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 law review on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
And yes, my name is Jim Santel.
I am your host this hour and also next hour on this
which is, of course, our weekly weekend review of all things related to the rule of law, the administration of justice, the operation of government locally in our state, in our nation, and occasionally even on the face of the planet.
I am located right now at Racine's wonderful radio park, along with my terrific producer Max and together, we are, as always, in this broadcast, taking your calls, your comments, your questions, those things that
Prompt you to scratch your head about the things on our ambitious but achievable syllabus.
That phone number is 855-752-4842.
Once again, that's 855-752-4842.
And again, you can be a part of our discussion.
Do just that in these next two hours.
as we undertake our exposition through the geography of the rule of law and the administration of justice from just this past week.
Some major stories, very significant things happening in these topic areas just in the past several days.
We're gonna begin with our focus as we often do.
on the United States Supreme Court because it fairly easily grabbed most of the rule of law headlines this past week in two major areas.
Yes, as we'll discuss in talking about some of their statistics as they enter the second portion of their term in deciding cases.
But we're going to spend most of our time in this first hour talking about the two big news issues coming out of Capitol Hill from that what is often called the White Palace they are perched on.
Capitol Hill.
That is the location of the United States Supreme Court.
They issued one major opinion this past week, having to do with conversion therapy, and we'll tell you what that is once again.
We'll tell you what they decided in a major blow, not simply to the LGBTQIA community, but also to medicine.
and science and research and people who know what they're talking about, permitting the states to ban, to reversing, rather, the decisions of states to ban conversion therapy, including Colorado, arguably affecting 20 other states throughout the nation.
And then we're gonna spend the lion's share of our time in this first hour.
talking about a case that was not decided this past week, and that is the one involving birthright citizenship.
Yes, we're still talking about that.
We've been talking about it since January of 2025, when the president first issued his major executive order, changing the way, or arguably changing the way that we think about the 14th Amendment.
This past week, the Supreme Court entertaining just a little over two hours of oral argument.
That's the time when they talk with the attorneys about the merits and the demerits of their positions orally, publicly.
We get a good chance to sample what the Supreme Court justices are thinking.
And they did just that this past Wednesday.
And the non-buried lead on this story is...
It appears the Supreme Court is going to be rejecting, rejecting what the administration and what Donald Trump has been saying about the 14th Amendment if that comes through yet another major blow.
from the Supreme Court to the presidency, to the White House, in connection with policies that he has been advancing for the past year.
We'll talk all about birthright citizenship, how it got here, what the stories coming out of the Supreme Court just this past week tell us, and then we're also going to be hearing from the litigants, including one of them, the Solicitor General of the United States, advocating obviously for the president's position.
We'll hear from the attorney from the ACLU,
advocating that it be rejected.
And in between, we're gonna hear some of the questioning from justices like Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Amy Coney Barrett, and yes, the Chief Justice himself, John Roberts, as they question and quiz.
the attorneys, specifically the Solicitor General on the rightness, the correctness of his decision, leading ultimately to what we all now know as the big takeaway, which is huge skepticism, if not outright rejection of...
the president's position on this issue.
Then we're going to go down Pennsylvania Avenue to the other major rule of law issue and event circumstance coming out of the news this past week.
And that is the firing as the termination of
The up until now, President Attorney General of the United States, her name is Pamela Bondi, will tell you about the circumstances under which she learned that she was going to be fired, related to that first story, having to do with the birthright citizenship argument before the Supreme Court.
Both she and the President attended that in an unprecedented move.
We'll talk with you about the connection between that.
and her firing, how that was done, when that was done.
And then we're also going to tell you some things about the current acting attorney general.
His name is Todd Blanche.
He has been the deputy attorney general in this past 14 year.
period of time.
We'll tell you where he comes from.
We'll tell you about some of the things that he now has on his plate.
He is the acting, acting attorney general.
He has not been Senate confirmed for that position.
We'll give you a hint or two about who may be in the running for that permanent assignment, assuming the president is going to make a nomination sometime soon to encumber that all important position of what the chief federal law enforcement officer for the entire United States.
of America.
Then in our second hour, a couple of other things related to the rule of law, including an event right here in the state of Wisconsin, and that is the arrest, the arrest by immigration and customs enforcement agents of the president of the largest mosque in the state of Wisconsin, detained by immigration agents.
The reaction to that, the basis for that, alleged by Homeland Security, we'll talk about all of that and more in this edition, this weekend edition.
of amicus a lot of you once again inviting your questions and your inquiries the phone number once again 855-752-4842 855-752-4842 let us jump right into the subject matters
of our broadcast this weekend, beginning with a few statistics, which we sometimes do.
We know that on the docket of the Supreme Court in this 2025, 2026 term, there are just under 60 cases pending.
They may in fact
add an additional one or two, but that's going to remain pretty much the same.
And of course, we're now entering that period of time.
We are now into April, certainly in May and June.
The number of cases, the number of big ticket items that are on the docket of the Supreme Court going to get resolution by the Supreme Court in its issuance of decisions.
We have talked about many of those, not the least of which is that major decision affecting the future of the Voting Rights Act.
having to do with line drawing in a state of these United States of America, whether or not section two of the Voting Rights Act of 1964, the final remaining instrument by which we can address voting inconsistencies, irregularities, and illegalities in America, is the Supreme Court perched to finally, finally, after taking two previous effective swings at the Voting Rights Act, going to swing yet again and basically
Terminate, terminate for all intents and purposes, the effect of the Voting Rights Act by virtue of its decision coming up.
It may do that, it may issue a more narrow opinion, but almost certainly in this case called Calais, which we have talked about before, going to make a decision that is not voter friendly, not encouraging exactly the kind of thing.
that we're going to be experiencing nationwide and here in the state of Wisconsin on three different occasions in this year including coming up just next week again in August and yet again in November the so-called midterm elections actually much more than that coming up in November all of that all of that potentially affected
by some of the decisions of the Supreme Court, including this major attack, this challenge to the legitimacy that has stood since 1964 of the Voting Rights Act.
You recall there is also that related case having to do with whether or not states can constitutionally legally count ballots postmarked by Election Day, but not received in the clerk's offices and clerk's offices across the country until after Election Day it appears.
It appears the Supreme Court, as we reported last week, is skeptical of those laws in various states, including Illinois, that give clerks a grace period to count those votes cast on Election Day through the absentee ballot process, but not counted until afterwards.
Today, however, we are focusing on...
on a major decision of the Supreme Court that comes out of its prior deliberation, which we have also reported on in the past.
And that is, that is...
that the justices seemed and did in fact reject this past week a Colorado law that banned conversion therapy for minors who are in the LGBTQIA community.
We recall well what this is all about.
This is a case involving a law that is passed by Colorado.
It joins laws in other states, including Wisconsin,
around the country that have banned therapists from trying to change to affect, to amend, if you will, the gender identity or sexual orientation of LGBTQIA clients, young people under the age of 18.
Colorado, like Wisconsin, like 18 or 19 other states,
bans that practice, that medical practice, as a matter of scientific integrity.
And indeed, in this particular case, conversion therapy almost unanimously rejected by the medical community as something that is effective.
In fact, most medical authorities indicate that it is downright destructive, downright harmful to those people who may be subjected to it.
An awful lot of what are called amicus briefs, friend of the court briefs, filed with the court, urging the court to support the capacity of states to ban conversion therapy, how as a means of protecting the safety, the security, the health, the well-being of its young citizens who are LGBTQ under the age of 18, who might otherwise be subjected to this kind of therapy, again, medical communities.
across the country and other places around the world, generally, unanimously rejecting this as a way of addressing what is perceived to be a problem, when in fact it really isn't.
