million homes and businesses in about a dozen different states during the oral argument way back in December

Justices on both sides of the fence seem to be raising concerns that siding with the music industry could result, might have the impact of implicating Cox and forcing it to cut off access to large account holders, like for example, hospitals and universities, because of the illegal acts of individual users, Supreme Court obviously not willing to go in that direction.

Cox, through its spokespeople, said this unanimous decision is a decisive victory for the industry and for Americans.

They said who depend on reliable internet service, the statement from Cox not surprisingly goes on to say, this opinion affirms the internet service providers are not copyright police and should not be held liable for the actions of their customers.

Now, needless to say, the recording industry Association America regards this as a disappointment.

And they talk about the overwhelming problem and the evidence that Cox had knowingly facilitated theft.

That's their position.

Supreme Court's decision was fairly narrow in that the copyright law were broadly most protect creators and markets from harmful infringement.

Even so, not happy, not happy about the Supreme Court result here as well.

And in particular, the claims were that Cox had ignored the bad actors out there.

And specifically, according to the briefs before the Supreme Court, about 60,000 users distribute more than 10,000 copyrighted songs for free in order to keep subscriber payments flowing.

In 2019, a jury had found Cox liable.

for all 10,017 songs at issue, and awarded Sony, the plaintiff in that case, $1 billion in damages, company appeals, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the jury's finding against Cox, but it ordered a new trial on some separate issues.

Ultimately, the case gets up to the Supreme Court, and once again, the Supreme Court says no liability.

Now, while it was a unanimous opinion,

the court was somewhat divided on the way you get there.

And so in a separate opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, we hear from her a lot in many cases that are divided, but also where there is concurrence among the justices here.

She agrees with herself, but she says she's going to criticize the court's ruling for artificially limiting liability in future cases.

She's concerned about what happens next.

And she's also concerned about undermining the Congress's efforts to ensure that providers have policies to terminate bad actors.

She once again, a common theme that we've talked about a lot here on this broadcast.

She looks at the legislature and not the courts to resolve this.

She says that this means that companies no longer face any realistic probability of liability.

Regardless of whether they take steps to address infringement on their networks, and regardless of what they know about their users' activity, she says much too big a pass.

She doesn't like it, but she says Congress should be the ones resolving this, and she agrees with the majority.

that the internet provider cannot be held responsible in this copyright fight over pirated music intellectual property in before the United States Supreme Court just this past week in a major decision among those 59 or 60 cases that it has pending about a third of which are now resolved including this case and a couple of others that were also on the docket released this past week.

I'm gonna be a little bit more brief in connection with reporting on both of those.

There's a case involving sentencing and criminal justice in America, a common topic here on our radio broadcast.

The case is called Rico versus United States.

And the United States Supreme Court in an eight to one decision, almost unanimous, not quite, decided, and this is a little bit deep, but it's a little bit rough in terms of following exactly what happens here, deciding that somebody,

who is on supervised release.

This is post-conviction, post-sensing, they're out there basically on parole, but it's called supervised release.

The federal system is not, is not automatically extended, that is the term of that supervised release, that supervision, when that person absconds, when they flee, when they're no longer subject to oversight.

The case once again,

involves a defendant who again fled while she was on supervised release.

Her name is Isabel Rico.

She absconded from her supervised release while she was on probation after being held for a while in federal prison.

And during her probation period, Rico was convicted of a state drug offense.

So why is that significant?

Well, a judge had charged her with time in prison and several months of supervised release.

And that, of course, making a determination about what we do about this time period when she's no longer in the supervision of any authorities.

Justices on the Supreme Court said that RICO cannot be automatically considered

for an extension of her supervised release.

We're not gonna prolong her sentence here just because she violated her previous release, okay?

And so what happens is that Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, he said this, the government seeks not a rule that stops the clock or ensures a defendant takes no advantage of abscondment, but one that imposes new punishment.

by automatically extending supervised release, he doesn't like the latter.

Again, there's a lot down that rabbit hole.

The justices argue that the sentencing reformat protects RICO.

from this automatic additional punishment that she'd otherwise serve based upon the period of time when she has fled, even though she absconded during her supervised release.

Again, the Supreme Court, through Justice Gorsuch, said that the Sentencing Reform Act, which was the law way back in 1984 that establishes the sentencing guideline, this mandatory uniform national guideline system, later determined to be

voluntary and suggesting to judges meant to increase transparency and unity and federal sentencing practices nationwide.

Now it is a source of recommendation and general guidance.

It's no longer mandatory as it was at the time of his passage, but Gorsuch writes that the act, again, the sentencing reform act upon which all of this is ultimately predicated.

provides many ways to ensure defendants do not profit from violations without automatically extending the period beyond what the judge ordered.

In other words, he says the law, the law gives judges a lot of options inside its constitution and they can use that.

