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.
So very pleased that you have chosen to spend some portion of your weekend hours with my producer Max and me as we talk with you about some of the major stories in the areas of administration of law, the operation of government, and ways in which our system works and sometimes doesn't work.
This is Amicus, a law review.
Our commitment to you every single week is to talk with you about some of those major news stories of recent times, providing some understanding, some appreciation for the backstories, the predicates for those various events that we report on, and then affording you the opportunity as well to be a part of our discussion.
by calling in, dropping your comments in our chat box, asking those questions that have you scratching your head about the events of our times.
You can do that this weekend as always by calling in.
To the broadcast station here in Racine Park at 855-752-4842.
That number once again is 855-752-4842.
You can also be a part of our discussion by again dropping those comments and observations.
Your perspectives into our chat box.
We are always delighted to have your participation
in our broad ranging discussion about the rule of law.
And this weekend, no disappointment there.
Lots and lots of ground to plow.
And we're going to begin with focusing a lot on criminal matters, criminal matters in our state and sometimes our federal
courts as well.
We spend a lot of time talking about appellate proceedings, both at the federal appeals court level and the Supreme Court level.
And that is important.
That's hugely important because it is at those levels that the laws coming out of our courts are created, are defined, are articulated by those justices and those judges at those appellate levels.
But
But, but, but, it's important to understand that all of those cases get there through the lower courts.
They get through the trial courts, both at the state level and the federal level.
There are trial judges who do the all important work day in and day out.
of administering the rule of law and ensuring that justice is accomplished, something approaching it, if not perfect, and it is on their work that we're going to be focusing a lot of our time this weekend, beginning especially with criminal cases, criminal cases.
We also spend a lot of time talking about civil proceedings, and we will get to some of those, especially in our second hour.
But we're going to begin this weekend talking about a great variety of criminal matters in trial courts, trial proceedings, lowest courts in the land, but where the justice is meted out in the first instance.
And because this week there have been an awful lot of surprises, some things anticipated.
A lot of things have caught us off guard when it comes to the criminal prosecution cases in our nation.
We're going to focus a lot on those and explain what happened, explain why they happened, if we can, and once again, invite your commentary or questions.
about all of that.
We're going to be talking about some major cases in which an appeals court, for example, overturned a murder conviction.
We'll talk about a mistrial.
We'll talk about a commutation of a sentence and abandonment of a criminal prosecution.
We'll talk about the sentencing of someone responsible for a drug-related killing.
We'll talk about a new
prosecution against someone who is plotting attacks on Jews in America.
We'll talk about a not guilty plea entered by a defendant in our recent news.
And we'll talk interestingly about a White House plan to put together a defense fund, a criminal defense fund for those people who according to the president have been victimized by the prosecutions of the previous administration.
under Joe Biden a lot and a lot to get to we'll also of course chat about some civil cases the president's latest attack upon an institution of higher learning a case coming out of the securities and exchange commission another one having to do with some
the decision by the Department of Justice to issue some subpoenas to some Wall Street Journal reporters.
And then we will finally get back to a bit of Supreme Court news when it comes to a subpoena challenge, the operative language there being opportunities to challenge a subpoena.
We'll talk about what the Supreme Court did with Miffra Pristone.
overturning what the Fifth Circuit did as we reported last week, and then we'll also chat about what happened in Virginia and in the Supreme Court to a challenge to a Virginia Supreme Court case.
pending in front of the of the united states supreme court now sent back now rejected by the supreme court it is a lot of ground to travel it is a lot in terms of substance and content it is an ambitious but nonetheless achievable agenda
that we will now undertake as we once again invite you to be a part of our discussion that phone number once again 855-752-4842-855-752-4842 be a part of our discussion here on amicus a law review
on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
Let us talk criminal cases.
Let us talk some of the things that were anticipated, many things not anticipated this past week.
We've got at least four stories, four events in the area of criminal prosecution at the trial court levels.
that caught many people as a surprise.
And we're going to begin at the top of that list with an action by the Supreme Court of the state of South Carolina.
It's top court this past week undoing a murder conviction, actually murder convictions against Alex Murdoch, M-U-R-D-A-U-G-H, you recall him.