This past Tuesday, the Supreme Court weighed in.
In a case brought by a Christian therapist and in this case, in this case, rejecting, rejecting saying no to the state of Colorado, this Colorado law that prohibited mental health professionals from trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQIA minors.
the decision again of just this past week has implications around the country, not just in Colorado, but again variations on the ban in about 20 states nationwide, including here in Wisconsin, because of this opinion.
look for these issues in virtually all of the other states now to be revisited either legislatively, judicially, by some other means.
In its decision, the courts of the law has applied to talk therapy.
This is the Supreme Court saying now that the bans can no longer stand impermissibly interfered with free speech.
This is what Neil Gorsuch said in writing for the majority.
He said Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety, but the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought.
or speech in this country.
In the end, casting this, not as a health issue, not as a care issue, a safety or security issue, but as a First Amendment issue.
When we come back, I'll tell you what some of the dissenting justices said, and the other implications of this, along with other actions undertaken by our Supreme Court just this past week, we'll do all of that here on Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
Thank you for spending some portion of your weekend with me and my producer Max as we talk about some of the major rule of law issues of just this past week beginning as we so often do with the United States Supreme Court.
So coloring, so affecting these days, our understanding of the law in America and our place in it.
We're beginning our discussion with this major decision of Tuesday.
of this past week, striking down, striking down the Colorado ban on conversion therapy that is this disreputed, rejected medical treatment trying to change the gender identity or sexual orientation of LGBTQIA youths.
We know that this comes out of a Colorado statue.
It was adopted in 2019.
that prohibits, according to the language of the law, any practice or treatment that tries to change a minor's gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction of feelings toward individuals of the same sex.
Now, interestingly, state officials there in Colorado have never enforced the measure.
and it includes fines of up to $5,000 for each violation, possible suspension or revocation of a counselor's license.
The law does include a religious exemption, we'll get back to that, for those who are, quote, engaged in the practice of religious ministry.
So how does this case come about?
Well, Kelly Childs, she identifies herself as an evangelical Christian, sues the state.
Over the law in 2022, she maintains, she argues,
that it prevents her from working with young patients who want to live a life, as she says, consistent with their faith.
In the filings in the lower courts to the Supreme Court, Kaylee Childs says she was not seeking to cure clients of same-sex attraction or to change their sexual orientation.
But rather, she said to help patients with their own stated goals, sometimes those include, as she said, seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions.
Nonetheless, she has not been cited by Colorado, but she challenges this on the basis that.
This is a violation of her First Amendment rights, a position that is embraced by the majority in its decision written by Neil Gorsuch, just this past term, this past week in this term, indicating that by doing this, by even having the law, even without enforcement, it impermissibly interferes with free speech.
Now, the decision, of course, not without its dissenting voices, including the three that you would anticipate, Sonia Sotomayor,
Katanji Brown, Jackson and Elena Kagan.
Katanji Brown, Jackson reads a lengthy summary of her opposition from the bench.
which again, justices are doing with greater frequency.
They've always done that from time to time, but more and more when they find themselves so virulously vigorously and virulently opposed to what the majority is doing, they will read their opinions from the bench itself.
Justice Jackson warning in that reading of the broader implications for medical care, not just in Colorado, but around the country, that she describes as catastrophic.
Catastrophic, she says, if the states cannot regulate some kinds of speech by licensed professionals.
This is what she writes in particular.
She says, this decision might make speech-only therapies and other medical treatments involving practitioner speech effectively unregulatable.
She criticizes the eight colleagues on the other side for having made this monstrous decision without adequately grappling with the potential long-term disastrous implications.
And again, she writes the dissent for the dissent in this particular case just this past week.
Now, we know as well that the Democratic Attorney General
from the state of Colorado opposed the rescission of the band.
After the case was decided, he said the states have long regulated medical practices like this, including treatments carried out through speech to protect patients from substandard care.
He warned, this is the Democratic Attorney General there in Colorado who is defending the ban in front of the Supreme Court.
that a Supreme Court ruling against Colorado now undercuts the ability of Colorado and of the states to regulate other professions, and it makes it harder to sue all kinds of professionals, including doctors and lawyers for giving bad advice.
The case proceeded on a theory about the level of judicial scrutiny that should be given to these kinds of laws.
Ms.
Child's legal group said that the court should adopt and apply this law according to a very demanding state of standard of judicial scrutiny.
And that would require the state to show that its laws advance a compelling government interest and that it's narrowly devised to do so.
They said if the law were subject to that higher standards known as strict scrutiny, the highest level of review given by a court,
courts would truly find that it violates the Constitution.
The therapist's position was backed by the Trump administration.
And as a result of that adopting effectively that higher standard, the United States Supreme Court does side with the therapist, rejects the Colorado law.
that prohibits mental health professionals from trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQIA minors, going to have implications, as the Attorney General said, not only there in Colorado, but in other states, arguably including right here in Wisconsin, that have similar bans on the administration, the application, the embracing of this wholly discredited way of applying medical care and treatment to young people in our nation.
Major news coming out of the Supreme Court among the 60 or so cases altogether that will have decided by April, May, June, maybe even into July of this year.
We also spend a lot of time on this broadcast talking about how the tea leaves can be read when it comes to oral arguments.
We know that this past week there were oral arguments in a number of cases, including cases involving whether federal prosecutors can try a defendant in the judicial district where the crimes contemplated effects are felt.
Question there whether venue this place where you try the case is proper in a district.
where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute's intent element contemplates effects that could occur there.
That's one of the oral arguments.
When we come back, we'll talk about the other major oral arguments, including Trump versus Barbara, birthright citizenship, back on the docket of the Supreme Court as our broadcast continues after this.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus on the broadcast stations of Civic Media once again.
So very pleased that you have chosen to spend some time with my producer Max and me in discussion of these major Supreme Court actions of this past week, doing a bit more inventory, eight oral arguments altogether this past week, and a variety of different things I mentioned before this break.
issue having to do with the location of a crime and its impact.
Questions about that.
A second case about whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction.
overseas administers a particular case and then suspends that case pending arbitration can still do things in connection with the litigation of that case.
A third oral argument called Pitchford versus Cain having to do with the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 has to do with whether or not a state supreme court in this case Mississippi
unreasonably determined that the petition, the challenger in that case, waived his right to rebut the prosecutors asserted race neutral reasons for exercising preemptory strikes against four black jurors.
That's a lot of language.
That's how the Supreme Court framed that argument.
It has to do with what we call Batson challenges, a Supreme Court case from a number of years ago that said that when it comes to choosing jurors, race, race cannot be among the considerations.
For choosing a jury of peers, it has been undertaken in many different courts, a number of different permutations on Batson.
But Batson, again, before the Supreme Court, just this past week.
And then finally, this case, Trump versus Barbara.
Trump versus Barbara.
This is the birthright citizenship case.
The headline, once again, as you all well know,
Majority of Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of limiting birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment appear to be heading toward rejecting saying no to this president when it comes to what he did.
way back in January, his first day of office, way back last year.
President Donald Trump on that day issues executive order 14,160, that's its number, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.
And by that executive order, President Trump thought he was declaring that individuals born in the United States are not, are not United States citizens at birth if, if...
their parents lack sufficient legal status in particular, the order directs that they not be recognized, that is, the children born of parents not be recognized as citizens if the mother was unlawfully present in the United States of America, unlawful presence here in this country.
The father was neither a U.S.
citizen or a lawful permanent resident, or second, that the mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the father was not a U.S.
citizen.
or a legal resident at the time.
That's what his executive order contemplated, been the subject obviously of a huge amount of litigation since its issuance, became effective if it did at all on February 20th of 25, but almost immediately, almost immediately, a number of families across the country
with children, challenge it.