And Justice Alito provided the loan to sent.

He was the one, the eight to one.

He argued that the sensing reform act was used by the judge to determine Rico's punishment.

after she absconded supervised release.

And he says this, again, there's a lot going on here.

He says, it seems strange to me to regard a crime committed after the expiration of unsupervised supervised release as a non-event.

That's what he calls this.

By that logic, Alito says, if the petitioner had gone on a murder spree,

After the expiration of the period of unsupervised, supervised release, he's having some fun.

They're obviously with the language here.

The sentencing judge would have been required to put that out of his mind.

Alito says that's not the purpose of the law.

That's contrary to the rule of law, but he is in the minority.

Eight other justices on the bench say that Rico gets the benefit of the law and not to be attributed to her absconding period.

When we come back,

We'll do a couple more cases involving one more from the Supreme Court.

They're going to go to appeals courts and yes, a state court as well as our broadcast continues here on Amicus.

A lot of

you.

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 Amica Salaro.

My name is Jim Santel.

We are doing a lot when it comes to focusing on major decisions this past week by major courts, juries around the country,

And jurists making decisions about the law is, as applied to the facts in various cases, we have talked about that jury decision out in California.

Another set of opinions coming out of the Supreme Court, this case called Cox Communications finding that Cox is not responsible for the infringement of copyrighted works by its users.

And also, another case in the criminal justice area, RICO versus the United States, that the Sensing Reform Act does not authorize a rule automatic extending a defendant's term of supervised release.

when the defendant flees, absconding.

That's Cox and Rico.

And there's a third case that came out just this past week.

I'm going to be fairly brief about this, Zorn versus Linton.

It is a percurium opinion.

And again, frequent listeners of this broadcast will know all about that percurium, yet another Latin term like amicus, this one meaning by the court.

You may say, well, gee, Jim, all cases are by the court.

One way or another, are they not?

But this one refers to a judicial opinion delivered by an entire appellate court, traditionally, in this case, the Supreme Court, or a panel of some appeals court judges, not attributed to a specific judge.

And that's the reason why this case in Zorn, the decision in Zorn,

is short, it's unanimous apparently and it has some limited application because of the facts of the case but boy it certainly does seem to be applicable at least in some ways what's going on in America this Saturday this weekend as millions of Americans gather to protest and to exercise their right to speak

in public domains about the conduct of their government.

That going on as we know throughout the day today and in some ways continuing beyond just today.

The case that has some indirect applications called Zorn versus Linton comes out of a matter involving a law enforcement officer named Sergeant Jacob Zorn.

And again, a percurium opinion.

We don't get a lot of other insight.

the court basically taking up a case in the second circuit that's basically new york and states around it and the supreme court says the lower court is wrong the lower court is wrong in finding that jacob zorn had qualified immunity when he arrested someone who was a protester he arrested that person using a wristlock of some low-level physical force

on a protester after issuing a verbal warning without more and the question is whether that action whether his detention of that protester using using the wrist lock on the protester issuing a verbal warning but nothing more beyond that is violative of the constitution that was the allegation plainly made by the detainee the second circuit says yes

The law enforcement officer was responsible and violated the Constitution.

The Supreme Court says no, because under the rules of qualified immunity, officers only get that qualified immunity and do get it here if the law is unclear, if there is not a clear statement about the constitutionality of their conduct that they can know about and they can lie about.

If, in fact, the law is clear, then they're held responsible for it, and the immunity does not apply.

The Supreme Court is saying that the Second Circuit failed to identify case, some precedent, some prior authority, where an officer, any officer, using a wrist lock on a protester,

after issuing a verbal warning and no more was held to have violated the Constitution.

Therefore, Jake Absorn was not unnoticed that his conduct would be violative of the law of the Constitution.

He's entitled to qualified immunity and the Second Circuit's contrary to conclusion that is wrong.

Now again, per curiam opinion, it does not have compelling weight.

It does not mean, it does not mean today and in the future that

representatives of law enforcement can violate the Constitution in making arrests without, again, reasonable suspicion.

That is my contention, even though the Supreme Court has seemingly said

Otherwise, in recent times, they still have to do it.

Mindful of the basic rights and liberties that all Americans have, all residents of our nation have under our First Amendment to peaceably assemble, to protest, to seek redress of grievances against their government, and to do the kinds of things that we're seeing today, millions of people.

It has limited applicability because the facts of this case are so very narrow.

Law enforcement officers are still obliged to follow the law, to follow the Constitution here.

We have a particular application of qualified immunity law.

It has to do with whether or not in this narrow circumstance there is authority that would have justified or not justified what Sergeant Jacob Zorn did.

Zorn versus Linton nonetheless comes up to the Supreme Court on a day when we think a lot about the interface of public demonstration.

and yes, yes, possibly some arrests today during the course of those demonstrations.