He's the lawyer who a jury had found guilty of the heinous, the premeditated murders of his wife and one of his sons.
in that trial that captivated the country on the news from start to finish a unanimous opinion this past week coming out of the state supreme court on appeal on appeal from the lower court said that shocking jury interference by a court clerk in that proceeding let me say that again a court clerk her actions prompting the state supreme court
that clerk overseeing the jurors during that trial, prompting the Supreme Court to look at that behavior, which we will describe, and convincing the Supreme Court that it had to overturn, reverse the criminal conviction of Alex Murdoch based upon the actions of that court clerk.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment, and that life sentence now,
Not just in Jeopardy, but overturned a new trial ordered.
And we begin again, the prosecution, the South Carolina Attorney General's office prosecuting the original case said that it will retry Murdoch for the killings for which he was previously convicted.
Let's talk about where this comes from.
You recall much of the history of this case.
The Murdoch murders as they came to be known in American parlance took place way back in June of 2021 on the family hunting estate.
a real part of South Carolina's low country, that's the location for all of this, went unresolved, unresolved for about a year before Murdoch was arrested and, as I indicated, drew enormous international attention, not only because of the conduct, but because of who his family was, a fairly storied history in the region.
The Murdoch family ran a prosecutor's office, a prominent law firm for decades and decades there, well known in the area,
Paul Murdoch at the time of his death had been facing some charges of drunkenly crashing a boat that killed a teenage passenger.
A lot of attention on the Murdoch family at that time.
A six-week trial ends in March of 2023.
And during the course of that trial, as you may recall, central evidence was a video taken by Murdoch's late son showing that Murdoch himself, he is the defendant in this case, was with his wife and his son
at the hunting estate with some dog kennels in the background shortly before the two were killed there.
So it places him there.
Murdoch himself denies being at the kennels until much later that night and he says he discovers their bodies, a trials ensues and the jurors completely unconvinced apparently of Murdoch's statement, his position.
They deliberate for about three hours or so and they return a verdict of guilty.
prosecutors describing during the course of the trial, during the course of the sentencing that followed, that these murders were sort of a desperate attempt by murder to gain sympathy as his lies about drug use and theft were on the verge of being exposed.
It was very clear that he was having some financial problems as well, including matters related to his own law firm.
And those matters also became a part of the public's attention in all of this, arguably providing some of the, not justification, but his explanation for his behavior at the time he admits to some embezzlement does not admit, does not admit during the course of the trial to any murder that was charged against him.
What happens, however, during the course of the trial is fascinating, troubling.
And it forms the basis for the decision of the High Court there in the state to overturn his conviction and the life sentence imposed upon him.
What happens is that the legal team for Murdoch begins to argue that the conduct of the Colleton County Clerk of Court
That's where the case was tried.
Her name is Becky Hill.
She was in charge of logistics and administration of the courtroom generally, as are clerks of court generally, and other tasks related to juror administration.
In testimony, in testimony from some of the jurors, again, a fairly extraordinary thing in and of itself, some of the jurors said that Becky Hill
had made some comments to them about Murdoch's testimony at trial, including that they should not be fooled by him.
Don't be convinced by what he's telling you, she apparently said.
And she encouraged them to watch his body language, plainly not convinced of his innocence, encouraging jurors not to be convinced that his story is a real one.
And during the course of all of these proceedings,
the clerk of court and the attention given to her prompts her to resign from her job.
In December, she was sentenced to probation herself after pleading guilty to misusing public funds, using her government job for personal gain by promoting her book about the trial.
Lots of things going on there.
Lots of reasons to focus on the clerk of court.
Again, her name, Becky Hill, but it is this intrusion.
into the otherwise independent review and deliberation by the jury that gets the attention of the High Court.
And they say it's enough.
They say it's shocking jury interference.
And it's on that basis, not a finding that the trial evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction.
Nothing about the imposition of the life sentence troubles the
high court, although they may get back to that at some point, if there is a retrial, a reconviction, another sentencing.
Instead, they're focusing on the conduct of this trial clerk who intervenes, inserts herself into the deliberation and
may or may not have had some influence on the jury.
