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.
I am your host this hour, and also next hour here on the broadcast stations, as we do pursue those major events in the areas of rule of law, the aspiration for justice, and yes, often the operation of government as well.
I am delighted.
I am, as always, honored that you have chosen to spend some time in your busy weekend hours in review with me of those major events, and there have been a lot of them this week.
Let me give you some sense about our syllabus going forward in this hour and next hour as well.
As always, delighted and honored to have you participate in the pursuit of this ambitious
but achievable syllabus by calling in to my producer Max and me at 855-752-4842.
That number once again is 855-752.
4842, you can be a part of our discussion with your questions, your comments, your inquiries, your perspectives.
Those things that have you scratching your head and wondering how does this work, that's the purpose of our weekly weekend broadcast.
Not to tell you how to think, not to direct how your views should be, but to provide the basic information, the civics information, the operational insight and perspective that you need to make decisions
about the state and the country and the world in which you live.
That is our mission here on Amicus, a lot of you.
And it is also what we are going to be pursuing this hour and next here on these broadcast stations of civic media.
We necessarily begin our broadcast this weekend by revisiting, as we often do, issues from the past, in this case, two issues from the recent past.
And that includes, of course, at the top
of our discussion list, a statement about what has happened in the wake of that major decision that we talked about at great length in our broadcast last weekend.
That is that major decision in Calais, C-A-L-L-A-I-S.
Coming out of the United States Supreme Court, this is the third in a series of cases over as many decades in which it has bit by bit chipped away, knocked away at the core functions and purposes.
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 recall the first decision Shelby County basically ripping out of the statute sections four and five another case years later called Bernovich coming out of Arizona in which it took a first shot as section two the core provision of the Voting Rights Act and now Kelly further weakening if not as as Elena Kagan has said in her very compelling dissent basically bringing it to section two
down to its knees at this point in the history of the Voting Rights Act as we predicted and was already ongoing when we got together last weekend.
The states have been acting.
The states have been acting since the time of the issuance of Calais.
We'll talk about what happened not only in Louisiana, but also significantly in Tennessee where a new map is already in place in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision that frees up.
legislators around the country of all parties to engage in whatever kinds of partisan gerrymandering they choose to pursue.
We'll talk a little bit about the possibilities of that going on in other states like Alabama and South Carolina and Mississippi.
We'll talk as well about the possibility of some future action coming out of New York State.
and the prospects for some changes down the road, probably not immediately, but maybe in time for the 2028 election.
And then, much related to, but procedurally different, we necessarily need to talk about what happened in Virginia.
coming off of the bench of another Supreme Court, this one a state Supreme Court there in Virginia, that found that that major referendum decision made by the people of Virginia, razor thin results in that in recent times, that that particular referendum cannot stand.
And that the vote that basically commissioned and approved a pursuit of new maps in Virginia cannot stand for all sorts of
procedural reasons, in particular, one that will highlight as we talk about what the Virginia Supreme Court did to stop any new map drawing going on in that state again.
in the same category, but discreet from the decision in Calais issued by the Supreme Court.
There's a lot, there's a lot going on when it comes to voting rights and line drawing and gerrymandering in America, not one bit surprising, underscoring the notion that the Supreme Court was not simply updating the standards, but changing them dramatically.
The proof
We see legislatures now doing things to dramatically change the lines in America.
That's going to be our top item, our top news story for analysis and discussion here on Amicus, a lot of you.
A couple of other things also coming out of recent history, one of them having to do with an update, yes, another update from yet another court with respect to the president's attempt to impose tariffs nationwide.
We recall well that we the Supreme Court in the not too distant past struck down struck down the president's invocation of something called the IE EPA will talk about that once again and Said that you do not have the authority mr. President under the Constitution of the United States to impose the tariffs that you have been pursuing a major
not a major advancement for the president and actually a setback for him in terms of what he wanted to do in the area of tariffs.
Not in any way discouraged by that particular opinion.
The president of the United States has instead pursued another statutory avenue and that has been the subject of review by something called the court.
of international trade.
We'll talk about what the court of international trade did just this past week with respect to that second attempt, that follow-up attempt by the White House to go ahead with tariffs.
It's not good news once again for the president, and that will also be on a agenda early on in this
invocation of our broadcast and then we're going to go back a little bit in time and talk about Mipha Pristone that drug that was much in the attention of not only courts but the American population a while back when a federal district court judge previously found
that the FDA hadn't done its job and so restrained, stopped, stayed the use of Mipha Pristone.
It is one of the two major drugs that are used in providing abortion services in this country.
Back in the news again this past week, as Mipha Pristone once again on the docket of the Supreme Court, after a court of appeals, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in particular, reinstates actually the requirement that Mipha Pristone be administered
only only with in-person consultation, effectively preventing its mail-in delivery, lots of things going on there, abortion and privacy rights, and Mipha Pristone once again back in the news as our items involving tariffs, as our items involving voting and gerrymandering line drawing in America as well.
Then into our second hour here on Amicus, a lot of you.
We're going to be spending a lot of time talking about federal district court judges once again, emphasizing the thesis, the theory that we have been advancing for a long time, for about the past 15 months, that one of the principal safeguards against the attempts
to undermine our Constitution, to do things that are contrary to our laws, our statutes, and the ways in which our United States government has operated for 238 years.
Federal District Court judges pushing back
Not exclusively, but principally on the president's many executive orders, many of those found unconstitutional, contrary to various aspects of how we live and breathe and pursue our lives here in the United States.
We'll talk about at least three of those judges who this past week have said to the president, no.
You cannot do this, or at least I'm going to look into what you are doing, Mr. President.
One of them has to do with the President's decision of a long time ago to suspend, to terminate grants in the areas of humanities, to various arts affiliations and organizations around the country.
We'll talk about what Judge Colleen Madden, Southern District of New York, did to tell the President, you can't do that, not under this Constitution.
We'll then go...
to the District of Columbia, Judge William Porter, who also told the president and the administration, the Department of Justice in particular, that it cannot get unfettered access to the electronic devices of that Washington Post reporter.
who has been involved in a tussle, a tussle with the government about the disclosure arguably of confidential information having to do with the media and the press, the extent of First Amendment rights, a judge this past week prohibiting the Department of Justice from going ahead with its unfettered access once it seized her phone and other devices at her home.
in that virtually unprecedented search of her home not too long ago.
Then we'll go to Rhode Island, where Judge Melissa DuBose is also upset with the administration.
This time because, where have you heard this before, the administration is now lying to her about some background information, some criminal background information of an individual before her on a deportation and immigration case.