These are the kinds of things that courts should be deciding in providing direction and insight about what protesters and advocates out there in the street can and cannot do and that will plainly be put to the test, not only today, practically in the streets of America, parks, sidewalks, other public venues, but also in the courts as these cases

come from the actions today and in other circumstances as well.

So those are the Supreme Court cases coming out of the High Court just this past week.

Let's look at something coming out of the Eighth Circuit.

That's basically the red basket of America.

That's just to the west of us here in the Seventh Circuit.

For the second time, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals backs the Trump administration's particular detention policy, giving the Trump administration a rare win.

a rare win when it comes to detention issues.

The courts were weighing whether the administration can hold undocumented immigrants without bond, an issue that, again, probably will have to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

The second time this Court of Appeals, the Ace Circuit, supported the Trump administration's practice of arresting undocumented immigrants inside the United States and holding them without bond.

When we come back, I'll tell you more about that.

at the top of our second hour and talk more about decisions being made, answers being given by Cords in America.

Here on Amicus, a lot of you.

Welcome.

To Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel, Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant new stories in the areas of law, government, courts, and the aspiration for justice.

And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.

This is Amicus, a lot of you.

This is the second hour of our tour broadcast this weekend.

Honor, delighted that you have chosen to spend some portion of your weekend hours with my producer, Max and me.

in discussion and review assessment of some of the major decisions, and yes, answers by federal and state courts in our land.

As always, you can be a part.

You can be a part of our discussion by calling in at 855-752-4842 or dropping a note to comment into our chat line here at Civic Media.

We are talking about some of the major decisions of this past week.

Some courts, juries, and judges providing answers to some major issues in the areas of technology and criminal law enforcement.

Yes, indeed.

First Amendment issues related to protesting and the circumstances under which individuals can be detained and the mechanisms by which law enforcement can detain individuals, all of those things coming out of a jury in California and also

by the united states supreme court let's move again to the eighth circuit court of appeals that again this is the court below the supreme court that handed the trump administration a rare win a rare victory when it comes to its detention policy and in particular this federal appeals court it's the eighth circuit court of appeals has said that the trump administration is right it can in fact pursue its practice of arresting

undocumented immigrants inside the country, inside the United States, and then holding them without bond, without any permission to depart upon the placement of a monetary or other kind of bond.

That has been interpreted for many years as a fairly aggressive interpretation of immigration law.

And it has resulted in the flooding of Homeland Security detention centers and courtrooms and cases, a lot of them.

It is significant that this comes out of the 8th Circuit.

Why?

The 8th Circuit includes Minnesota, and that includes Minneapolis.

So many of these cases in which there are arrests made by federal law enforcement, including ICE, arresting undocumented immigrants,

holding them in detention centers without bond, prompting them and their attorneys to file petitions for habeas corpus seeking the relief release and the relief of their being released from prison and from custody.

federal judges lining up on both sides of this issue about whether or not the courts and the immigration officials in particular should be required to at least consider the issue of bond.

Legality may eventually reach the Supreme Court itself.

An 11-page split ruling, again, three judges at the Court of Appeals.

An 11-page ruling, a two-judge minority from the Court of Appeals there in the A-Circuit said this.

They said an undocumented immigrant detained anywhere in the country could still be considered to be, quote, seeking admission.

to the United States of America.

And for that reason, classified linguistically, classified legally in those words, the immigrant could therefore be detained without bond.

as he has long been true for those who have been detained at the border.

In other words, even though you're in the United States of America, it doesn't make a difference and the same would apply along the Southwest border.

The judges specifically held that the administration could detain without bond an undocumented immigrant and a citizen of Mexico, even though he was arrested in Minnesota,

and had been living in the United States for about 20 years.

That's the particular case that prompted the review again by a lower court and then the appeals court in this particular instance.

the judges wrote that being admitted, using that word once again, does not merely mean being present in the United States under immigration law, they said, it signifies having made a lawful entry into the country.

Well, once again, this is a major victory for the administration, for Homeland Security, for the Department of Justice, and sure enough,

Pam Bondi, she is the attorney general of the United States of America, as you know, has praised this ruling.

She very seldom gets that.

So she uses this opportunity to praise the ruling.

She calls it a massive court victory.

And she says that activist judges are put in their place.

The four months, of course, coming out of Minneapolis and other places, the Trump administration has been detaining quite literally thousands, thousands of undocumented immigrants who have been living inside the United States for years and then holding them in these detention centers while they await deportation.

The practice, this practice differs from previous presidential administrations.

And the practice under previous administrations, both Republicans and Democrats, included releasing many of those detainees who were not a risk of flight, not a danger to the community on bond, as long as they followed the rules of court and that they wouldn't, in fact, show up.