In the end, the South Carolina top court, the highest court in the state, overturns those convictions of Murdoch and sends the case back for a new trial based upon the misconduct of someone in the courtroom.
A fascinating development, Murdoch himself through his attorney later says he was not anticipating
that he would be successful on appeal.
He says that throughout the trial, and this is certainly the case, he was not winning a lot in terms of evidentiary rulings from the judge.
and was surprised, was taken aback, as were many others in the nation, certainly in South Carolina.
By this decision, by the Supreme Court there to turn back this prosecution, this conviction, this judgment, and send it back for a new trial, now underway at some point down the road as to Murdoch and the charges of homicide against him.
When we come back, we'll talk about some other surprising events in the rule of law.
Here on Amicus, a law review.
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.
This is Amicus on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.
Once again, so very pleased that you've chosen to spend some portion of your weekend in review with me of some of these major cases in the areas of the rule of law, the administration of justice.
We're doing a bit of a departure from what we normally do, which is focus a lot on appeals courts and the Supreme Court.
We're talking about a lot of criminal prosecutions this weekend, and the first subcategory are surprises.
Surprises in the areas of criminal prosecution, which sometimes happen, not always.
They're fairly infrequent.
Certainly a surprise when the South Carolina Supreme Court overturned the conviction.
of Alex Murdoch for the murders of his wife and one of his sons in that trial a number of years ago.
The son, the younger son, Paul, was 22 years old.
His wife, Maggie, 52 years old.
Murdoch himself admits to some embezzlement involving his law firm, denies that he is involved in anything related to the murders of his family members.
In the end, the South Carolina Supreme Court comes back and says, we're going to overturn the conviction, not because the evidence is insufficient, it may or may not have been, but because of some court clerk interference, some intervention by her in the deliberations by that jury.
And that's enough.
the Supreme Court says to send this case back got to do better than that an interesting commentary on the ways in which unanticipated things will result in unanticipated results here and overturning of a conviction by a jury a judgment entered here life imprisonment
He is not going to be released from prison.
He's facing some other charges as well, but will continue according to the district attorney and the South Carolina attorney general to be facing these charges.
Another trial down the road.
Other surprises, other things unanticipated this past week in the criminal justice system.
This one not in South Carolina.
This is in Manhattan and involves somebody that we have all regrettably come to know all too well for his horrific behavior when it comes
to sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and yes, sexual abuse of a criminal nature.
You call his name is Harvey Weinstein, this former Hollywood producer who was accused across the board, found guilty in cases on the East Coast, California, rather on New York West Coast and California, across the country.
He has been the subject of criminal prosecutions, plainly widespread condemnation for his sexual abuse, his sexual escapades, his sexual
horrifying behavior when it comes to his treatment of actresses and others involved in the entertainment history of this country.
Prompting in many ways the start and the encouragement of the me too movement a lot of people looking at Harvey Weinstein and saying yes This is exactly the embodiment of the reason why we have this problem in Hollywood and in other places Harvey Weinstein the subject of that only that public condemnation But an awful lot of criminal trials criminal proceedings that have brought him to justice for his misbehavior with respect to women his criminal conduct with respect to other
human beings over a long period of time.
What happened?
Well, in one of the sort of atypical trials along the way, the judge this past week, in one of those cases pending in Manhattan, declares a mistrial as to him.
How does this come about?
Well, we know that the, there was this aspiring actress, her name is Jessica Mann, and the accusations go back as to Weinstein himself about a decade ago.
when Ms.
Mann was again engaged with Mr. Weinstein in matters related to Hollywood and the options that she may have for acting on the on the screen.
Weinstein again a long and very tortuous and very uncomfortable story she tells during the course of the trial and she brings, she comes forward, she is a plainly a principal witness and alleging, alleging once again that Weinstein
was responsible for her force the force will rape and the sexual assault against her goes to trial a jury jurors a set of four women and eight men spent about two days deliberating on whether the Hollywood producer Weinstein raped this aspiring actress in a hotel room back in 2013 it is a a horrifying story and she testifies about it as she has done before it's actually the second time
that a jury here has not been able to reach a verdict.
They did that once again.
In 2020, Weinstein first went to trial and this was convicted of raping Ms.
Mann.
Verdict was overturned at that time.