Three families in particular make their way ultimately to the United States Supreme Court.
One class representative is Barbara.
It's her name that is given to this case.
She's a Honduran asylum applicant.
whose child was born late last year.
Another one is Susan.
She's a Taiwanese citizen in the country on a student visa whose daughter was born in April of 2025.
And the third is Mark.
He's a Brazilian applicant for Permanent Resident Status, whose son was born in March of 2025 and initially did receive a U.S.
passport.
Those families, those families and many others around the country filed suit.
challenging, challenging what the president was attempting to do, which was change our long-standing understanding of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
They alleged that the executive order unlawfully strips their children of citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution and by authorities which will get to
issued previously by the Supreme Court.
Now what happens as you know well, because we've talked a lot about this on this broadcast, is that the case percolates up within the past year to the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court, rather than addressing the issue squarely, says we're more interested, at least initially, in this issue of whether or not a single federal district court judge, one judge in particular,
in say, New Hampshire, or in New York, or in Wisconsin, or Los Angeles, or Colorado, or New Orleans, any place around the country can issue an order in joining, stopping the executive order, or is that something that cannot be done that way, but has to be done in individual districts in order to get a nationwide stop?
If the issue goes to whether or not there can be nationwide injunctions, universal injunctions against
a presidential directive issued by a singular judge in a singular district.
And in the end, after litigation on that procedural issue, the Supreme Court says no.
In an opinion which we talked a lot about in the past, Amy Coney Barrett says that that's contrary to the spirit and tenor of the law in America and federal district court judges sitting in an individual district.
including eastern or western Wisconsin or southern California or eastern New York cannot issue a decision that applies across the nation to the 92 other districts nationwide.
That was a major change but it did not resolve the issue of whether or not the president's directive
which again was being rejected nationwide by those individual judges whether his directive his executive order on January 20th his first day in office is in fact legal and that's what they took up finally after more litigation
percolating up upon the request of the Solicitor General of the United States of America, challenging a lower court that said the President's directive was unlawful, unconstitutional, inconsistent with the 14th Amendment.
And that leads us again to the oral argument and the overall takeaway that a majority of the Supreme Court appears very skeptical, doubtful, that the President's theory, as articulated by John Sauer, limiting birthright citizenship,
is, in fact, viable.
And in that connection, we're going to introduce all of this by hearing for a couple of minutes from this list of general.
His name is John Sauer, and this is how he began his oral argument.
Recall, he is the chief advocate for the Department of Justice for America in presenting these kinds of cases.
Here is how he frames the issue on behalf of, in support of, the president of the United States of America.
We will hear argument this morning in case 25365, Trump versus Barbara.
General Sauer?
Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.
The Citizenship Clause was adopted just after the Civil War to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children whose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile here.
It did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens who have no such allegiance.
This conclusion reflects the original public meaning of the clause.
When Congress used the term not subject to any foreign power in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it rejected the British conception of allegiance.
Senator Trumbull explained that subject to the jurisdiction thereof and the clause means not owing allegiance to anybody else.
And in 1884, this court recognized that subject to the jurisdiction means owing direct and immediate allegiance.
The clause thus does not extend citizenship to the children of temporary visa holders or illegal aliens.
Unlike the newly freed slaves, those visitors lack direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.
For aliens, lawful domicile is the status that creates the requisite allegiance, and the text of the clause presupposes domicile.
For decades following the clause's adoption, commentators recognize that the children of temporary visitors are not citizens.
And illegal aliens lack the legal capacity to establish domicile here.
Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations.
It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.
It operates as a powerful pull factor for illegal immigration and rewards illegal aliens who not only violate the immigration laws but also jump in front of those who follow the rules.
It has spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism as uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States.
I welcome the court's questions.
And with that, with that, the Associate General of the United States of America, his name is John Sauer.
We've heard from him before.
as he has presented cases on behalf of the Department of Justice, on behalf of the American people.
That's his role.
That's his position.
Even if you do not agree with what he is saying, that's the authority that he conveys of the administration in particular, obviously advocating in support of the president's executive order.
This case, of course, as the Solicitor General indicated, has enormous stakes behind it.
It potentially redefines what it means to be an American.
If there is a decision to limit birthright citizenship in the way that the Solicitor General advocates, it could have sweeping practical consequences, stripping the promise of citizenship from the estimated 200,000 babies or more.
born in the United States each year to undocumented immigrants.
It is no small consequence.
And so in the wake of the Scissor General's framing of this case, that is that it is not consistent with what the understanding of the 14th Amendment has been.
It is procedurally unfair.
to people who follow the rules, as he said.
The questioning continues, and it becomes clear during the course of that from justices on, if you will, both sides of the aisle that John Sauer is in some trouble.
And we'll talk about some aspects of that as we go forward here, analyzing all of this.
And in particular, he receives a fair amount of pushback from another justice of the Supreme Court.
Her name is Sonia Sotomayor.
And fairly early on in this exposition, this discussion between the Solicitor General and the Justices, Sonia Sotomayor interrupts.
the Solicitor General as justices on all sides of the bench do, and ask some questions about the practical implications.
This is Sonia Sotomayor quizzing the Solicitor General on the rightness of his position in support of the President's executive order that limits our 100-year-old understanding of the 14th Amendment.
Here is Sonia Sotomayor.
What do you do with Juan Kim Arc's quote of Daniel Webster, who said, independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence, independently of any domiciliation, independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that by the public law,
A non-citizen, while he is here in the United States, owes obedience to this country's laws.
Now, the examples that Wong-Ark Kim used as exceptions are situations in which there was not temporary allegiance to the United States.
The children of foreign diplomats whose only allegiance was to their foreign country.
and or occupied territory residents, including those citizens in Maine who had been occupied by the British forces.
The U.S.
had no control over them.
And the whole theory of the Indian tribes was similar.
The Indian tribes were analogized to foreign diplomats.
So what do we do with that?
I'd say two things.
First, as the Indian tribes, we think that's
a...
And there you have Sonia Sotomayor asking, what do we do with these authorities that are out there specifically with Indian tribes?
And she makes reference to Wong Kim Ark.
That is the 1898 Supreme Court precedent in which...
The Supreme Court said, yes, the 14th Amendment means what it says and says what it means.
Wom Kim Ark, a man of Chinese ancestry, born in San Francisco to non-citizen parents.
When we come back, more from Sonia Sotomayor and the Solicitor General, more about what the 14th Amendment means here on Amicus, a lot of you.
my name is Jim Santel and this is amicus a lot of you we are talking about this major oral argument of justice past week for the United States Supreme Court on whether or not the 14th amendment should continue to be interpreted as it has been for well over a hundred years meaning that if you are born in this country you are a citizen of the United States of America
full stop and of sentence and of paragraph.
Right before the break, we heard Sonia Sotomayor quizzing the Solicitor General.
His name is John Sauer.
He is advocating in favor of the President's position that the 14th Amendment should be more limited.
and that if in fact you're born of a mother who is illegally here or hero only temporarily you are not a citizen of the United States and that would again affect dramatically hundreds of thousands of lives here in the United States of America including babies born since February 20th of last year.
Sonia Sotomayor raising this precedent of Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case that said that, yes, indeed, you're born here and you are a citizen.
The justices throughout the argument pressing both sides in the meaning of this case and how their interpretations of it should affect the justices' interpretations of the 14th Amendment.
And along the way, as you have already heard, one of the crucial questions for the panel was the meaning of the word domicile.
which appears multiple times in the 1898 ruling.
The Solicitor General attempted to distinguish Wong Kim Arc because it does not support the president's position.