They were not likely to abscond.

And they once again were not a risk to public safety, giving the judges, the immigration judges, the capacity to do that to enable the detainees to post bond no more under this administration.

The eighth circuit says, yes, that is just right.

Now Wednesday's opinion was written by again, two of the three judges there in the eighth circuit.

There's one in descent.

His name is Ralph Erickson.

He called the policy a novel interpretation of federal law, one that eluded the courts and five previous presidential administrations, again, noting the disparate nature of the policy over the years.

He said in particular, with the exception of one DUI conviction, the particular detainee here is Joaquin Avila, the petitioner who brought the case, a law abiding life in the United States of America.

The distinction between undocumented immigrants, again as they're described by the A-Circuit, inside the United States, and those trying to cross the border, again on the Southwest border, had been previously recognized by five presidential administrations.

Everybody before this, with the exception of Donald Trump, recognizing that distinction, including the Trump administration in the first term.

The majority reasoning has echoes from an earlier ruling from three judges for the Fifth Circuit who also found the policy to be legal.

It is significant, however, that in our own Seventh Circuit.

A preliminary ruling just in December of last year, December of 2025, U.S.

Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit, which again, as you know, includes Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, they found that the long-standing practice of treating undocumented immigrants and migrants at the border differently was likely to be the correct one under the law.

In other words, they would have said, yes, indeed,

bond is available once you are in the United States, and you haven't, and you have in fact, arrived in this country.

A detention issue, an immigration issue, probably headed to the Supreme Court.

Why?

Because it's one of those circumstances where, as I indicated, you've got a split in the circuits.

You've got appeals courts making different determinations on the same fundamental legal issue.

slightly different facts, probably from case to case, but nonetheless, probably going up to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not this particular application of the immigration laws should be upheld or as the petitioners that attainees in the Ace Circuit and other places will almost certainly argue contrary to the immigration law of our land.

That coming out of the Ace Circuit Appeals Court, let's talk about a couple of federal district courts.

This one following up.

on some previous reporting that we did on this very broadcast.

This has to do with these former employees of the Musk team.

As you know, on this broadcast, I do not refer to them as a department because, in fact, the Musk team was never a part of a department.

The United States Congress never created anything that begins with a D. So we're going to call them the Musk team.

They were employees

And they provided some testimony, some online deposition testimony in connection with reviewing the conduct of theirs during the course of their attempt to try to scrub many agencies of DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, principles, and practices, and doing other things the administration found was inconsistent with the policy of the administration, a Manhattan judge on Monday.

on Monday.

Her name is Colleen McMahon.

We have talked about her before.

She ruled that the video depositions of two of these former employees of Elon Musk could be reposted in emphasis on reposted

on the internet 10 days after she gave an order that temporarily took those down because of the complaints that the former employees were being harassed.

You may recall this from previous broadcast of this show.

Those video depositions of the former employees of Musk

And by the federal government, going into agencies, two other government witnesses, they ran about 25 hours altogether.

They were posted earlier this month by YouTube by some groups that were suing the national endowment for the humanities, seeking to restore some sweeping cuts in grants that these individuals, again, working under the Musk team, had helped to carry out last spring in her ruling.

Again, her rulings saying no.

These videos, they're a lot of them.

They're not complimentary.

They're not, they're not at all reflective of thoughtful consideration by these employees.

But the judge says that the case involves the public's right to understand the operations of their guns, of this must team.

The former employees, their names are Justin Fox and Nate Kavanaugh.

They are very much in the public domain, each testified in these depositions that they had used chat GPT.

identified a fine to track down inside their work at, for example, the National Endowment for the Humanities and other places, grants, financial grants that were contrary to the Trump administration's executive order banning radical and wasteful government DEI programs.

That's what the executive order said.

Both of these individuals

were recently recruited to other jobs now that the Musk team is pretty much done with it works.

They acknowledged during the course of their depositions, they had no background in the humanities or anything related to the specific tasks they were given.

They had no involvement in government before they did this, but they believed in the broader goal of, as they said, shrinking quote, useless small agencies.

That was a reference to something that Kavanaugh said, clips from the videos, as you may know,

We're circulating, they're ricocheting all over social media.

Again, lots of social media references in this weekend's broadcast.

After a New York Times report, journalists, under the First Amendment, highlighted the depositions and they provided this glimpse into how the Musk team was doing its work.

Numerous viral posts, they are posted, they circulate around.

Some commentary about what was seen as these employees very cavalier very casual treatment of their assignments their demeanor

They're very difficult, tortuous justifications of what they were doing.

Some of them not even be able to understand or define what DEI is, what they were looking for, instead just making reference to the executive order, not understanding what their role was.

In one of those widely circulated video clips, Fox has asked whether he agreed with the flagging of a documentary about Jewish women who had been slave laborers.

during the course of the horrific Holocaust.