A second trial last year, he was convicted on a single count of criminal sexual conduct against another accuser while the jury deadlocked on the rape count in particular.
The judge overseeing the case, this
present case.
His name is Curtis Farber.
State Supreme Court in Manhattan has now ordered a new trial.
Why?
Because the jurors came back and said, we are hopelessly deadlocked.
We are trying to reach a verdict.
We cannot do it.
We are, we are not in agreement as is the case in any unanimous verdict, which it has to be in a criminal case.
And for that reason, we cannot return a unanimous verdict.
The judge after
giving what's called an Allen charge, an Allen charge, which is the direction to any jury to go back and try and try again to reach a verdict.
Ultimately, he receives notes and communications from this jury saying, we are simply unable, unable to reach a verdict.
And he declares a mistrial and says, because this jury has not reached a unanimous verdict,
Nothing more can be done.
Dismisses the jury and directs that if anything, there will be a new trial in this case.
No disposition here on this case.
Have to pick, of course, a brand new jury, brand new proceeding, yet another trial, the fourth time that this particular case will have been tried.
All of them, all these cases involving a singular
Victim survivor again.
Her name is Jessica Mann and she has indicated that she will support the criminal prosecution this criminal trial a fourth time again Weinstein is not going free in the wake of this He is still in prison for many other convictions But that coming out of a Manhattan trial court just this past week when we come back yet more surprises in the era of criminal prosecution in America as the broadcast continues
Music playing
This is Amicus, a law review on the broadcast stations of civic media, is always inviting your questions, your comments, your inquiries, those things that prompt you to wonder what this is all about by calling into the broadcast station here at 855-752-4842.
We will talk with you about those questions, hopefully answer those as well.
As a part of our pursuit of a somewhat atypical agenda here on Amicus, a lot of you were talking about criminal prosecutions and lots of surprising things that have happened just in recent days in the area of principally state, but not exclusively federal prosecutions as well in America.
We've talked already about the
murder convictions of Alex Murdoch, who is that lawyer in South Carolina, found guilty of murdering horrifically his wife and son.
That conviction now overturned because of the interference of a court clerk in the deliberation there.
In Manhattan, we have a judge.
who declares a mistrial in the latest in a great number of trials against Harvey Weinstein.
This brought by an actress who ledges that he raped her in 2013 at a hotel in Manhattan.
The jury unable to come to a unanimous verdict and the judge after prompting them to go back and try and try again says this is not going to happen, declares a mistrial.
Now the decision about whether or not to retry him a fourth time
Rest with Alvin Bragg, you know him.
He's the Matten District Attorney who has to decide now whether or not to go down this road a fourth time.
Again, Weinstein already convicted, given very long sentences in both California and New York on previous cases, all of them involving sexual assault, rape charges, and other matters.
During the time that he was a major producer in Hollywood, using that influence plainly to conduct
horrific, power-based sexual engagements and assaults on women in America, giving rise to the Me Too movement and drawing attention to himself as one of the principal reasons for pushing back.
on Annie and all kinds of sexual assault of this nature.
Here's another one, this one coming out of Colorado.
Another surprise this past week involving Tina Peters, you may recall her.
She is the former county clerk in Mesa County, Colorado.
She is perhaps also known as among one of the most prominent 2020 election deniers in the country, maintaining once again that the current president
then the departing president did in fact not lose the 2020 election in that election proceeding and in fact was responsible for advancing Tina Peters was a lot of the advocacy in favor of the notion that Donald Trump had won that election.
Well, it turns out that the governor this past week, his name is Jared Polis, P-O-L-I-S, he's a Democrat.
and has been again very much on the nationwide stage as well.
He decides to commute the sentence that was imposed upon Tina Peters and does it, he says, because she has served enough time.
Let's talk about what this is all about.
Tina Peters once again had been convicted in what can only be considered sort of a wild and brazen plot.
to examine, to relook at some voting machines under her control in that 2020 election.
Again, in an attempt to try to amass some evidence, some support for the notion that Joe Biden did not win and that Donald Trump had won the election, she tried to prove in particular that machines had been used to rig the contest against Donald Trump.
And as a result of that, a huge amount of intrigue
In this case, we know that the case involved a series of meetings and engagements.