She is upset.
because the Department of Justice purposely did not provide her with information that she needed to know before asking about it specifically and finding out, finding out from the words of the attorney appearing in front of her that the Department of Justice lied to her and did not tell her the things that she needed to know to make a major decision.
They're not a good week at all in the life of federal district court action.
by and on behalf of this department of justice in at least three different federal district court judges courtrooms around the country will also of course report as we always do on the other side of these cases and that is the reaction of our president who not surprisingly called upon laws laws somehow to rein in what he called these rogue rogue judges people who are apparently according to the president out of control
for exercising the judicial assignments given to them for upholding the Constitution in our nation.
A couple more rule of law items we'll also discuss during the course of our broadcast today.
We'll talk about a sentencing in a major violent crime case out in Boulder, Colorado.
You may recall this, Molotov cocktails.
hurled into a group of people protesting events in the Middle East, resulting in a death of one person, horrific injuries to others.
That defendant sentenced this past week to life imprisonment for what he did there in Colorado.
And then we're also going to talk about a major charging decision of several weeks ago.
This one coming out of a state's attorney in Minnesota in the wake of those ICE actions of February of this year, now charged
charging one of those ICE agents for violating state law.
Yes, that's right.
A decision by a state prosecutor charging a federal officer for violating state law when it came to his brandishing a weapon, holding his gun outside of his moving vehicle and pointing it in the direction of another moving vehicle as they both sped down the streets of Minneapolis.
The state's attorney there.
We'll tell you all about what she did, what she said in charging a federal.
officer with a violation of state criminal law, not completely unprecedented but not without its challenges as well.
We'll talk a bit about the immunity's challenges there and then also get back to this fundamental notion about the differences between state and federal statuses when it comes to law enforcement officers and the prospects that this kind of thing, that is state prosecutions of federal law enforcement officers,
will in fact proceed in America.
All of that is coming up here on Amicus, a law review, as every week we take your phone calls, your questions, your comments.
Be a part of our discussion here on the broadcast stations of civic media.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.
Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.
My name is Jim Santel, and this is Amica Solaraview on the broadcast stations of Civic Media once again.
So very pleased that you are spending some time of your weekend in review with me of some of these major issues and events, circumstances, developments in the areas of rule of law, administration of justice, operation of government.
We need to get back to what we talked about last week.
That is this major decision, a case called Calais.
Louisiana versus Calais before the Supreme Court, in which the Supreme Court, no, didn't just update the standards by which review is undertaken of line drawing, of recreating districts in all of our states, but adjusted dramatically, dramatically.
The standards by which that can be done, effectively reading out of section two of the Voting Rights Act, as Elena Kagan said in her dissent, any further meeting,
permitting permitting now the basically unfettered review and redrawing of congressional districts in those places that want to do it as we have talked about before one of the other seminal cases of years past this case called Rucho in which the Supreme Court said
perhaps surprisingly at the time and even shockingly to this time that they will not intrude when it comes to political gerrymandering that the partisan operatives in legislatures around the country can draw lines along partisan lines political lines in any way that they so choose that's been the law for a long period of time the stop gap on that has always been that if those lines that are drawn with permission
under a political rubric, if they do in fact disenfranchise people of color, restrict black voters and other voters of color from engaging in voting by virtue of limiting and changing the congressional districts in which they're voting, that will be subject.
That will still be subject to review by the federal courts.
And that's what the courts have been doing recently until about 10 days ago.
when the Supreme Court said, no, we're not doing that anymore.
And as Justice Alito said in Kelly, the only way, the only way that you can now attack gerrymandering of this sort, racially motivated is if you can show, if you can show that there was intentional, I sat down and intentionally drew these new lines to restrict black and other voters of minority populations.
from voting in America.
The only way to attack them is to come up with that kind of proof, virtually impossible, as one can certainly surmise.
So the world has changed.
It shifted dramatically.
And as we said at the end of our broadcast last weekend, going to set a fire.
A whole series of what some have indicated would be a whole new line of redistricting wars and battles around our country.
And indeed, that has been the news, as you probably well know.
The things set in motion by the Supreme Court proving in the end that the majority's position that this is not a big change will not accomplish changes in America is simply wrong.
Why?
Because those changes are underway right now and they're changing in direct response to what the Supreme Court did with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Tennessee, let's begin there.
Tennessee's Republican-controlled legislature just this past week within days of the Supreme Court's issuing this order giving free reign to draw lines as legislators, both Republican and Democratic, may choose to do.
The legislature there in Tennessee draws a new congressional map
that dismantles, takes apart the state's one majority black district and likely secures for them an all GOP, all Republican federal delegation.
going to Washington for the 120th Congress beginning in January of next year.
The redraw again comes directly in response to and they're honest, they're forthright about it and good for them to explain that the reasons we are doing this is because we have raw political power and we are going to exercise it.
That has at least
the attractive feature of honesty and we can section two permits us to draw these new lines opening the doors to blowing up districts in our various states and that's what we're going to do even if it comes at the detriment of racial minority voting the new map the new map in Tennessee passed by the legislature and yes indeed signed almost while the ink was still wet on that legislation by the governor
the new BAP aiming to draw the state's single democratic congressional representative.
His name is Steve Cohen, COHEN, out of his Memphis area seat.
And they did that, again, focusing upon this major municipality in Tennessee.
They did it by splitting up Majority Black Shelby County.
This is not the Shelby County of Alabama, but it's the Shelby County there in Memphis.
It divides also a place called Morrie County, likely delivering a much more favorable result, come voting.
to Representative Andy Ogles, OG LES, he's Republican, who is on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's list of people to target.
No more, no more, because, as the Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton said in his social media posts, the Supreme Court has opined that redistricting like the judicial system should be colorblind, he said, and the decision indicated that states can redistrict
based off of partisan politics.
And so that's exactly what has happened.
Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, as I said, has signed that map into new law and we've got new districts now in the state of Tennessee.
He said that this new session that produced the new lines reflects the will of Tennessee voters.
After consultation with the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State, I
the governor said, believe that the General Assembly has a responsibility to review the map and ensure that it remains fair, legal, and defensible.
Tennessee becoming the very first state to finalize a new congressional map after last week's major Supreme Court decision.
And of course, that will not be the only one coming forward.
When we come back, I'll tell you what may be happening in Alabama and places like South Carolina, Mississippi,
We'll talk maybe about other states as well, including Virginia in another redistricting situation and event happening there as Amicus Allah Review continues after this.