And the response came back from Fox.

He said, it's a Jewish, specifically focused on Jewish culture and amplifying the marginalized voices of the females in that culture.

It's inherently related to DEI for that reason.

And again, many people looked at that and said, try to figure out what that's all about.

The clips back online, including that one,

about the work of the Musk team.

When we come back, we'll talk about another federal district court judge in the news just this past week, as Amicus, a lot of you, continues.

My name is Jim Santel, and this is Amicus, a law review on the broadcast stations of civic media.

We are doing a lot focusing this broadcast on answers.

We're going to get some questions toward the end of this hour, but answers provided by juries and federal district court judges and appellate court judges.

And yes, the Supreme Court, as we continue our exposition of judgments and rulings made in the courts of America.

talking about this decision by Judge Colleen McMahon, saying that the video testimony of some former employees of Elon Musk can remain online, even though, even though, as she said, it's highly inappropriate and should trouble every good citizen that the harassment that has been caused of these witnesses by people reviewing them.

She's called that deeply troubling, but she said, you know what?

Even though I initially said we're gonna take those down.

She said that on March 13th She ordered these videos temporarily taken down and again talked about the troubling nature of the harassment the attacks of on these two witnesses She said that the government has not shown that in order barring the plaintiffs these the people who are challenging the not only the national endowment for the humanities grant but

all of these depositions being up there on public media.

She said the government had not shown that an order barring the plaintiffs from reposting the videos would be effective.

She said the videos have already been widely disseminated across multiple platforms, including once again, here's the reference again, YouTube, ex TikTok, Instagram and Reddit, where they have been shared, reposted, viewed, viewed by at least hundreds of thousands of users.

She said that the order directed solely at the plaintiffs would not meaningfully limit further dissemination or mitigate the government's asserted harms.

And so the videos are back up online, exposing, among other things.

What one of them said, he described how projects have been placed on a list of, of attack for.

for expunging from various agencies.

One of the witnesses during the course of one of these depositions talked about the crazy grants, the craziest grant simply because they related to LGBTQ subjects, those identified for termination as a result of the commission, the work given to him by this mosque team in the spring and into the summer of last year.

Let's talk about another federal district court judge.

Another loss for one particular individual in his name is Mike Lindell.

You may recall he is the pillow guy.

And you may remember that there was a civil case that was pending again against him.

A jury had found that Lindell and his media coming.

It's called Frank Speech.

Fount liable for defaming a person named Eric Kumer, C-O-O-M-E-R.

You'll call this when I mention Dominion Voting Systems.

The plaintiff had worked for Dominion Voting Systems at the Voting Technology Company.

It had been targeted, you may recall, you will recall, by Donald Trump supporters in connection with the election that he lost to Joe Biden, maintaining that Dominion was somehow responsible, the people there, the machines they're responsible for delivering a fraudulent result in Donald Trump's loss to Joe Biden.

Wang, who is the federal district court judge, Nina Wang, she's a U.S.

trial judge.

She is in Colorado.

She, first of all, rejected a post-trial motion challenging the verdict.

She said, nope, I'm not going to overturn that jury verdict, finding Lindell guilty, responsible for defaming Kuber and effectively dominion voting systems.

That judgment, the verdict of the jury, they're totaling over $2 million against Lindell individually and his company, Frank Speech.

Through that company, again, Lindell broadcasts his show, and that included statements about Coomer and his misconduct that led to this lawsuit, alleged misconduct, proven to be untrue.

In her ruling most recently, Judge Nina Wang and the trial court judge recounted that Coomer testified

that Lindell's statements accusing him of election rigging made the plaintiff unlikely to ever work again in anything election related and talked about the consequences of the defamation by Lindell against Coomer in the public domain.

The court again upholding that verdict and then going on to do a couple of other things in this case also not good for the Lindell team.

The actions of Frank Speech's lawyer in defending against this motion, that is to overturn the verdict, led the judge to raise some ethical concerns.

All right?

And again, now we've got lawyers once again trying to overturn the jury verdict and doing things that attract the attention of Judge Nina Wang.

that caused her to say some things about their conduct.

She notes that in the response to Kumar's motion to again address the damages issue and all the issues related to damages, defense lawyers had cited a case as having been decided by a federal appeals court.

Now all of us know where a federal appeals court stand.

the judge, Nina Wang, in fact, observed that it was actually a trial level ruling that the lawyers misleadingly described.

And for that reason, that was sufficient to misdescribe the case and get the court's attention.

There's a difference between a trial court ruling and an appellate court ruling.

There's a difference between an appellate court ruling and a supreme court ruling as you go up the chain of trial court, appeal court, appeals court.

and Supreme Court, the force, the impetus of the particular decisions becomes more compelling.