Some described it as sort of a variation of spy novel, a bizarre saga that included some false identities.
Computer hackers involved some covert meetings, all of that playing a part as she tried ultimately unsuccessfully, fruitlessly.
And as it turns out illegally,
to uncover some sort of grand conspiracy there about the 2020 presidential election.
As it became clear that there was no evidence of any widespread malfeasance, state prosecutors had indicted her for her role in this sort of undercover spy-like operation.
in which she conspired with another person to examine local machines, copy their hard drives, and share the information that she got on the internet.
You may recall all of this, much in the national attention at the time.
Their goal, again, was to prove
the state officials and Dominion voting systems, much in the news as well, for a major lawsuit in which they were successful, a defamation lawsuit against Fox News.
She was attempting to prove that Dominion voting systems, the manufacturer of those machines, had erased a computer trail of voter switching or some other kinds of fraud.
None of that fraud ever produced simply no indication there or anyplace else that the 2020 election, the results of it were the results of fraud.
But, but, Ms.
Peters finds herself on the receiving end
of an indictment, ultimately a conviction for doing just that.
The governor, the governor this past week, decides that she has served enough time in jail.
In an interview at the Colorado State Capitol, the governor, again, Jared Polis, said his commutation, which is not a pardon, not a pardon, she's not forgiven, not wiped up the books, but he reduces her sentence.
He says it wasn't an attempt to placate Donald Trump.
not an attempt to try to establish that what she was doing was right or that there was, in fact, a conspiracy.
But instead, he said that Ms.
Peters had shown that she, again, is a nonviolent, first-time offender that the governor had said.
She had received too harsh a sentence, the governor says, because of her embrace of the conspiracy theories.
And she deserves, he says, to be a convicted felon.
She committed a crime, the governor says.
but she was given an unusually harsh sentence and for that reason he feels that it's important and has in fact commuted her sentence and resulting there in her release from prison in the wake of the nine year sentence originally imposed upon her by the court as a result of her examination
of these voting machines after the 2020 election.
An example of the power of governors, again, this is because this is a state conviction.
This was a state sentence imposed upon her, the nine-year sentence, this former county clerk.
The president of the United States himself had previously indicated that he wanted to and had announced a sort of false
commutation, a pardon of her sentence previously.
Obviously, the president cannot reduce or pardon a state sentence in any way.
It was largely illusory, but now the governor has done just that.
Again, not indicating that he feels that the merits of the case were not there, but simply because her nine-year sentence was too much and that the sentence should therefore be commuted.
That coming out of Colorado.
this past week.
There is a bit of a backstory here.
The governor's decision comes after Donald Trump cut hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money for Colorado.
He also moved to dismantle a fairly leading climate and weather research center in Boulder.
He rejected some disaster relief for some rural counties in that state.
that had been hammered, had been devastated by some floods and some fires, and he vetoed an urgently needed water pipeline for an area in rural Colorado.
There are allegations against the governor that he commuted the sentence of Ms.
Peters as a way of courting some favor from the president who had done these various things not favorable to the state of Colorado.
polis obviously disagrees with that says this has nothing to do with any of his disagreements with the president including on those policy issues instead says he's making a decision based upon justice and what needs to be done reducing her sentence commuting her sentence from that nine-year original sentence imposed upon her and accomplishing what he describes as a
good result there in the state of Colorado, bringing at least an end to that saga as to Ms.
Peters, and not necessarily resulting in any diminution of her view about what happened in 2020, but now accomplishing her release from state prison there in Colorado.
And here's yet another one, not nearly as much in the news, but also a part of a
Surprise, something you can only again describe as unexpected and unanticipated, but yet another case that also has a backstory to it involving the president and involving connections to this particular defendant.
What has happened here, again, coming out of the Department of Justice just this past week, is an apparent decision to drop some charges against an Indian billionaire
a billionaire with a B was accused of fraud.
The decision by the Department of Justice to drop charges already issued in which a lawyer for the billionaire, his name is Gautam Adani, made an unusual offer for some consideration as a part
arguably of the agreement to drop charges against him, that of course wildly, wildly inappropriate if in fact it was a quid pro quo decision.