The other side, which we'll hear from the ACLU, arguing that birthright citizenship applies to nearly all babies born on U.S.
soil, does not hinge on the notion of domicile.
Let's hear now the response of the Solicitor General, John Sauer, to Sonia Sautemeyer's quizzing hiv.
on the legitimacy of his position.
I'd say two things.
First, as the Indian tribes, we think that's a case that strongly supports us, because, of course, by 1866 and 1868, there was strong understanding that the Indian tribes were subject to the United States' regulatory jurisdiction.
But not the same way that temporary foreigners were, meaning there was a real debate going on.
whether the U.S.
actually had jurisdiction over Indian tribes.
That's why our case is, for the longest time, until that was finally settled, said, absent some act of Congress, there is, our laws don't apply, U.S.
laws don't apply to Indians on Indian lands, correct?
I believe you look at the Rogers decision, for example, that we cite in our brief where they say that they are subject to the...
That's later.
I'm talking at the time.
Yes, at the time.
So what do you do during the debates of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and of the 14th Amendment?
With the entire discussion of the people who opposed the amendment, who kept saying, we can't pass it because we're making citizens of gypsies who have no allegiance to anybody.
And we're going to make citizens of Chinese people who can't be citizens because we're not going to permit them to be citizens.
What do we do with those debates?
And the fact that the proponents of both acts said everyone who's born in the US will be citizens.
First as that particular exchange page 2890 the congressional record from 1866 Senator Cowan gives this virulently racist statement where he says that and what does he say right at the beginning of that that sort of offensive speech he says he says we can't have children of gypsies children of Chinese immigrants we can't have them become citizens and he says quote have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States so he's trying to persuade the Republicans to his view by appealing to a common understanding that sojourners do not have children who become citizen
So there's powerful evidence there that everybody understood this to, you know, not sweep in the temporary sojourner.
And that's why you see for 40, 50 years, you see every commentator who addresses the specific question of temporary presence saying it's not covered by the clause, including for decades after Wong Kim Arc.
And in the wake of that, there is more questioning back and forth among the more interesting things during the course of the oral argument is a similar exchange between the Solicitor General Neil Gorsuch, who is also very skeptical of what the Solicitor General is selling or trying to sell to the Supreme Court.
He asks about tribal law and whether Native Americans should be considered birthright citizens under the government's test.
And John Sauer apparently could not say for sure.
He says, I think so.
I mean, obviously, they're granted citizenship by statute, referring to the Indian Citizenship Act, which was a 1924 law.
The Associate Justice, Neil Gorsuch, is not.
Pleased with that, he says, but aside the statute, you think they're birthright citizens.
And Sauer responds, no, I think the clear understanding that everybody agrees in the congressional debates is that the children of tribal Indians are not birthright citizens.
And Gorsuch responds, I understand that's what they said, but your test is the domicile of the parents.
And that would be the test you'd have a supply today, right?
That's Neil Gorsuch.
quizzing, as did Sonia Sotomayor, the Solicitor General.
Sauer says, yes, yes.
And so if a tribal Indian, for example, gives up allegiance, Gorsuch interrupts him and says, are tribal Indians born today, birthright citizens?
And here's where the rub comes in.
The Solicitor General applies, ah, I think so, on our test.
If they're lawfully domiciled here,
I'm not sure, he says.
I have to think that through, but that's my reaction.
And Gorsuch says, I'll take that as a yes.
That is a perfect example of the ways in which the Solicitor General not getting a receptive audience by the Supreme Court.
And that continued for the better part of two hours.
During the course of this, as you know well, there was something else that was unprecedented that happened.
We're gonna begin that in the final moments of this hour and continue the story in the first moments of our next hour.
And that is the presence of the chief executive of the United States, the president was there, along with his attorney general, Pam Bondi.
Now, according to historical records, that is unprecedented.
That is for a sitting president
of the United States of America to attend a hearing and oral argument of the United States Supreme Court in their courtroom to hear a case about which plainly he is much invested.
That happened this past week, and you know well what also happened, which is sometime during the course of the presentation by the ACLU's attorney.
That is, we're going to get to that in just a few moments.
The president, who attended just the first portion, decided to leave.
And he abruptly rose from his seat, left the courtroom, and returned to the White House and said, the United States is the only country in the world stupid enough to allow birthright citizenship.
A misstatement, a misstatement of the law coming from the president.
We come back more about this landmark oral argument for the Supreme Court just this past week here on Amicus, a law review.
my name is Jim Santel and this is amicus a lot of you we are talking about this major oral argument of justice past week for the United States Supreme Court on whether or not the 14th amendment should continue to be interpreted as it has been for well over a hundred years meaning that if you are born in this country you are a citizen of the United States of America
full stop and of sentence and of paragraph.
Right before the break, we heard Sonia Sotomayor quizzing the Solicitor General.
His name is John Sauer.
He is advocating in favor of the President's position that the 14th Amendment should be more limited.
and that if in fact you're born of a mother who is illegally here or hero only temporarily you are not a citizen of the United States and that would again affect dramatically hundreds of thousands of lives here in the United States of America including babies born since February 20th of last year.
Sonia Sotomayor raising this precedent of Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case, that said that, yes, indeed, you're born here and you are a citizen.
The justices throughout the argument pressing both sides in the meaning of this case and how their interpretations of it should affect the justices' interpretations of the 14th Amendment.
And along the way, as you have already heard, one of the crucial questions for the panel was the meaning of the word domicile, which appears multiple times in the 1898 ruling.
the Solicitor General attempted to distinguish Wong Kim Arc because it does not support the president's position.
The other side, which we'll hear from the ACLU, arguing that birthright citizenship applies to nearly all babies born on U.S.
soil, does not hinge on the notion of domicile.
Let's hear now the response of the Solicitor General, John Sauer, to Sonia Sotomayor's quizzing him on the legitimacy of his position.
I'd say two things.
First, as the Indian tribes, we think that's a case that strongly supports us because, of course, by 1866 and 1868, there was strong understanding that the Indian tribes were subject to the United States' regulatory jurisdiction.
But not the same way that temporary foreigners were, meaning there was a real debate going on whether the US actually had jurisdiction over Indian tribes.
That's why our case is, for the longest time, until...
that was finally settled said, absent some act of Congress, there is, our laws don't apply, U.S.
laws don't apply to Indians on Indian lands,
correct?
I believe you look at the Rogers decision, for example, that we cite in our brief where they say that they are subject to the... That's
later, I'm talking at the time.
Yes, at the time.
So what do you do during the debates of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and of the 14th Amendment with the entire discussion of the people who opposed the amendment who kept saying we can't pass it because we're making citizens of gypsies who have no allegiance to anybody and we're not we're going to make citizens of Chinese people who can't be citizens because we're not going to permit them to be citizens.
What do we do with those debates and the fact that the proponents of both acts said everyone who's born in the U.S.
will be citizens?
First, as that particular exchange, page 2890, the congressional record from 1866, Senator Cowan gives this virulently racist statement where he says that.
And what does he say right at the beginning of that sort of offensive speech?
He says, he says we can't have children of gypsies, children of Chinese immigrants, we can't have them become citizens.
And he says, quote, have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States?
So he's trying to persuade the Republicans to his view by appealing to a common understanding that sojourners do not have children who become citizens.
So there's powerful evidence there that everybody understood this to, you know, not sweep in the temporary sojourner.
And that's why you see for 40, 50 years, you see every commentator who addresses the specific question of temporary presence saying it's not covered by the clause, including for decades after Wonka Mark.
And in the wake of that, there is more questioning back and forth among the more interesting things during the course of the oral argument is a similar exchange between the Solicitor General Neil Gorsuch, who is also very skeptical of what the Solicitor General is selling or trying to sell to the Supreme Court.