And Judge Wang wrote that the court cannot ignore this reoccurring conduct simply because the trial is now over.

She wrote this, she said, regardless of whether generative artificial intelligence was used or not, there's the AI problem again, the appeals court covering Colorado has been clear that an attorney has a fundamental duty

to the court to confirm that all legal authorities in submissions to the court are accurately cited, reflect accurate quotations, and stand for the propositions for which they are cited.

Call this a fundamental duty.

When we come back, I'll tell you what the judge said about what may happen next to these judges, again, defending Lindell in this post-verdict examination when the broadcast continues.

This is Amicus, a law review.

My name is Jim Santel.

We are talking all about decisions made by federal district court judges, appeals court judges, juries, Supreme Court.

During the course of the last several days or so, talking in particular about a decision made by US District Judge Nina Wang, she is in Colorado.

She is upholding a jury verdict.

in the amount of two million dollars against a guy named Mike Lindell.

He's the pillow guy, you may recall him.

He was also an unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota a while back.

The judge not only rejecting any attempt to overturn that verdict as an aside, she also rejects a request from the plaintiff.

who in this case is Eric Kummer affiliated with Dominion voting systems to increase the jury verdict in other words she affirms what the jury has done with respect to that two million dollar finding but along the way she also says I'm unhappy with the performance the conduct of the attorneys representing you Mr. Lindell talks about the fact that they have misdirected the court with respect to a decision that they cite

It's a trial court and appellate court situation.

She talked about the fundamental duty to confirm that all legal authorities and submissions to the court are accurately cited.

And she bolds the words fundamental duty in the course of her opinion.

She says it's inexplicable how these errors happened yet again.

And yes, once again, she boldens the yet again words in her order.

She bolded that phrase because she reminds all of us that the lawyers had previously also violated their professional obligations.

She recalled that she had sanctioned them $3,000 each.

for what apparently to her seemed to have little, if any, remedial impact for their previous misconduct.

And so now the judge has told these two lawyers, you've got until April 8th, convince me, the judge says, why I shouldn't sanction you further, she says, for your continued

Failure to check your citations as required by court rules and she goes on to say maybe just maybe I'm going to refer you to your state bars for disciplinary proceedings Those state bars the places where these lawyers are licensed to practice are Virginia and yes, Wisconsin and that coming out again of a Colorado federal district court

reviewing once again what happened in the wake of a jury verdict against Mike Lindell and also reviewing the misconduct and misbehavior of his attorneys in defending against that case.

Finally, finally, let's come back to Wisconsin and talk about an answer, a judgment, a decision issued by a unanimous panel of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, all of them, all of them agreeing on this particular

law enforcement practice that also involves minors and schools and Miranda rights, something that we know well from TV and movies.

Perhaps everyone can recite what Miranda rights are.

Well, the Supreme Court in the state of Wisconsin just this past week has ruled that law enforcement officers must in fact read Miranda rights to interrogate students at school.

Unanimous decision.

Ruling that police officers have to read a student's minors K through 12 their Miranda rights You've got a right to remain silent anything you say cannon use cannon will be used against you've got a right of an attorney You've got a right to contact that attorney if you choose not to to be silent those things can in fact show up in the trial against you which is the point of this particular case school setting interrogation

Okay, lots of issues here related to whether or not the particular student was in custody, plainly was, whether he felt free to leave, and what are the obligations of an officer examining a student, a minor in a school setting, significant also to note,

that Miranda does not require, does not mandate that if it's not given, the entire case goes away.

What it means is the statements that are made by any target, any subject, any defendant that follow the failure of law enforcement to give Miranda rights, those can't be used.

Doesn't say that Miranda necessarily then means that the entire case can and will be dismissed.

This particular case stems from an incident at the Two Rivers Middle School.

A 12 year old, a seventh grade student, I referred to in this case, Justice Kevin, again, because he is a minor, apparently allegedly touched the groin of a classmate.

And Kevin was pulled out of class.

He was interviewed in a small room dedicated for use by school resource officers.

There's an initial interview around 10 minutes.

Kevin is allowed to leave before being interviewed again about an hour later.

And while he was in the room,

A uniformed officer, a student in front of the door, a school resource officer doing the interview lied by saying that there were witnesses to the incident.

Police officers are in fact allowed to lie during interviews to elicit a confession.

all this a part of the record with respect to the 12 year old.

Kevin said that during both interviews that he had in fact touched the boys groin, but it was an accident.

So he raises that almost immediately.

He's later charged with fourth degree sexual assault and a bench trial, a bench trial in the Manitowoc County circuit court finds him delinquent.

The boy appeals the ruling, arguing that the statements he made during those interviews were inadmissible.

Why?

Because he had never been read his Miranda rights by the officers who were interrogating him, and the records clear that they had not done that.