The case itself involves a lot of intrigue as before.
We know that prosecutors during the course of the Biden administration had charged Gautam Adani
with securities fraud a conspiracy in that area some wire fraud accusing him of other things along with his nephew and six other associates of orchestrating a putting together a two hundred and sixty five million dollars scream a scheme to bribe some indian government officials to secure to obtain some very lucrative solar contracts in india
The defendants, according to the federal prosecutors, also lied about the bribery.
And they were trying to raise money from American investors for all of this.
That's the connection to an American prosecution here.
That going ahead, the defendants in this case, including Mr. Adani, had not entered pleas and are not in custody because none of them is living in the United States when the indictments against them were announced.
But there are serious huge amounts of money involving, once again, fraud, conspiracy, orchestrating this scheme of
involving also some American investors.
What happens is that there is a settlement or an apparent settlement that is going to accomplish the dropping of those charges against Scott Tom Adani.
It comes and this is the focus of much of this case after an unreported meeting last month at the Justice Department.
Again, a lot of media reporting on this.
and the attorney for Gautam, number one, as he should.
This is a part of the advocacy we would expect of criminal defense attorneys, goes through and analyzes about a hundred different slides and talking points about why prosecutors, why federal prosecutors should in fact dismiss the charge based upon lack of evidence, as well as some jurisdictional problems related to the case.
That's all legitimate.
And defense attorneys routinely talk with prosecutors
about the reasons why cases should not go ahead.
But here's the unusual part of this.
The reporting from that meeting is that the arrangement was the prosecutors dropped the charges.
Adani would then be willing to invest $10 billion.
in the American economy and create 15,000 jobs, echoing a pledge that he had made in the wake of Donald Trump's election.
That is quid pro quo, if indeed, that's the reason why this happened.
And when we come back, we'll talk more about that unusual event in Washington, D.C.
and the fate of Mr. Gautam Adani there, and generally about the rule of law in America when Amica Salaraview continues.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Amica Salar review on the broadcast stations of Civic Media we are spending
All of our first hour and a portion of our second hour talking about criminal prosecutions, criminal events in the criminal justice system, the courts across America.
Looking right now about this anticipated decision by the Department of Justice to drop some charges against an Indian billionaire who's accused of fraud.
by the Department of Justice.
Maybe, maybe also the result of sort of a quid pro quo, the defendant promising to invest about $10 billion into the American economy, producing some jobs.
The defendant himself, again, his name is Gautam Aydani, is well known around the world.
He has a net worth of about $104 billion.
He makes him the 17th wealthiest person in the world.
And it is significant that in addition to possibly securing the dropping of these major criminal charges against him involving securities fraud and wire fraud and conspiracy, all kinds of things, that there are other aspects of this as well.
Gifra, the attorney for the defendant, his name is Gifra, sought also to resolve a parallel case against Adani, brought by the Securities Exchange Commission, and a separate case by the Treasury Department.
The SEC announced its settlement with Adani late Thursday, and the Treasury Department could unveil its own deal in the coming days.
In other words, all of these other matters, even outside of the Department of Justice,
appear to be the result of some negotiation accomplishing the dropping of the charges, not to say that Mr. Adani will not be facing some substantial financial penalties.
He may in fact have a penalty imposed against him.
in that SEC settlement of about $18 million and in the other matters involving the Treasury Department may be responsible for about $275 million.
No small amounts of money.
Concern there once again about paying out.
paying out to get out from under criminal prosecutions.
That is not only a violation of fundamental tenants and practices and policies by which prosecutions in the state and federal system work, but it is arguably corruption of the highest order and is drawing a lot of attention
because of that aspect of this, the final decision by the Department of Justice not yet made.
But again, the attorney for Mr. Adani, his name is Robert Guifra, has all but announced the results of this.
He has plainly been successful.
Guifra, for what it's worth, is one of President Trump's personal lawyers and the co-chair of the prominent firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, plainly with a close affiliation with the president
of the united states of america all of that all of that coming out of the department of justice and other courts this past week all of it in the category of things unanticipated surprises things not in the due course but nonetheless apart now of a part of the recent history in each of these cases we're going to turn in the next moments and at the top of our next hour into other matters
in not quite as much detail, but also significant issues when it comes to the administration of criminal justice in our nation.