He asks about tribal law and whether Native Americans should be considered birthright citizens under the government's test.
And John Sauer apparently could not say for sure.
He says, I think so.
I mean, obviously, they're granted citizenship by statute, referring to the Indian Citizenship Act, which was a 1924 law.
The Associate Justice, Neil Gorsuch, is not.
pleased with that, he says, but aside the statute, you think they're birthright citizens.
And Sauer responds, no, I think the clear understanding that everybody agrees in the congressional debates is that the children of tribal Indians are not birthright citizens.
And Gorsuch responds, I understand that's what they said, but your test is the domicile of the parents.
And that would be the test you'd have a supply today, right?
That's Neil Gorsuch.
quizzing, as did Sonia Sotomayor, the Solicitor General.
Sauer says, yes, yes.
And so if a tribal Indian, for example, gives up allegiance, Gorsuch interrupts him and says, are tribal Indians born today, birthright citizens?
And here's where the rub comes in.
The Solicitor General applies, ah, I think so, on our test.
If they're lawfully domiciled here,
I'm not sure, he says.
I have to think that through, but that's my reaction.
And Gorsuch says, I'll take that as a yes.
That is a perfect example of the ways in which the Solicitor General not getting a receptive audience by the Supreme Court.
And that continued for the better part of two hours.
During the course of this, as you know well, there was something else that was unprecedented that happened.
We're gonna begin that in the final moments of this hour and continue the story in the first moments of our next hour.
And that is the presence of the chief executive of the United States, the president was there, along with his attorney general, Pam Bondi.
Now, according to historical records, that is unprecedented.
That is for a sitting president.
of the United States of America to attend a hearing and oral argument of the United States Supreme Court in their courtroom to hear a case about which plainly he is much invested.
That happened this past week, and you know well what also happened, which is sometime during the course of the presentation by the ACLU's attorney.
That is, we're going to get to that in just a few moments.
The president, who attended just the first portion, decided to leave.
And he abruptly rose from his seat, left the courtroom, and returned to the White House and said, the United States is the only country in the world stupid enough to allow birthright citizenship.
a misstatement, a misstatement of the law coming from the president.
We come back more about this landmark oral argument for the Supreme Court just this past week here on Amicus, a law review.
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 law review.
My name is Jim Santel.
Thank you for once again joining me and my producer, Max, as we explore the worlds of rule of law.
administration of justice and the operation of government focusing much of our time this weekend on the United States Supreme Court.
United States Supreme Court ruling earlier this week that bans on conversion therapy, at least the one coming out of Colorado, cannot stand.
And also on Wednesday of this week, expressing a huge amount of skepticism, the majority of the members of the Supreme Court did, over the executive order issued by the president on his first day in office.
Finding that not everybody born in the United States of America geographically is in fact a citizen upending well over a hundred years of tradition policy and law in this country The president himself attending that oral argument sitting there gazing at the members of the Supreme Court Significantly the chief justice none of the other
Justice of the Supreme Court acknowledging, at least from the bench, his presence, they certainly knew that he was there because they're looking right into the gallery of people sitting there.
But during the argument presented, which we have not yet gotten to by the ACLU, which is opposed to what the president has done, the president abruptly rose from his seat.
He left the courtroom, went back to the White House, and posted on his social media feed the misstatement, the misstatement of the status of this worldwide.
He said the United States is the only country in the world stupid, all of that capitalized, capital S, capital T, capital U, capital P, capital I, capital D, enough to allow birthright citizenship.
That is not true, but nonetheless, expressing his greatest may over what he had seen.
The President, of course, bright enough to understand that it wasn't going well for him in front of the Supreme Court.
This, of course, because the Supreme Court justices were aspiring and trying to figure out the meanings of citizenship under the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, as we know well, after the Civil War.
The amendment, among other things, reversed one of the most notorious decisions
Of the Supreme Court, you recall this from your days in civics, the ruling in the 1857 Dred Scott case.
that had denied citizenship to black Americans.
14th Amendment ratifying the notion that is wrong overturning the decision of the Supreme Court.
The key provision of the 14th Amendment then that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction there of our citizens.
It's that language subject to the jurisdiction there of that is the focus of the argument and that was also mirrored.
in a 1952 law that was passed by the Congress, understood ever since then, even before then, as establishing birthright citizenship.
based upon presence in the United States of America.
There was more, of course, both before and after the president departed.
And in that connection, we do have an inquiry from Adam who's asking about the propriety of leaving in the middle of an oral argument of the Supreme Court.
And again, you can go there.
You can stand in line and you can wait.
It is not unusual for the Supreme Court bailiffs to let people in and attend all or portions of the Supreme Court argument.
And they will sometimes, that is the Supreme Court justices, pause for three minutes or so while.
People can come and go and leave, but the overall rule there is no disruption.
And even though you can leave quietly at any time, you're expected to minimize that disruption in proceedings.
If you're the president and you get up and you leave, you're almost certainly not leaving quietly.
Common time to leave is between oral arguments when, in fact, the disruption is as low as it can possibly get.
If you choose to leave, you'll not like to be readmitted to come back in, particularly for a high profile case like this one.
And during the course of the oral argument, of course, observers there have to remain seated, silent, disruptive behaviors, arguably including leaving in the middle when you are the president of the United States of America, not necessarily noisy, this particular president leaving, but can lead to being asked to leave by the Supreme Court police.
And when the Supreme Court adjourns, persons, of course, have to leave the courtroom.
but for regular tours.
And so that's the decorum.
Those are the rules of this unexpected, atypical event involving the president of the United States being there and then departing, departing in mid argument, certainly causing a certain amount of disruption as everyone watched him come and then especially as they watched him go.
During the course of that oral argument, once again, a lot of exchange between members of the Supreme Court and the Solicitor General, and then ultimately, with the representative of those people challenging this particular executive order, Amy Coney Barrett, among others, was among those who was following up on this idea of slavery.
And in particular, its impact and its centric connection to domicile and also talking about people who might be illegally trafficked.
Amy Coney Barrett here is sparring with the Solicitor General again on his position in support of the President's executive order.
This is Amy Coney Barrett in exchange with the Solicitor General of the United States of America.
in defiance of laws for beating the slave trade, would in fact be citizens.
And we can imagine that their parents were not only brought here in violation of United States law, but were here against their will, and so maybe felt allegiance to the countries where they were from.
And you say that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to put all slaves on equal footing, newly freed slaves on equal footing, and so they would be citizens.
But that's not textual.
So how do you get there?
You say it in just a few
sentences, so can you elaborate?
Sure.
I
think
if you look at the 19th century sources, what you see is that
even though their entry may have been unlawful, 19th century antebellum law never treated their presences unlawful.
In fact, quite the opposite.
One of the Amici, in fact, points like a Mississippi statute, which probably is replicated throughout the South before the Civil War, that says slaves in Mississippi have an indefeasible domicile.
in Mississippi.
In other words, even if they run away, if they get away, Mississippi says, nope, you still live here.
And so it'd be astonishing, in other words, for the opponents of the 14th Amendment to say, oh, you know, these people are not domiciled, and therefore it goes the other way, because actually US life, even if they were brought in illegally and through an illegal slave trade, once they were there, by terrorist
law... Well, their intent is to return as soon as they can, let's say.
So they're here, they're resident, and maybe under your theory, which says, well, lawfulness for a different purpose, but they're here, they're resident, let's...
take your assumption that they're not here unlawfully.
But let's say they don't have an intent to stay.
They want to escape and go back the second they can.
Are they
domicile?
Under the 19th century law, I mean, I think this is the flip side of the hypothetical that we were talking about earlier.
Under 19th century law, they are treated as domicile in the United States, so it would be astonishing.