And again, doesn't mean you can't proceed with the prosecution, just that the statements that are made, in this case by Kevin, cannot be used if, in fact, those Miranda rights were not given.

The question is, does Miranda apply?

in this academic setting to a 12-year-old under these circumstances.

Majority decision, authored by Jenna Protasevitz.

joined by the courts through other justices, found that taking Kevin to the room for questioning amounted to his being in police custody, that's important because of the circumstances under which Miranda applies.

And they should have been read as rights under these circumstances.

The ruling, again, written on behalf of a unanimous court, says the interview statements weren't admissible.

It also found, however,

that the evidence for the delinquency finding did not, did not rely on those particular statements.

So the circuit court's decision was upheld.

Again, the statements are removed.

as unconstitutionally recorded and gotten, cannot be used, but the underlying case goes ahead.

Here's what Justice Protocewitz said.

He said, while Kevin sat across from one officer who questioned him, another fully uniformed and armed officer stood position at the front door.

The questioning officer asked him about an alleged sexual assault.

She told him untruthfully that there were witnesses.

She also accusingly told them it happened.

No one told him, Kevin, that he could reach out to his parents or any other adult.

No one told him he was free to leave.

No one told him he did not need to answer questions.

But in the end, a 12-year-old boy was questioned according to the unanimous court in a closet-like law enforcement office with two police officers, one who was fully uniformed and standing in front of the door.

The result is that this young man's

Constitutional rights were violated even though, again, the remedy is removal from the record, from the proceedings of that particular case.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Hagridorn

joined by two others on the bench, said the issues were made much larger than they should have been.

He wrote that the majority transformed a rather ordinary schoolhouse questioning into a matter of constitutional import and further justified his opinion, again concurring on the result, but saying this was overblown by the court in its ultimate ruling.

That coming out of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

an application of constitutional principles here in the state of Wisconsin with respect to students, in this case a 12 year old, questioned by law enforcement.

We have been focusing on those eight different answers, eight different judgments, rulings made by juries and judges around the country, including right here in Wisconsin.

Let's talk about two more questions that have been posed this past week and give you some sense of maybe, just maybe how these cases might be resolved.

One of them is back in the United States Supreme Court.

We've talked about this a lot.

The question is whether or not.

the justices are going to accept or reject this practice in many states of our union of counting late arriving ballots that is ballots that are postmarked on election day and a lot of discussion this past week in front of the Supreme Court about what election day means whether the folks who are responsible as they will be on April 7th and again coming up in August and November

whether the folks responsible for counting those ballots can continue to do so in the days following election day itself.

Or in fact, can those ballots be counted only, only on election day itself?

Lots of different things coming out of lots of different states.

In July of 2020, Mississippi governor, his name is Tate Reeves signed a house bill.

and it allowed absentee ballots to be counted if they were postmarked by election day.

In other words, they've got to have the postmark on them and received by election officials within five days of that election.

In other words, they can continue to come in after that and they can be counted as long as they carry that postmark indicating that they were postmarked by election day.

Postmarked after that, then they're not counted.

The legislation was enacted in response to the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic happened in many other states.

As a matter of fact, Mississippi is among 14 states to allow absentee mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted even if they arrive within a set period after the election.

States have different deadlines.

We've talked about this a lot in connection with other cases, including that boast case in which the Supreme Court said that, yes, indeed, a successful congressman could indeed challenge Illinois' law with respect to the counting of ballots that were received after election day.

But states, again, across the country, have all kinds of different deadlines for when a ballot can be counted.

Five states...

have a receipt deadline between one and four days after elections, and seven states in the District of Columbia have a deadline between five and ten days after election day.

Two states, again significantly Illinois and Washington, have a deadline between 14 and 20 days after the election.

And so while this case comes up from Mississippi, plainly it will have huge implications with respect to many other states across the nation, probably not decided in time for the April 7th polling, but arguably for August and maybe also in November.

Elected officials again across the country have also been debating this issue about whether states can and should count absentee mail-in ballots that arrive after election day.

In 2025, four states, Kansas and North Dakota, Ohio and Utah, enacted some legislation, various kinds, various aspects of these pieces of legislation requiring absentee mail-in ballots to arrive before the close of polls on election day to be counted, before the close of election day.

to be counted in those particular states.

All four states previously had later deadlines, like those others I just indicated, for ballots to arrive, provided they were post-mart by election day.

Litigation over Mississippi, and that again gives rise to this particular determination and wrestling by the Supreme Court, was playing out even as President Donald Trump issued an executive order.

Just recently, instructing the U.S.

Attorney General to take action to prevent states from counting ballots that arrive after election day.

Again, our president attempting to legislate or issue some rulings that would play around in this area.

The order which referenced the Fifth Circuit's ruling on Mississippi law was challenged in court in June of 2025.