Let's begin with one of those that, again, follows up on a major news story that you will recall well.
Recall well that the history of a particular actor, again, whose name is Matthew Perry of Friends fame,
died, died horrifically when he was injected with a drug called ketamine.
And as a result of that, an awful lot of investigation, prosecution into who provided him with those drugs.
Well, it turns out that this, just this past week, the middleman in providing the actor Matthew Perry with the ketamine that killed him was sentenced to two years in prison.
His name is Eric Fleming.
He's a licensed drug addition counselor who was also a friend of Matthew Perry's.
He pleaded guilty in 2024.
for to conspiracy to distribute ketamine and distribution of ketamine resulting in death, Matthew Perry's death at that time.
His sentence this past week includes three years of supervised release and a special assessment of $200.
Fleming said in court materials and court testimony that he had met Matthew Perry a few times since 2005.
When he learned that Perry sought ketamine, he procured 51 vials from a drug dealer, sold them at a profit to Perry's assistant.
Perry was then discovered dead on October 28th of 2023.
After that assistant had injected him with at least three shots of the ketamine that were obtained by Fleming and a drug dealer, the actor himself again, tragically dying at the age of 54.
this past week one of the several people involved in providing the drugs that killed Matthew Perry held responsible and given two years in prison special assessment of two hundred dollars three years on a special supervised release uh... grant and uh... judgment in that case as well all of that coming out of another criminal court that one plainly uh... again important to the resolution
of the case there against the people responsible for Matthew Perry's death.
When we come back in our next hour, we're going to review a number of other cases involving criminal prosecutions.
Not all of them surprises.
We're going to talk about an indictment, a charge against an Iranian who is plotting to attack Jews in America, various sites.
We're going to talk about the plea.
entered by the person who was charged with the attempted assassination at that press gala and then we're also going to talk curiously about a fund that has been established by the president or at least underway by the president to create a special fund that would be helpful to people who according to the president have been affected by
inappropriately prosecuted by the Biden administration to support their defense.
All of that will be coming up at the top of our next hour here on Amica Salaro View.
Stay with us for that further discussion.
Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel.
Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant news stories in the areas of law, government, courts, and the aspiration for justice.
And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.
This is the second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast addressing all things related to the rule of law.
the administration of government and the pursuit of justice.
So delighted that you are spending some portion of your weekend with my producer Max and me as we discuss those issues, focusing last hour and this hour as well, principally, although not exclusively, on criminal cases, things that have surprised us this past week.
things that we anticipate happening, all of them coming out of the criminal trial courts, some of the appellate courts as well of our land.
As always, you can be a part of our discussion by calling in to the broadcast stations of Civic Media here at 855-752-4842, and you can articulate, you can present your questions, your inquiries.
Give me your perspectives, your views on any of these issues again as we in this somewhat atypical radio broadcast this weekend focus not exclusively upon appellate proceedings but things going on in the criminal courts of our nation and the states that comprise the United States of America.
Talking about charges, talking about things that we do anticipate happening, that, of course, the role of prosecutors to bring charges when there is sufficient evidence to believe that a crime or crimes have been committed, and the law supports those prosecutions.
Here is one announced, announced just this past week.
It involves something that is international in nature, but also very much related to criminal prosecution.
A commander, a commander.
of an Iranian-backed militia has been charged with plotting to attack Jewish populations, Jewish sites here in the United States of America, including a synagogue in New York, and also with carrying out some of those like attacks in Europe.
All of this as a part of a broader campaign of retaliation by Iran since the war there began in February.
Criminal complaint.
unsealed just late this past week by the Department of Justice, accusing this particular individual, the commander, his name is Mohammed Baqer Sayed Dawood Alsadi, of planning at least 20, 20 attacks in Europe and Canada since late February of this year.
Alsadi was detained in Turkey fairly recently, handed over to US authorities to face this prosecution in the United States of America
federal court in the southern district of New York.
According to the complaint here, El-Sadi is a commander of something called the Qatib Hezbollah.
It is an Iraqi military that is basically understood to be a proxy, a substitute, if you will, for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.