And in the debates in the Congressional floor, talk about not this specific case, but to say, look, slaves who have been forced to come here and have been here
are lawfully domiciled here.
I mean, they don't use the way it's domiciled, like they have, they use allegiance.
They say they don't have allegiance that once they've been forced to come here, they don't have allegiance to any foreigner, African potentate.
And therefore they're,
they're, how would that apply to human, the children of illegally trafficked people
today?
but the same reasoning applied?
It would turn on whether the parents are lawfully domiciled
in the United States.
So if they're brought in illegally, but then they choose to remain and they want to remain and they're domiciled, you would say that their lawful presence is not dictated by whether they were brought here lawfully or not.
And that's different from someone who say crosses the border unlawfully.
Yeah, I think it would turn
on
whether their presence is lawful.
In other words, obviously there may be many other important things that could be done to assist people like that.
The question is if they give birth to someone in the United States, that person, naturally a citizen, that would turn based on the original public meeting of the clause on the lawfulness of their presence.
What you're hearing there again is the response or the attempted response by the Solicitor General to Amy Coney Barrett's quizzing about the breadth and scope of the President's position.
when it comes to our historical understanding of slavery in America, presently illegally trafficked people, testing whether or not his particular position makes sense broadly applied.
And although there are a lot of words there.
And yes, the Solicitor General speaks even more quickly than I do.
The reality is what all of that represents is an awful lot of confusion.
If in fact the Supreme Court embraces what the president says, an awful lot of inconsistency, a lot of things to straighten out.
The upshot of that with the exchange with Amy Coney Barrett is skepticism again about the Solicitor General's position on birthright citizenship.
There is more.
You've heard a lot about domicile.
You've heard a lot about Wong Kim Arc, this major president from back in the 19th century.
And you've also begun to hear something about birth tourism.
And in just a moment or so, we're gonna hear from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, birth tourism in particular.
It refers to a pregnant woman who travels to the United States to give birth.
so that their baby can have American citizenship, most commonly associated with what is sometimes called the cottage industry that's referred to as maternity hotels.
It has emerged over the past two decades, catering to families from countries like China, Turkey and Russia.
And when the Supreme Court heard oral argument this past week about President Trump's ban on birthright citizenship, lawyers for the government are necessarily discussing this notion of birthright, birth tourism.
Again, the notion that people are taking advantage of the 14th Amendment and using it in a way that creates citizenship for their particular babies.
No official tally of babies born to tourists on American soil.
Its most recent estimate in 2020, the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that supports a restricted immigration, put the number at around 20,000 to 26,000 babies a year.
And so all of that coming out of this Supreme Court argument, the Chief Justice will begin with this.
The Chief Justice beginning to quiz the Solicitor General on birth tourism and the meaning of that.
This is the Chief Justice.
You mentioned in your briefing and also this morning the problem of birth tourism.
Do you have any information about how common that is or how significant a problem it is?
It's a great question.
No one knows for sure.
There's a March 9th letter from a number of members of Congress to DHS saying, do we have any information about this?
The media reports indicate estimates could be over a million or 1.5 million from the People's Republic of China alone.
The congressional report that we cite in our brief talks about certain hot spots like Russian elites coming to Miami through these birth tourism companies.
And I mean, here's the fact about it that I think is striking.
Media reported as early as
2015 that, based on Chinese media reports, there are 500, 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation.
Having said all that, you do agree that that has no impact on the legal analysis before us?
I think it's, I'd quote what Justice Cleo said in his Hamdan dissent where they had,
where their interpretation has these implications that could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers of this amendment, I think that shows that their interpretation has made a mess of the provision.
Well, it certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century.
No, but of course, we're in a new world now, as Justice Leader pointed out, to where 8 billion people are one plane right away from having a child who's a U.S.
citizen.
Well, it's a new world.
It's the same Constitution.
And that is the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court telling the Solicitor General, it's a new world, but it's the same Constitution telling him that what you're talking about when it comes to birth tourism, if indeed it is a problem in this country and around the world, has no legal impact, no legal effect upon the decision that the Supreme Court is now obliged to make.
That is perhaps the most stunning and clear exposition of the coming rejection.
by the Supreme Court of the position of the president.
When we come back, we'll turn to the other side and we'll hear from the ACLU lawyer arguing against this order and explaining why the 14th Amendment means what it says and says what it means as Amicus, a law review, continues.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus, a law reviewer here in the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
We are doing an extensive exposition of this oral argument of this past week.
But whether or not the 14th Amendment does in fact confirm and convey birthright citizenship upon people, babies born in this country, that has been the tradition, that has been the law, that has been the constitutional interpretation.
of the 14th Amendment, the president bucking that trend, trying to move in a different direction, probably receiving a bad reaction from the United States Supreme Court this past week and prompting him during the course of that argument to get up and leave the proceedings, returning to the White House and basically condemning.
what he has just seen at the Supreme Court.
We do not know exactly how the Supreme Court is going to resolve this.
We could be surprised, but it certainly appears that at least the so-called liberals on the bench, Sonia Sotomayor, Katanji Brown, Jackson, Elena Kagan, along with a fair number of the so-called conservatives, including the Chief Justice, who we just heard from, including Neil Gorsuch, who took on the Solicitor General, including Amy Coney Barrett, who did the same.
all of them seeming to suggest that what the Solicitor General is advocating for is not a proper and accurate and right interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
We've been spending a lot of time exposing and presenting and describing the position, if you will, of the Solicitor General because that's our role here on this broadcast.
That is to provide you with information, provide you with a sense of what the arguments are on both sides.
And to that end, we now
also necessarily turn to the beginning of the argument offered by the attorney, the chief counsel for the ACLU, representing the particular parties here who are challenging, who are seeking to overturn the executive order.
Just as John Sauer had the opportunity to present a few statements at the start of his presentation, so too does the attorney for the ACLU now speak to the justices in what I think is a very concise
and clear exposition of the opposition.
That is the reason why, if the Supreme Court is to do it, they should indeed reject what the president has been advocating for.
This, the attorney for the opposition arguing against this executive order.
Ms.
Wong.
Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court, ask any American what our citizenship rule is, and they'll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike.
That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy.
When the government tried to strip Mr. Wong Kim Ark's citizenship on largely the same grounds they raised today, this court said no.
30 years after ratification, this court held that the 14th Amendment embodies the English common law rule.
Virtually everyone born on U.S.
soil is subject to its jurisdiction and is a citizen.
It excludes only those cloaked with a fiction of extraterritoriality because they are subject to another sovereign's jurisdiction, even when they're in the United States.
A closed set of exceptions to an otherwise universal rule.
My friend has now clearly said that the government is not asking you to overrule Wonkham Ark.
That is a fatal concession.
Because Wonkham Ark's controlling rule of decision
precludes their parental domicile requirement.
The dissent understood that, and the majority tells us six times in the opinion that domicile is irrelevant under common law.
Lynch versus Clark was already the dominant American case on citizenship, and it held that the US-born daughter of temporary visitors from Ireland who took the baby back to Ireland with them, that that daughter was a US citizen.
Authorities including Lincoln's Attorney General and Kent's Commentaries embraced Lynch and Kent specifically talked about temporary sojourners children being U.S.
citizens.
Justice Field said in 1884 that that reflected the general understanding.
That understanding was confirmed by Congress with its 1940 Act.
The 14th Amendment's fixed
bright line rule has contributed to the growth and thriving of our nation.
It comes from text and history.
It is workable and it prevents manipulation.
The executive order fails on all those counts.
Swaz of American laws would be rendered senseless.
Thousands of American babies will immediately lose their citizenship.
And if you credit the government's theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans
past, present, and future could be called into question.