This is Amicus, a lot of you, on these broadcast stations of civic media.
Once again, you can be a part of our discussion by calling in to Max, my producer, or me at 855-752-4842.
855-752-4842.
Max always encourages me to remind you that you can also be a part of our broadcast by texting in your comments, your questions,
Those things that prompt you to wonder, huh, what's that all about?
Can we get more clarity on those issues?
All of that, inviting you to be a part of our discussion every weekend here on Amicus, a lot of you.
This weekend, that discussion, of course, revisits this major changing rules decision by the United States Supreme Court when it comes to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the impacts of this decision that now permits legislation
around the country, state legislatures, to redraw lines principally as they want to do.
Partisan gerrymandering now a foot around the country and no concern anymore about the effects of those gerrymandering decisions.
arguably possibly disenfranchising people of color from voting by virtue of redrawing the lines in those states.
We know that that has effectively already happened.
It has happened already in Tennessee where the legislature this past week passed a new set of rules, a new set of lines signed off on by the governor.
It's in place now already in Tennessee, carving up, carving up basically the city of Memphis.
and almost certainly handing to a Republican representative ownership, if you will, of that particular seat, changing politically the dynamics in that city and along the way, drawing those lines in such a way that people of color, black voters in that city, in Memphis, in Tennessee,
no longer have the option of selecting people who may better represent their particular views in Congress.
That's going on in Tennessee already a new map in place.
We know as well that there are other places where things are afoot.
We know that the governor of Louisiana, the state most directly impacted by the decision in Calais, has already suspended the House voting.
when it comes to lines in that particular state.
The Senate primary goes along as scheduled, but the House primary now suspended.
Why?
Because the Supreme Court has now declared that the two majority black districts in that state unconstitutionally drawn.
under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
They've got to do something there in Louisiana, but we know for now that the House primary election suspended until something can be accomplished there.
We know that Alabama, Alabama may also be looking at the same kind of thing.
States like South Carolina, Mississippi, also some rumblings about activities there to take another look at our maps in our states to determine whether or not partisan politics should
dictate or at least suggest to us strongly that we should redraw our lines here again without any restraint when it comes to the effects of doing that on voter populations of color.
We know as well that this applies not just to Republican predominant states.
but also to democratic states as well anybody can do this now and so plainly there are people who are looking to california for example some discussion there and in other states talking about carving up majority republican districts again without any prohibition when it comes to affecting the minority populations there again that permitted now by the decision in kelly by the united states supreme court
as some of the commentators have said igniting these redistricting skirmishes around the country that will now be undertaken in the next weeks and months have to get them done fairly soon because once again, if they're going to be in place for the November election, the voters need to know what districts they're in and the candidates who may be running for those particular spots in the House of Representatives need to know
where they're running, what houses they live in, where they are going to be campaigning.
All of that needs to be done realistically in the weeks, maybe the months just ahead.
So a lot going on in the future.
And we know, for example, that speaking of the future, New York is also one of those
places, plainly majority democratic in representation.
But it appears there that in the coming weeks, the New York lawmakers there in the legislature in Albany expected probably to begin what is and should be a lengthy process, unlike what happened in Tennessee, a process there of doing what, approving a constitutional amendment there in New York state.
It would let them redraw congressional lines in 2028.
If that would be successful again, no aspiration to get that done in the coming weeks or months, but if it's successful that measure that initiative
probably will turn a state with nineteen democrats and seven republicans in the house of representatives into one with a twenty two to four or twenty three to three edge again all because politics taking over and no concern anymore about the effects the consequences of those political decisions all about politics and that is the america that the supreme court has now put in place
as we go forward.
Lots of things going on when it comes to events deriving from the consequences of Louisiana versus Calais, one of the most important decisions certainly of this term of the Supreme Court and arguably of the past several years, if not decades,
as many have said, perhaps even striking a final blow or a near-final blow, as Justice Elena Kagan has said, to the strength and the power of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Section 2 is still there.
Sections 4 and 5 are not.
Those are long gone by the Supreme Court.
Section 2, arguably, can still be invoked if there are particular initiatives, if there are particular things that are done
in anticipation of and during the time of voting in November, one can still run into the court and seek to have certain things overturned, reversed, adjusted under section two.
But the limitations on it are now very clear and Justice Samolito made those clear to all of us.
It is significant, of course, once again to note that there are fixes to all of these pieces of Supreme Court history in Shelby County.
in Bernovich.
And yes, in Calais, the legislature can rewrite the law tomorrow.
if in fact both houses of Congress approve and the president likewise approves and says, you know what, we are not going to embrace this revised standard announced by Associate Justice, Sam Alito, that says that it's only intentional, only intentional discrimination that will run afoul of the Voting Rights Act, but that we can indeed look again at the effects, the consequences of what you do in determining whether or not this great statute
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, supporting the right of people of color to vote can in fact be enforced in America.
We know that in other states there have been also legislative initiatives and popular initiatives related by virtue of subject matter, but not by procedure to what is going on in America.
And so in a huge blow can only be regarded as that to the Democratic initiative in the state of Virginia.
Virginia, the Virginia Supreme Court, the highest court in that land this past week, just struck down a new house map.
that was a result of a referendum in that case, in that state.
You know well where this comes from.
It's a major victory for Republicans.
It basically wipes away a measure that was approved by voters to allow, again, in raw partisan ways, the Democrats to gain as many as four House seats in the midterms.
The Virginia Supreme Court just late this past week, striking down this measure.
that allowed state Democrats to redraw congressional districts there.
Here we've got the reverse of what we saw in Tennessee dealing once again a significant blow to the party's efforts to keep pace with some of the Republican initiatives nationwide in these endless now redistricting battles that are underway.
The ruling basically wipes out.
for democratic leaning house seats in Virginia and says that the Republicans, unless there's more that goes on between now and November, the Republicans will enter the midterm campaigns with this so-called structural advantage from their moves to carry out newly read districts in the country and other states.
The Virginia court decision, four to three, a split court.
Again, this is a state court.
This is not the United States Supreme Court.
The majority writing that Democratic legislators who were the architects of all of this had put a constitutional amendment before the voters there to allow for a new map before voters and they're voting on this in at what the Supreme Court said is an unprecedented matter.
And they said that it violated the state's constitution, adding to all of that this language.
This violation, again, the way in which this was done in Virginia, according to the Virginia Supreme Court, irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum, vote, and renders it null and void.