Let me come back.

I'll tell you about what the Supreme Court did in the oral argument in this Mississippi case as Amicus Law Review continues.

This is Amicus, a law review.

My name is Jim Santel.

We are talking now about some questions still pending for the United States Supreme Court, a big one at a time when we are looking forward to three, count them, three elections here in the coming months.

The question is whether or not.

The Supreme Court should invalidate this practice of counting ballots postmarked by Election Day but not counted until afterwards a significant matter, for example, in the state of Alaska.

The largest state by land mass in the country, as you all well know, relies heavily on a 10-day grace period after the Election Day.

along with boats and airplanes to ensure that all of its boaters' ballots are received and counted in a proper way.

So what happens just this past week when the Supreme Court is addressing Mississippi's particular postmark law and determining whether an election day means election day or something else?

The justices

Majority appear appear they seem to be poised to reject the Mississippi law on late arriving ballots seem to be saying no election day means election day and plainly if they go with that if a majority of the Supreme Court says you can't count votes can't count ballots that are received after election day itself that changes things dramatically for the upcoming polling

We know that of course, during the course of these, these proceedings before the Supreme Court, lots of back and forth between the justices and the lawyers.

Justices, Alina Kagan and Katanji Brown Jackson, pressing the solicitor generals, named as John Sauer, who is again advocating that election day means election day shouldn't be counting ballots that come in after election day.

They're asking him how it's possible to read the federal statute to prohibit states from counting ballots received after election day, but not also early voting and absentee voting.

If you're going to make those, if you're going to make the argument here, they say, a general sour, what about early voting and absentee voting?

They're not voting on election day either.

Just as Kagan asking why this practice and no other practice plainly indicating

that she is going to vote to support the capacity of states to count votes after election day.

Katanji Brown Jackson also pointing, she says, you know, across the parking lot here, there's a concurrent debate in Congress regarding new voting legislation.

which would make significant changes, she says, to the voting process across the country, requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.

She says all of this is going on when we are months and weeks away from doing all of this again, just as Kavanaugh, on the other side, sites an outside expert who noted that charges of a rigged election could explode if late reported results

show a change in the winner.

And again, this is Justice Kavanaugh citing this outside expert, risk that the losing side will cry that the election has been stolen.

Claims of rigged elections and the stolen 2020 election were commoner frames from the president in 2020.

Those have plainly again, as Justice Kavanaugh noted, persistent.

in more recent statements of his but also other people concerns about what will happen in the confidence of voting if polling effectively is continued after the election day or at least the counting of those votes just as Alito pointed to arguments exactly to that end he said confidence in election outcomes can be seriously undermined when election results are delayed

Well, maybe delayed anywhere between a few days and maybe a couple of weeks here, especially when he said results flip from who is ahead on election night to a different candidate winning in the days that follow.

In 2020, you may recall, this was referred to as a red mirage and was showing that President Trump was ahead on election night.

Although again, we know that Joe Biden ultimately was declared the winner.

when all those votes were counted.

And so we are waiting a decision from the Supreme Court among about 40 other cases in the months ahead on whether or not a great number of states in our nation can in fact continue to count ballots received after Election Day, postmarked on Election Day, but received after Election Day a significant decision.

from the Supreme Court, however it goes, could be very narrow, could be very broad, depending upon what they do.

And finally, finally, in this edition, let's look to the North.

Canadian Supreme Court, there's a case that they have in front of them that could test the country's very unity.

And it involves Quebec's ban on religious symbols and a measure that suspends constitutional rights.

All of that is being tested in a case, again, oral argument, the lawyers presenting briefs to that particular court, to the north in Canada.

Top court case, far reaching consequences, opposing sides clashing this past week over an increasingly used measure to override constitutional rights in Canada that one lawyer warned could give rise to a mini-Trump in Canada.

The case at the Supreme Court of Canada focuses on a 2019 Quebec law on secularism and religious symbols, but it also touches on many other sensitive issues which you can well imagine that have torn Canada apart, the balance of power in its federation, and the distinct nature of the French-speaking province of Quebec.

It has to do with something in the 1982 Constitution called the Not Withstanding Clause that allows governments at all levels, which were invoked here, to pass laws that suspend, that overcome rights in the Constitution's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Governor of Quebec used that clause to pass a 2019 law that, again, stay with me on this.

prohibited public servants from wearing religious symbols at work.

The provincial government argued that the law was intended to protect secularism in the province, and of course that causes great consternation.

and great disagreement, again, focusing on secular issues and religion as well.

Some linguistic and religious minorities said that the law was discriminatory and violated the Canadian Constitution.

Canada wrestling with all those issues under its constitution.

As we anticipate next week's broadcast, inviting you to return to Amicus Law Review and a further discussion of all of these issues here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

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.