All of this tells us the government's theory is wrong.
I welcome the court's questions.
And that, once again, is the initial statement by the attorney from the ACLU, the chief counsel for the ACLU, presenting the case.
The president's position is in fact wrong.
We will see.
We will see.
Now, what followed that, of course, was equal
in terms of length, about an hour of questioning by the justices of the other position.
That is the position advanced right there by the attorney for the ACLU.
And it was vigorous and it was focused and it was intense.
In the end, court watchers, both on the left and the right, looked at the overall arc of the oral arguments and made the assessment that overall there is a majority of the Supreme Court right now.
that is ready to grant what the ACLU and those particular parent petitioners wanted, which is a rejection of, a rescission of this executive order if it was in place in the first place.
And so we'll anticipate hearing from the Supreme Court in its final disposition sometime soon.
We know how this works, and we know that the Supreme Court, after it has oral arguments of the sort that it had this past week, including on this and the other cases we talked about,
has what's called decision days or decision conferences.
And that's when they basically determine not only how they are going to vote on the particular cases, but who's going to be writing the assignment, the assigned opinion on behalf of the overall court.
And that assignment has probably already been made, even as late as this past week.
We will await the rendition of that decision, the issuance of it sometime in the next several months, a major decision coming out of the Supreme Court.
And again, because of the President's focus, a major decision likely ate a feat for the President once again at the High Court.
When we come back, we'll go down Pennsylvania Avenue to a major job action at the United States Department of Justice as our broadcast continues.
This is Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Santel, your host for the remainder of this second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast on the rule of law, the administration of justice and the operation of government.
We are now moving down Pennsylvania Avenue, if you will, geographically and thematically from the United States Supreme Court to the United States Department of Justice.
And you know well about the job action there.
There is a connection between those two news stories that is all the events happening
on Capitol Hill at the Supreme Court building and what happened this past week inside, and yes, external to the Department of Justice as well.
We know based upon accounts provided by people in the know and by the Attorney General, former Attorney General herself, that as the President and the Attorney General were driving, were driving to Capitol Hill to listen to the oral argument on birthright citizenship, it was then.
that the President of the United States of America turned to the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and said it was time to make a change at the top of the Justice Department.
Undeniably, Pam Bondi knew that she was in some trouble, some subtle and not so subtle comments that she had made in recent times, indicated that she knew that her days at the Department of Justice may have been numbered.
The recent departure of Christie Nome from Homeland Security
also was something of an indication that the president not disinclined very much inclined to terminate the employment of cabinet members if he so chooses to do and indeed that's exactly what he did this past week.
President Trump complaining about the incapacity of his attorney general to go after his
political enemies, making good on his promise during the course of the campaign for retribution.
Also, a lot of missteps, both in terms of oral statements, representations, and even actions with respect to the so-called Epstein files, the mishandling of the release of them, disclosures made of victims in those files, and redacted versions of the documents without the perpetrators, all of that, all of that leading to a huge amount of criticism generally regarded as sort of a bungling in the handling of the Epstein file matter.
And a lot of people indicating that, again, Pam Bondi would, in fact, be asked to leave.
She was fired.
She was terminated.
And we know that Pam Bondi, again, left the office perhaps more in advance of what she would anticipate.
She anticipated she was going to be doing.
We know Pam Bondi, as we talked before, a longtime political ally of the president.
She was one of President Donald Trump's defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial.
She led the legal arm of the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute.
It was in November of 2024 that Donald Trump announced that he would in fact name her as his nominee for Attorney General after Matt Gaetz withdrew from consideration.
She was confirmed by the U.S.
Senate by a 54 to 46 vote right down party lines and was sworn in the next
on April, I'm sorry, on February 5th of 2025.
The former Attorney General herself, of course, was and is a lawyer.
She graduated from the University of South Florida with a BA, and as we've reported on this broadcast, also a graduate of Stetson University.
got her JD degree there in Florida from Stetson University, an advocate for the president, and now no longer a part of the administration.
The president indicating that she is now departing.
but she will be continuing in some important role in her future and indicating in particular that she'll be transitioning to a much needed and important new job in the private sector and that it had been, according to her, an honor of a lifetime to serve the president.
Now, of course, what that leaves is a vacancy there and that's why we turn to the next item on our agenda and that is who is occupying the position now.
Well, his name is Todd Blanche and you know who that
That is, we've talked about him a lot on this broadcast.
He is the, was the current deputy attorney general, the number two in charge of operations, if you will, at the Department of Justice, the deputy technically, practically involved in keeping the department running day to day, the practical things that have to be done and served as the deputy attorney general.
under Pam Bondi until just this past week.
The president has named him, that is Todd Blanche, as the acting, the acting attorney general, while a decision is made, presumably, about who will follow Pam Bondi, could be Tom, Todd Blanche, if he is nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate.
There is also an awful lot of focus and a fellow named Lee Zeldin, Z-E-L-D-I-N.
He's the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
There are ideas that perhaps he will be the nominee of the president to take on the position now, technically vacant, even though, again, acting, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in that position.
So what do we know?
What do we know about Todd Blanche and who he was, where he comes from?
Well, again, we know that Todd
Blanche, again, has been a previous employee of the United States Department of Justice.
That followed.
That followed his graduation from American University in 1994.
Brooklyn Law School, 2003.
He did indeed work in the United States Attorney's Office as a part of the Department of Justice for the Southern District of New York, who's in the Violent Crimes Division for eight years.
So he is a veteran, unlike Pam Bondi.
of the federal Department of Justice.
2017, he is a partner at Cadwalador Wickersham and Taft.
And in his personal capacity, you may recall that he first came to our national attention, if you will.
He was representing a number of political figures in America, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former campaign manager for Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, businessman Igor Fruman, as you may recall, and attorney Boris Epstein.
And, of course, most predominantly was representing the current president, Donald Trump, during the time of his prosecution, during his time when he was not in government.
In April of 2023, prior to his arraignment, Donald Trump hired Todd Blanche to defend him
in what we all know is that DAE office's prosecution of then the former president for concealing those hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.
Blanche defended him during the course of that trial.
We saw Todd Blanche a lot.
sitting there with the former and future president at council table during the course of that trial involving, among other things, of course, the testimony, the fairly graphic testimony of Stormy Daniels, resulting ultimately in the president's conviction.
34 counts of misstating records, misrepresenting official documents in connection with the money that was used as hush money to keep people quiet about his engagement in that sexual liaison at the time.
Todd Blanche, not successful in that particular defense and prosecution of the president by the DA's office, not successful in defending the president against those charges, resulting in his
conviction.
It remains in place to this day.
Our president remains a convicted felon in the state court in New York.
Todd Blanche also responsible in part for being a part of the defense team that similarly represented Donald Trump in the federal prosecutions of Donald Trump.
You recall, well, those are prosecuted by Jack Smith, the special counsel, having to do with both insurrection on January 6th and allegations that the president invited enticed the attack on the Capitol attempt to overthrow the guy.
government, and also that other matter, marginally related, having to do with the president's alleged taking retention, arguably use of classified and other national security documents at Mar-a-Lago and other places.
Both of those prosecutions, again, in which Todd Blanche was representing in part, among others, the interests of the president, in both of those cases, the Department of Justice dismissed the prosecutions.
based upon this notion that you cannot prosecute a sitting president.
The dismissals done right before Donald Trump resumed the presidency invoking the policy of the Department of Justice against prosecuting a sitting president.
Todd Blanche, responsible again as the representative of the president in at least three different criminal matters, two of them going away, one of them resulting in the now president's
conviction for violations of the criminal law of the state of New York.
And so what else do we know about Todd Blanche?