You may recall that, as late as last month, there was some celebration among Democrats as a result of this statewide referendum.
in which the voters, again, at the polls, had approved an amendment to the Constitution, sort of like the one that is perhaps afoot now in New York, maybe might be the future in New York, an amendment to the state Constitution there.
That would have enabled Democrats in that state, the lawmakers there, that are in the state assembly and the Senate there, to reshape the map there to gain as many as four of these seats.
The Democrats had fought this, and again, as a part of a rough draw after the Virginia referendum, but since then, again, have faced some setbacks, including not the least of which is this major Supreme Court case, Calais.
All of these things interrelated, having to do with decisions by Supreme Courts, decisions coming out of referendums, decisions coming out of legislative enactments.
in states across the country.
In Virginia, once again, the voters there had approved this amendment by about three percentage points.
It was razor thin.
And according to the most recent tally, all of this remained a source of great division in the state of Virginia.
Republicans challenged every aspect of that process.
Most of these lawsuits filed alleging procedural problems with this.
about $100 million was spent on this redistricting campaign.
Republicans who were opposed to this referendum had argued in court a variety of process problems there.
They said the language in the amendment was misleading.
We've heard that a lot when it comes to referendums.
They said the new districts were not drawn compactly, which is often a requirement of the drawing of new lines.
Basically, there's got to be some compactness.
You can't have the kinds of serpentine things that, frankly, we saw in Louisiana, and we've seen in other places historically in our nation.
They said that it was improper to vote on redistricting at a legislative session.
that was called for the specific purpose to discuss what?
To discuss budget issues, fiscal issues, and no notice provided that this was going to be about redrawing congressional lines there, and oh, that the county clerks had to post notices about the amendment months before it was actually voted on.
In the end, in the end, one of the most critical questions concerned the sequence of events.
in Virginia's complex process to produce this amendment.
Before voters can weigh in on an amendment to the state constitution, the General Assembly has to prove it twice with an election for the State House of Delegates taking place between those two votes.
And the court sided with that.
I'll explain why it is the court did what it did and the consequences there in Virginia as our broadcast continues after this.
listening to Civic Media.
We are talking about the aftermath of that major decision by the Supreme Court in Louisiana versus Calais.
Legislatures around the country, places like Tennessee, plainly Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, maybe New York, maybe Colorado.
arguably and in some instances have already revisited their lines their line drawing for the midterm elections representatives in the house of representatives coming out of districts now gerrymandering gerrymandered regardless of the impact upon race
We know as well that related in terms of subject matter but unrelated in terms of the connection with that Supreme Court case the Virginia Supreme Court this past week Determining that that major referendum that would have established for new Democratic majority seats in that state cannot stand and in particular the Supreme Court in that state sided with an argument that
basically said that the process was inadequate.
The sequencing of events there in their complex amendment process that contemplates that before voters can weigh in on an amendment to the Constitution, the General Assembly, those folks in the State House have to approve it twice.
Election for the State House of delegates taking place between the two votes.
And in this case, that didn't happen.
The court's saying, yes, that's a problem.
specifically the court majority saying early Virginia voters unknowingly forfeited their constitutionally protected opportunity to vote for or against a delegates who favor or disfavor amending the constitution by not anticipating a legislative vote on a constitutional amendment four days before the last day of voting.
That is a complex sentence.
That is a complex theory.
The basic notion there is that the process by which this was done that required this General Assembly double approval was not addressed here.
And for that reason, the process was wrong.
The substance the Supreme Court does not get to.
But because the process was inconsistent with the law, the entire thing gets stricken and Virginia now back to its previous set of maps.
And so all of that happening, I mentioned before Alabama in a time when we have initiated these sparked these redistricting wars.
We know that Alabama likewise on those lists of places that may in fact do the same.
Alabama now asking the Supreme Court there to permit the use of its 2023 map.
that had a one majority black district instead in replacement of a court-ordered version with two majority black districts.
They're citing the Louisiana decision coming out of the Supreme Court.
State officials there in Alabama arguing that the lower court's order establishing that prior map was erroneous and unconstitutional
and primaries there as in these other states across the country are imminent some campaigns underway already alabama seeking at least a pause on the order blocking its preferred map framing the issue as a fight against racial sorting their words
their words as they also try to address the melee, the confusion, the complexity that has happened in the wake of all of the redistricting now underway.
Less than six months from now, the midterm elections, the November elections will be over, which means that in the next two to three, maybe four at the outside, all of this has to be settled one way or another, and we are in for an interesting spring and interesting summer as states around the nation now
pursue this effort.
Again, some of it related to their own initiatives inside their states as in Virginia, but an awful lot of it, an awful lot of it sparked by what Sam Alito and five other members of the Supreme Court did in further denigrating the impact of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, an interesting time just ahead of us.
We've got some other news also coming out of recent stories that we have covered here on Amicus, a law review.
We recall well as we spent a lot of time talking about that major decision by the Supreme Court in the area of tariffs, finding that the president's invocation of this thing called the IEPA was not adequate, was not proper, was unconstitutional, did not give him the authority
over and above the constitutional delegation to the House of Representatives to decide on taxes and tariffs.
The majority of the Supreme Court is saying, Mr. President, you can't do what you've been doing for the past 12, 13 months.
In imposing these tariffs, you don't have the authority to do it under the Constitution.
The statute that you're invoking passed by Congress does not give you special authority.
And in the wake of that, of course, a huge amount of focus on what you do next
a court which will get to the court of international trade ordering now that there will be reimbursements accomplished by the federal government huge amounts of money back to those people who paid those tariffs that's underway right now is an economic a fiscal matter but the president as he announced at the time of the decision
in that Supreme Court case, striking down his initiative with respect to tariffs, went in another direction, and specifically said, I'm going to rely upon another law, another law, Section 122 of something called the Trade Act of 1974.
And in particular, he decided that he would attempt to impose a 10% tariff on most U.S.
imports in substitution.
of his earlier, broader attempt under the IEEPA to do something much more broad.
In a split ruling of just this past week, the Court of International Trade once again, once again said, Mr. President, you have wrongly invoked a decades old trade law when you invoked this latest attempt to impose these 10% tariffs beginning in February.
The President, of course, is not responding well to that latest decision.
coming out of, yes, it's a federal court, the court of international trade, and once again promising to appeal that once again to a higher court, presumably going up ultimately to the Supreme Court once again.
Important to note that while the court declared that the Trump tariffs are illegal, they made some exceptions to that.
And as our broadcast continues at the start of the second hour, I'll tell you more about that and the impact of what the Court of International Trade did this past week, once again finding the President's actions and tariffs illegal and unconstitutional as our broadcast continues.
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.
It's the second hour of Amicus this weekend on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
As always, my producer Max and I are inviting you to be a part of our discussion.
Our review of the major issues in the areas of law, government, and the aspiration for justice, you can call in and be a part of our broadcast at 855-752-4842.
That telephone number, once again, 855-752-4842.
One of the principal themes of our broadcast this weekend, everything old is new again.
including decisions involving line drawing and congressional maps in the wake of that recent decision by the Supreme Court case called Kelly.
What's happening in the wake of that?
in the bottom of the last hour we also talked about this issue having to do with tariffs and we're picking up there once again you may recall that in the past the supreme court has issued that major decision telling the president that his invocation of a certain historical law could not be used to overcome the congressional mandate
that it is the Congress, in particular the House of Representatives, that has the authority to pass taxes and to enact tariffs, striking down about 12 to 14 months of tariff impositions made by this administration.
The Supreme Court moving quickly to another theory
under what is called the Trade Act of 1974, and in particular Section 122 of that Trade Act of 1974.
Under that particular statute, the White House is permitted to apply tariffs of up to 15 percent.
for a maximum of 150 days in response to large and serious United States balance of payments deficits.
That's one of the bases upon which you can go to this particular law and invoke it or situations that present as the law says fundamental international
Payments problems and it's the president who has recently been relying upon that shift to invoke this section 122 tariff act of 1974 provision to support a new set of tariffs Which he's imposed basically a 10% tariffs tariff on most us imports
The Court of International Trade confronted with another challenge to that particular kind of tariff has once again said no.
Split ruling, the Court of International Trade finds again that that particular statute cannot be used in this particular case.
Why?
Why?
Because those intricate concepts relating to the serious balance of payments deficits and the fundamental international payments
problems that required to be proved to invoke the statute.
Those simply aren't here.
The court going on to say that the two intricate concepts here were applicable when the United States dollar in the past was linked somehow to gold, creating some economic risks that the president might need to manage using tariffs.
But the dollar, as the court has said, is no longer linked or pegged to that commodity.
And that prompted a coalition of states and some businesses, once again, as before, to sue the Trump administration saying you can't use this new law.
The two sides did clash in a very long, about a three-hour hearing last month, and it appeared at that time that the judges on this court of international trade were struggling with ways of interpreting this 1974 law.
In the end, they issued a 53-page ruling, five, three, 53 pages of legal jurisprudence, two of the three judges joining in that opinion.
on the trade court, ultimately finding that the president had failed to meet those two threshold requirements established under law.
In doing so, the judges pointed to the legislative history of section 122.
They described it as chronicling a series of efforts to carefully cabin CABI and meaning limit or restrict
presidential discretion in particular the court of international trade wrote this in its lengthy ruling said section 122 was passed in response to a specific historical crisis that resulted in the United States currency and gold reserves being depleted and that is not the situation here obviously a second major blow
to the president's initiatives, his efforts to try to impose global tariffs.
This one now likely headed to the Supreme Court once again.
There's even a third legislative basis upon which the president may attempt to do what he has been trying to do.
The court's up to now stopping him from doing just that in this major ruling coming out of the court of international trade just this past week.
And yet, and yet there is another, another
event, another circumstance in our courts, in our nation's recent history that hearkens back to the past as well.
You will call well as we discussed on this broadcast, many other broadcasts here on civic media talking about the situation a couple of years ago in which the Supreme Court was compelled to address a decision by a district court judge in the northern district of Texas, his name is Kaz Merrick.
who had imposed a nationwide ban on a drug called Mifepristone.
Remember this?
The judge finding that the decisions by the Food and Drug Administration to keep that safe and secure were not sufficiently compelling.
He found that those FDA efforts to test and retest were not adequate.
And so he found it was a health risk to women doing what?
Using that particular drug for abortions in America.
Mifepristone, one of the two major.
healthcare mechanisms, one of the two major pills used in administering abortion services in America.
The FDA fighting for decades that it is as safe as any pharmaceutical can be, even as they continue to test.
The case ultimately going up to the Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court, you recall a couple of years ago, unanimously rejecting an attempt to restrict access to Mipha Pristone.
In a case it was brought there in Texas by some anti-abortion physicians, Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court at that time a couple of years ago, said the doctors did not have a legal basis.
They didn't have a standing to sue.
Why?
Because they did not prescribe Miphupristone and had not suffered any direct harm, a direct harm, which is what's standing, a requirement to come into court, is all about.
and therefore their attack on the FDA's regulations and its actions approving Mipha Pristone for the purpose of administering abortions in America.
You don't have the basis to do it.
The physicians, the court wrote, want FDA to make Mipha Pristone more difficult for other doctors to prescribe and for pregnant women to obtain this, the court ruling of a couple of years ago.
But under the Constitution, the group's desire to make a drug less available for others
does not establish their standing to sue to bring this into court.
And so, and so once again, the Supreme Court hoping to wash its hands of issues related to abortion.
And in particular, the drug Mipha Pristone, which again used
overwhelmingly safely in America and in other places on the planet, another attack on that this one once again coming from the state of Louisiana, Louisiana, providing a lot of the litigation review before the United States Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, just this past week, once again at the pen of this time, Sam Alito, entered a preliminary order.
This is on the shadow docket.
This is on the emergency application docket.
Once again, restoring nationwide access to Mifepristone in a temporary order that will, at least for now, keeps Mifepristone available.
How does this come about?
How does Mifepristone come back into the limelight, the view of the United States Supreme Court?
What happens is that the state of Louisiana
as it does in these situations, had appealed a decision once again of the lower courts, and specifically to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, saying that because we have in the state of Louisiana a near total ban, a near total ban on abortions in our state, for that reason, the Malian option.
the possibility of Mifepristone being shipped in by mail into our state of Louisiana constitutes a violation of our law.
And for that reason, Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit, you've got to stop the administration of Mifepristone in our state.
What happens on the basis of that and once again, Louisiana not testing the FDA's determination about its safety but saying the application and the access for this FDA approved drug in our state where we have otherwise banned abortion, plainly coming into our state, affecting abortions, providing those reproductive services contrary to our law, stop that from happening by mail.
And of course,
in the state of Louisiana and the in-state, in-person administration of abortion services forbidden under their law.
What happens is that the Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel there for the Fifth Circuit, Louisiana, a part of that circuit, temporarily reinstated a requirement that patients visit those medical providers in person
to obtain Mipha Pristone while the litigation continues.