We know that, again, in addition to being the president's lawyer in these previous times, he was indeed the individual who was the architect of much of this defense.
He took the number two position after all that was done.
And now it is Todd Blanche, whom the president has called upon again, this time in another moment of unmistakable turmoil inside not only the president's life, this time his professional life, to serve as the acting attorney general after the firing just this past week of Pam Bondi.
Todd Blanche himself, he is 51 years old.
He brings what can only be regarded as sort of a mixed record to the job even in the limited period of time that he has been the deputy attorney general.
Spent the past year or so enabling and supporting what can only be called the politicization of the Department of Justice and along the way losing the trust of many federal judges who have specifically called him out, called others out inside the Department of Justice.
for not serving the interests of the American people, but instead that of the president.
We know that Todd Blanche supported the now former attorney general when she announced and described it in a memorandum to all of the lawyers of the Department of Justice that they represent, not the people of America, but the president of the United States of America.
That Todd Blanche has also endorsed
quite dramatically is overseen the destruction of not the complete um uh uh uh diminution and and putting to one side of the independence of the white house from the department of justice we've talked about that a lot this important separation
that is significant because it ensures the integrity of prosecution decisions, of litigation decisions made by the Department of Justice, and again, Todd Blanche as the Deputy Attorney General, responsible in many ways for putting all of that in place.
What remains unclear, of course, is what he will do in his new job.
He has been encumbering it now just for a few days, unclear whether he will be the nominee of the president could happen.
But as I indicated, there's also this notion that this fellow named Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the EPA, he may be the nominee.
Others may be vying for the position right now.
But it's clear that he is going to be entering into a Justice Department that has its challenges.
Undeniably, Todd Blanche will put his own stamp on the Department of Justice, as does every Attorney General, regardless of whether they're acting or Senate confirmed after presidential nomination.
One of the most senior aides, Kash Singh,
who has assumed the role of communicating orders to and setting the priorities for 93 U.S.
Attorney's offices across the nation, one of Todd Blanche's supporters.
Another top aide you may heard more from is Colin McDonald.
He was recently put in charge of a high-profile effort to crack down on fraud, working with the vice president.
jd vance we've talked a lot about that and of course we've talked on this very broadcast this day about john sour the solicitor general also a close ally inside the department of justice working with todd blanche
not only in the present capacity, but also previously as a private appellate attorney representing Donald Trump.
Another individual inside the Department of Justice who continues under the administration of Todd Blanche, his name is Stanley Woodward, W-O-O-D-W-A-R-D.
He's the associate attorney general.
He was also allied with Todd Blanche in his private capacity, serving as Donald Trump's private attorney.
Woodward now works at the Civil Division of the Department of Justice.
We're going to come back a little bit more about Todd Blanche and then something in our local backyard about the administration of the rule of law and another detention by ICE in America.
All of that when the broadcast continues.
the president of the United States of America.
Why is that important?
Because that attorney-client relationship with respect to the things that the president may have told that Donald Trump may have told Todd Blanche in confidence remains in place.
It is entirely possible that Todd Blanche, again, told things by this president that are important to the litigation.
to the posture, to the status of our government.
Now, Todd Blanche, in possession of that information, whatever it may be, confidential in nature, the relationship, the confidentiality of that cannot be broken by him.
The things that he knows cannot be disclosed by him, but he now has allegiance not only to that, but also to another sovereign, and that is the U.S.
Department of Justice, arguably, the people of the United States of America.
Many people have pointed out that this does not pose a conflict.
for him because if he continues in the same vein as did his predecessor, Pam Bondi, he is now working once again for the person with whom he continued to have this confidential relationship because his boss, if you buy into this theory,
not the American people, not the Constitution, but once again, Donald Trump, it is an issue that the chief federal law enforcement officer used to have and still has an attorney-client relationship of a personal nature with the president whom he now serves, when in fact, he should now be serving the people of the United States of America.
Finally, with respect to him,
Todd Blanche has been proud of the accomplishments of this administration, including the purging of many people responsible for those prosecutions of his former and now present boss.
He is proud of his work.
At least he's asserted that in public during appearance at the conservative political action conference in Texas.
Todd Blanche bragged to an audience of supporters there that the FBI had cleaned house at the bureau, firing everyone who had touched a Trump prosecution.
Here's what the now acting
Attorney General said he said there isn't a single man or woman with a gun, not a single federal agent, still in that organization, the FBI, which is the Department of Justice, not a single man or woman, he said, that had anything to do with the prosecution of President Trump.
They are all gone.
That is a statement from your current Attorney General.
The Chief Federal Law Enforcement Officer of the United States of America's name is Todd Blanche, and he is responsible now
for supervising not only justice in America on a federal basis, but also again with this peculiar atypical relationship with the White House is responsible now for making major decisions about the charging both of civil cases and criminal cases at a time when the president continues to be much focused on retribution.
That all coming out.
of Maine Justice and Washington DC just this past week.
Let's come back to Wisconsin.
A major news story coming out of another department of the federal government, and that is immigration and customs enforcement.
We know them inside their operation as Homeland Security just this past week, the president of Wisconsin's largest mosque, detained by federal immigration agents.
And that happens, that happens with respect to an individual named Salah Sarsour, S-A-R-S-O-U-R.
You may know him.
He has been much in the news.
He is a Palestinian-born legal permanent resident of the United States of America, taken into custody by ICE just this past week, surrounding his car in Monday in Milwaukee after he left his home.
and supporters, of course, immediately calling for his release currently.
His attorney said he was detained on the grounds that he is a foreign policy threat.
That apparently is what ICE is maintaining, a claim that, of course, his attorneys and Sarsur maintain has no merit whatsoever.
They believe that Sarsur is 53 years old.
He was targeted instead for speaking out against Israel for a conviction as a minor.
by Israeli courts, which have faced scrutiny over allegations of limited due process and high conviction rates of Palestinians.
The focus here, in other words, in a long time ago, when he was convicted as a minor in Israeli military courts, he now poses a threat to the security of our nation.
The offenses included allegedly throwing rocks at some Israeli officers many, many years ago.
the representative of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee said our government should not be doing the bidding of a foreign government.
There's no question that this is to stifle the discourse on the Palestinian narrative.
The lawyers for Sarsour, who is again born in the West Bank, said he has no criminal record in the United States, none whatsoever, lived here for more than 30 years altogether.
Maintaining the U.S.
government has known about this conviction back in Israel when he was a youth.
Since he came to the United States way back in 1993, lived a law-abiding life.
Again, the leader of the largest mosque in the state of Wisconsin.
A major figure, not only in religious circles in Wisconsin, but nationwide.
So many people are linking this case to that of Mahmood Khalil, K-A-H-L-I-L, you may recall.
He is the former Columbia University graduate student who is facing still facing deportation because of the federal government's claim that he is also a foreign
policy threat.
Same kind of category.
Mahmoud Khalil in Sarsur has been the president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, the board president, again the largest Islamic organization in the state for five years.
He holds a green card, lives just outside of Milwaukee.
His wife and four children are in fact US citizens.
Chants and calls and claims for his release coming.
from all sorts of sources and all sorts of crowds, not just inside the Islamic community, but a very diverse assemblage of religious leaders calling for his release and attacking once again the decision by this administration in connection with its so-called immigration enforcement.
This a man again who's lived in this country for a long period of time.
absent any criminal involvement at all, now facing the possibility of deportation detained by ICE just this past week.
This, of course, is part of our continuing coverage here on this broadcast of the actions of the government, of the attempts by others to enforce the rule of law at the Supreme Court level, at the Department of Justice level, and throughout government.
We'll continue with that mission, that purpose, that goal here on this broadcast.
For now, everybody,
Have a good weekend.