The rule, of course, the subject of a lot of contests there, the Fifth Circuit, once again, to be explicitly clear, and what they did was they effectively not only imposed the ban on Mipha Pristone for the state of Louisiana, but also for all states in the Union.
another nationwide jurisdiction of the sort that we saw several years ago.
And the Court of Appeals, again, in the Fifth Circuit, says that because of the prohibition on Mipha Pristone in Louisiana, we are suspending its use and we're suspending it nationwide as the litigation continues.
That, of course, that, of course, attracts the attention of the manufacturers who run to the Supreme Court and invoking the
Emergency application docket.
They say stop that from happening and the Supreme Court at the pen of Sam Alito.
Just this past Monday, the previous Monday this past week, does in fact restore nationwide access to this widely used drug.
on Mipha Pristone in a very brief order as is the case involving these emergency applications.
He pauses, he suspends the appeals court ruling from the previous Friday that had prevented abortion providers from prescribing these pills by what's called telemedicine, right?
Having access to patients over the telephone, other remote ways of providing medical services and shipping them to patients.
to patients, this drug called mipipristone, allegedly causing a certain amount of confusion for providers and patients in the state of Louisiana and other places, that one sentence order from Justice Sam Alito, again, entered this past Monday, effectively imposed a pause on what a stay, a suspension of what the Fifth Circuit had done.
But he said, we're going to revisit this, as we often do in the cases of these emergency applications.
He requested that the parties who are both in favor of the ban.
in Louisiana and in other places around the country.
And those who oppose it, principally the manufacturer, you've got to file briefs by this coming Monday the 11th.
And tell us, give us some reasons why we should either continue what the Fifth Circuit has done in suspending the use, or we should overturn definitively what the Fifth Circuit has done in making Mipha Pristone inaccessible.
That is the assignment given to the parties whose case is now once again pending before the United States Supreme Court.
We will see what happens, as we always will, in these cases involving the emergency application abortion, an issue not going away for the Supreme Court or for America.
When we come back, more rule of law news here on Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus, a lot of you.
As always, you can be part of our discussion by calling in to Max or me, my producer, at 855-752-4842.
Max and I will take your phone calls and your inquiries, your questions about anything on our ambitious but achievable agenda in this, the second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast.
all about the rule of law in America.
We are turning now to a common theme, returning again to this fundamental notion about the importance of judiciary and in particular federal district court judges who continue to enter orders upholding the Constitution and doing things that support the rule of law in America.
We've got at least three more examples of federal district court judges, different courts, different judges.
around the country entering orders that do exactly that, supporting the rule of law.
Let's talk about those three now.
First, we come to a judge who has ruled that the administration's, the White House's, cancellation a long time ago of some humanities grants is in fact unconstitutional.
The administration's cancellation of about a hundred million dollars one hundred million dollars in humanities grants to whom to scholars and writers and research groups and other organizations around the country is unconstitutional and The Department of Government Efficiency this thing called doge, which was never a department I refer to it here on this broadcast as the musk team
that came in with great ferocity in the early months of this administration, raked havoc in many ways on the administration of our government and then left.
This judge now finding that the Musk team had no authority to end that funding as they directed in the exercise of authority given them to the president.
Who is this judge?
Her name is Judge Colleen McMahon, M-C, M-A-H-O-N.
She is in Manhattan.
That's the Southern District of New York.
And she sided with the author's guild.
Some other groups and some people who had their grants canceled who had sued the government.
and the National Endowment for the Arts saying you can't do this.
McMahon had permanently barred the administration now in this recent order from doing what the Musk team wanted it to do and directed it to do.
Government lawyers had argued that the cuts of about 1,400 grants nationwide, $100 million in amounts were illegal.
And although they were a part of the Commission to the Musk team initiative and the people implementing that, this initiative that had as one of its core directives to weed out any diversion, equity, and inclusion initiatives, DEI, and also to reduce some factors of government discretionary spending,
All of that, all of that is effectively overturned by Federal District Court Judge Colleen McMahon saying you've got to restore those grants.
You did this unconstitutionally.
She said the government violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment.
the Equal Protection Clause, and that it did not have the authority to cancel the grant.
The judge writing, for example, that it was a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination when officials canceled the grants based upon DEI.
Could not be any more clear than that, could it?
She went on to say, the public interest favors
Permanent relief and that's why she entered a permanent injunction.
She said no more proceedings in my court at least this is done the public has a strong interest Judge McMahon wrote in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution again several groups that ensued the government including the American Council of Learned Societies the American Historical Association the Modern Language Association the
The list goes on of people who were very upset.
about the unilateral rescission of huge amounts of grants that kept them alive and kept them functioning have now been successful in court in overturning the Trump administration's attempts to cut them off.
Many have called the grant cancellations previously a direct result on the constitutional right to free speech and equal protection.
Judge McMahon, Judge McMahon this past week,
agreeing with them and saying that the government, the administration, the White House has engaged in an unconstitutional effort, successful for a while, but no more, to limit the access of these humanitarian grants that are available to groups like these and others who are under the congressional description
of these programs entitled to apply for and get them, yes, in the discretion of the grant providers, but not without the kind of unilateral rescission that was accomplished here, a violation of the First Amendment, a violation of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment as well.
A significant district court case likely once again to be appealed, but nonetheless, an advocacy, successful advocacy by people harmed,
They do have standing to address the harms visited upon them by the administration when unconstitutional actions are undertaken.
That from Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan just this past week.
Let's talk about another one of them.
This is a bit more complicated, but we have talked about this before.
Federal authorities are now barred and that includes the FBI, the Department of Justice, from conducting what's called an unsupervised wholesale search of any electronic devices that were seized from, you recall this well, this Washington reporter, those were items that were seized from her Virginia home while she was investigating allegations
that a Pentagon contractor illegally leaked classified information to the journalist and the magistrate judge, while that is going on, has found now that the attempt and the successful taking of her devices, including
Her in-home laptop and computer systems, her phone, is illegal and unconstitutional.
U.S.
Magistrate William Porter said that he instead will independently review the contents of these items before allowing the Justice Department to pursue this case.
When we come back, I'll tell you more about this First Amendment case when Amicus Law Review continues.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amica Solaroview.
We are doing once again in this our second hour of the broadcast what we often do which is take some inventory of some of the actions of federal district court judges not because they are simply pushing back on directives and orders and actions of the government but because they are doing so as an affirmation of what our Constitution
And the laws are all about talking now about this somewhat complex, but fundamentally important issue involving First Amendment liberties and rights of reporters in America begins with a Pentagon contractor.
His name is Aurelio Luis Perez Lugones.
He's arrested early this year and he's charged with the unauthorized removal and retention of some classified documents.
coming out of the Pentagon.
He's accused in particular of taking home printouts of classified documents from his workplace and then passing them on.
to a Washington Post reporter named Hannah Nathanson, N-A-T-A-N-S-O-N, and that's when the First Amendment issues come in play.
Because what happens is that agents of the FBI then go to her home and they seize her phone, laptops, recorder, portable hard drives, other things in the search of her home again in January of this year.
And as a result of that, of course, you can well envision that the Washington Post does not respond well to that.
They regard this as an intrusion of the government into the papers and the reporters' First Amendment rights, and they sue, and they ask not only for the return of these materials, the devices, but all the information, and ask for a declaration.
that the actions of the FBI, of your government in doing this, not only chill that freedom of expression, but are wrong under our Constitution.
Needless to say, the government pushes back and says we're not doing this because we are trying to infringe upon the First Amendment rights.
of the report, but rather as a part of our investigation into what this particular errant employee, Mr. Perez Lugones, did.
What happens this past week, again, is another important statement about First Amendment rights.
This is magistrate William Porter.
He's there, and he basically pushes back on the Justice Department, but finds a middle ground to pursue
What he says is the important action that needs to be taken under the Constitution.
He writes this, he says, the course genuine hope.
He's looking at the Department of Justice.
Genuinely hope is that the search was conducted as the government contends to gather evidence of a crime in a single case.
And not, not, the magistrate says, to collect information about confidential sources from a reporter who has published articles
critical of this administration.
And yes, indeed, the Washington Post reporter Hannah Nathanson has been
publishing a lot of reports that are critical of the government, including, including things related to the Pentagon.
The judge says, okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I'm assuming that the reason why you seized all of her information is because you're pursuing a legitimate criminal investigation and not because you're trying to chill her, not because you're trying to get after confidential sources.
and in particular because you don't like what she's been publishing.
This cannot be a part of the retribution, the magistrate judge says, about which the president speaks routinely.
The post again had sought an order requiring the government to return everything to the reporter, but Porter, the magistrate judge here, denied that particular aspect of the request.
He said it's reasonable.
for the government as long as this is indeed their legitimate purpose to keep nothing more than the limited information.
Very important there.
A limited information.
And I'll let you keep that responsive to the search warrant.
The rest of the contents must be returned.
In other words, the things that are the focus of the search warrant, those you can keep, but nothing more.
And don't you dare go after anything that would infringe upon First Amendment rights.
In the meantime, what he says is he will independently, rather than let the government review all of this, which they had proposed, he's going to independently review the
balanced need to protect Nathanson's free speech rights with the interests of the government, which he says is legitimate, in pursuing what he hopes is a legitimate criminal investigation.
I will take a look at all of this information and make a further determination, but government
Until that time, I'm not permitting you to engage in the wholesale search of all the things that you seized.
That's too much.
That's too far.
You're limited in doing that.
That coming out again of another federal court just this past week, his name is a magistrate judge, William Porter.
Again, in Washington, D.C.
a stand in favor of the First Amendment and in support of what reporters are obliged to do, are commissioned to do, are required to do, are committed to do when it comes to pursuing accurate information and getting news from our government, including from confidential sources.
We'll talk more about this interesting Washington Post fight with our government and where it lands.
Washington Post
this past week, certainly a win for them in terms of the wholesale non-disclosure of this information to the Justice Department.
And then there's more.
Let's talk about what Judge Melissa Dubose did again just this past week in Rhode Island, District Court in Rhode Island.
A federal judge there, her name is Dubose, saying that she is referring a Trump administration lawyer who appeared in front of her
who has gotten her upset because of the misrepresentations, the lies that he has told her, requiring that he face investigation into some potential misconduct.
We have seen this before, lying, misrepresenting, misleading.
engaging in misconduct before a federal district court judge.
Here, here, the allegation is withholding some certain key information about a case that she has in front of her.
She has referred this particular lawyer for possible discipline, calling out his lack of candor.
Where does this come from?
Well,
In particular, it derives again from a case involving a matter of a migrant.
His name is Brian Rafael Gomez, G-O-M-E-Z.
He's arrested at Worcester Mass, Massachusetts, in April.
He's charged with assault and battery.
He was released on bail and turned over to the immigration customs enforcement folks, those are the ICE folks.
In a court filing,
The attorney who is appearing in front of the judge explains what he did and did not say to the judge about the background of this particular individual, Gomez.
That's relevant.
Why?
Because Judge DuBose has in front of her a decision about whether to release him pending for their proceedings.
Dispute arises after the Department of Homeland Security
Publicly attacks Judge DuBose after she does in fact order his release of Mr. Gomez, this defendant who is appearing in front of her.
She says that based upon the things that I have in front of me, there's no indication that he is a risk of flight, a danger to the community, and there's no reason, no information that I have that suggests that he has committed any crimes about him.
What she does not know,
which the government did know, which the attorney appearing in front of her also did know, was an international charge that the defendant had in fact been charged with a serious offense overseas involving murder.
And because of that, again, with the lack of information about that, Stupos releases him.
What happens in the wake of that is that the White House, the White House seizing upon this release order says that the judge herself has done something that is illegal.
that she is knowingly released someone who is accused of murder in the Dominican Republic, which is his home country, and the administration accuses this activist judge of releasing a wanted murderer back into American communities.
He describes the ruling of the judge as a product of insanity.
And it is amplified in a public news reporting that this accuser is back out on the streets.
Well, it turns out, of course, that Judge DuBose knows nothing about this.
And that is because the central purpose of this story.
it is that the attorney who is appearing in front of her, his name is Kevin Bolen, B-O-L-A-N.
He leads the Civil Division in the U.S.
Attorney's Office in the District of Rhode Island, never ever told the judge about this murder charge pending against the migrant Brian Rafael Gomez back in the Dominican Republic if he had, presumably, she would have detained him.
Instead, she relies upon his silence, his decision not to disclose this,
She releases him and then the White House and the Department of Homeland Security turn around her and call her insane and threatening the safety and security of the community.
The judge does not respond well.
And she accuses appropriately the attorney of not providing this information to her.
The attorney indicates that, yes, indeed, I knowingly failed to give that information.
He says that people at the Department of Homeland Security specifically told me
that I am not to provide this information to you, and I did not.
It is all a part of the same group.
It is the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, is the executive branch failing to tell a federal district court judge relevant, material, important information to a decision being made about the detention of a person appearing in front of her.
The judge has now referred this lawyer
for possible discipline, describing his lack of candor.
She has again been very, very vocal about her not only disregard for the criticism that has been launched in her direction by the White House and by the Department of Homeland Security, but also said that the taking down of any critical information about her from the government websites is the very basic least
least act is a basic decent act that the government needs to do and she will also consider future possible responses.
to this behavior in front of her, we have spoken in the past about many other instances in which representatives of your government have appeared in front of federal district court judges, lied to them, not provided information, not responded to their questions, and it has happened again just this past week, presumably with the imprimatur of the Department of Justice and our new Attorney General, acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche.
That happening in Rhode Island.
And while that is going on, then we also have this.
From the president himself, not only criticizing judges generally for being out of control, but this past week, as he appeared in front of the National Republican Congressional Committee event in Washington, the president of the United States of America escalated his attacks on these very judges, including Judge Melissa Dubose and others.
who have upheld the law and who have said that they are entitled in this system of checks and balances that we embrace and that we have endorsed for 238 years in this country.
The president now calling upon lawmakers to pass a crime bill that cracks down on rogue judges.
Let me say that again.
The president wants the Congress to pass a crime bill
that cracks down on rogue judges.
Those were his comments last week in a public domain to a congressional committee event in Washington, DC.
He says the time has come for Republicans to pass a tough new crime bill that imposes harsh penalties for dangerous repeat offenders, cracks down on rogue judges.
we got rogue judges he says that our criminals he calls the judges once again criminals they are criminals the president goes on to say what they do to our country the decisions that they hand down and hurt our country all of that coming out of the chief executive
was obliged to execute the laws in our nation.
When we come back, some rule of law snapshots in what will be our final segment in this edition of Amicus, a law review.
This is Amica Salaro of you.
My name is Jim Santel and this is the final segment of our weekend broadcast.
A couple of rule of law snapshots, but they are important.
They are significant and they also animate our understanding of justice in America.
They also underscore a common theme of this broadcast which is deterrence.
Specific deterrence as to the individual or group.
or company that may in fact be violating the law, stopping them from doing that again, and also general deterrence, sending the message by virtue of the prosecution, by virtue of the verdict that may be rendered by a jury, the sentencing imposed, that if you do this same kind of thing, you will also get in trouble.
That's called general deterrence, stopping people who might otherwise be inclined to commit crimes in America from doing just that.
We have got some instances of both of those.
in a sentencing and a charging of recent times.
Just this past week in Boulder, Colorado, an individual whose charge with one of the most violent events in recent history was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Where does this come from?
You may recall well that back in June of last year in Colorado, there is a firebombing attack.
on a group of marchers in Boulder, Colorado.
They were calling for the release of hostages captured by Hamas in that October 2023 raid on Israel, a peaceable assembly calling publicly for the release of the hostages.
And when they are assembled there in Boulder, Colorado, a man named Mohammed Sabri Soliman, S-O-L-I-M-O-A-N, hurls some Molotov cocktails into their group.
During the course of a proceeding of justice past week, members of that group describe how they were attacked, how they tried to beat out the flames that scorched their clothes and burned their friends, and resulted in the death of one woman, 82 years old.
Her name is Karen.
In that vicious horrific attack, the defendant here.
Soleiman is charged, of course, with 101 charges.
The one is based on the specific death of Karen Diamond that he caused this past week.
He pleads guilty to all 101 charges, including that one count of murder for this attack, this violent fire attack.
on these protesters, on these people legitimately gathered, constitutionally gathered, to voice their views in public.
The District Attorney of the Times says that this conduct, this firebombing attack, sowed terror, fear, and death, and that the threats that some of the survivors have received in the wake of this continue.
One of the individuals who were at that march said, when I'm gone and close my eyes, I can vividly see Karen's body in flames.
They describe the results, not only physical, but also psychological, the community response to what they have done.
And one of the many victims there says that he scanned for exits whenever he left home, not only because of the threats to him and others, but also because he was concerned now about the anti-Semitic attack.
and the messages that may have been sent to other people.
In the end, in the end, Soleiman, who is an Egyptian national, who immigrated to the United States in 2022, speaking publicly of the first time, he says he regrets carrying out the attack.
He said he deserves the death penalty.
Colorado does not have the death penalty.
That is not an option.
But he denies that his crimes were driven by any anti-Jewish hatred.
He launched into sort of a rambling diatribe against Zionism.
He described that as the enemy.
He also condemned the deaths of children during the Gaza war.
He said, yes, I am against Israel and I can't deny that.
And that's my right.
But he also goes on to admit that what he did was wrong.
The judge accepts that.
plea, but also places this in context.
This is Nancy Solomon, S-A-L-O-M-O-N-E.
The judge says that your choices were the choices of terror, and they victimized an entire community.
You chose to victimize these people because they were members of the Jewish community.
And because of that, she sentences this defendant who pleads guilty to all 101 charges to life imprisonment.
in the wake of planning this attack for a year, a year in advance of it actually happening.
What is the point of all of that?
Well, the point once again is this is plainly horrific, tragic event for the survivors and the folks again affected in the community.
by this horrific event, it also sends an important message about violence in America, that it will not be tolerated, and that if you engage in the same kinds of things that a current message will be, we will respond not only with a prosecution, but we will sentence you to the highest level of a sentence that can be imposed, in this case, life imprisonment, as to this person who accomplished this horrific hate-filled...
firebombing attack in Colorado last June.
Also, also in the category of important lessons in the connection with attempts to deter behavior.
We've talked about this a bit in the past.
We recall again that there is a Minnesota prosecutor whose name is Mary Moriarty, who is now charged an ICE officer with assault.
and accusing the agent of pointing a gun at motorists during the course of that operation in the Twin Cities in February, pointing a gun at motorists along the State Highway.
during that immigration operation.
She described the assault the prosecutor did as one of 18 incidents that she's presently investigating there in Minneapolis, now under investigation, indicated that other charges against other Asians will be possible, sending the message that if you come to our state in whatever legitimate purpose you have, even as a federal law enforcement agent, you are not immune, she says, from the
obligation to follow state law, and she charges that agent, Gregory Morgan, with a violation of state law.
The case is going to be litigated heavily about immunities in the state and the federal system, but deterrence for those agents who would violate the law while executing their own assigned responsibilities.
More of that, more about law enforcement and about the administration of the rule of law in our next invocations of all of that.
and our broadcasts here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
Have a good weekend
everybody.
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.