And that particular entity, that militia,
has helped Tehran project power across the region, arguably throughout the world, including some planned attacks on American forces and real attacks on American forces and some diplomatic targets.
This is terrorism in its actual codification and reality here.
In its inception, from its inception, the militia here has had close ties to some of the Iran's basic forces.
It has included, again, the powerful ties to the Revolutionary Guard there.
It has made evicting United States forces from Iraq.
a primary focus, and I recall well when I was there in Iraq many, many years ago, that this particular form, this particular aspect of the Revolutionary Guard, much there trying to evict forces from Iraq.
Akhateeb Hasbalah, repeated attacks on U.S.
Army posts in Iraq and Syria, those have happened over the years, have contributed in many ways to the decision by the State Department.
by our government generally to identify Khatib Hezbollah as a foreign terrorist organization.
So what is this all about?
The complaint says that El Said Asadi planned to kill Americans and Jews in Los Angeles, and they also started planning an attack on a synagogue in New York.
As a leader of this particular terrorist organization, El Said worked with Qasem Suleimani.
You recall him, Soleimani was the head of Iran's security machinery, and he was killed by United States military in a strike in 2020.
Said himself, identified by media, identified by our government as one of the highest level figures tied to Iran, known to have been arrested by the United States since the war began.
For years and during this current conflict, the United States and Israel have focused plainly on killing Iranian officials, especially those involved in terrorist activities.
Again, a major announcement.
This militia commander tied to this Iran plot.
Both internationally and here in the United States indicted and the charges released with respect to his plotting to attack some Jewish locations population sites in the United States including including notably a synagogue in New York He is in the United States of America in in American custody and will now face those charges going ahead a part of plainly the intersection between
criminal prosecution by the United States Department of Justice and the war in Iran.
And all of that tied together, plainly going to be a part of any prosecution as that goes forward.
Case once again involving a leader of Khatib Hezbollah, this Iraqi militia.
with ties to Iran.
Let's talk about some other things right here in America.
You know this well.
A fellow named Cole Thomas Allen.
You may recognize that name from recent news reports.
He's the man who was charged with attempting to assassinate the president at that White House Correspondents' Dinner in April.
This past week or so he has pleaded guilty, not guilty, to all charges
and will now proceed to trial.
He appeared in the federal district court in the District of Columbia.
Allen formally reigned before Judge Trevor McFadden.
We have talked about Judge McFadden previously in connection with other cases.
The defendant here, Cole Thomas Allen, facing four counts.
They include trying to assassinate the president
assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon during that gala in Washington D.C.
at the Washington Hilton.
Trump and many of his allies have cited this attack.
Again, the intersection between criminal prosecution and other issues in America cited this attack as a way of drumming up support for the president's plans to build a large ballroom on the campus of the White House.
The prosecution in, again, pursuing this particular case, including the not guilty plea by Cole Thomas Allen here, have said that Allen himself identified, selected this gala as a special opportunity to kill a number of top officials in the Trump administration.
They also said that Allen traveled from California to Washington with a shotgun.
and a pistol.
He booked a room at the Washington Hilton and tried to storm past those security officers, intending to kill multiple top officials, all of them in attendance.
The Justice Revenant, as a part of this initial set of hearings in this case, has identified, not only Allen, but described the fact that he fired his shotgun.
It hit a Secret Service officer in his ballistic vest, injuring but not killing him.
It is interesting to note as well that after entering the not guilty plea, a federal public defender who has been assigned to, at least for now, represent Cole Thomas Allen, the defendant in this case, has asked Judge McFadden that Todd Blanche, who is the acting attorney general,
And Jeanine Pirro, who of course is the United States Attorney in the district of Washington, DC.
She is the principal federal law enforcement officer there.
Todd Blanche, obviously the chief federal law enforcement officer for the entire country.
The attorney representing the defendant has asked the judge to direct the recusal of both Blanche and Pirro.
Why?
because according to defense counsel, the two should not play any significant role in overseeing or directing this case because both attended that dinner and might in fact be potential witnesses in this plot that the government says Allen had in fact attached and put together.
if that is the case, if they're witnesses.
And frankly, even if they were in attendance, know something about the response of it on the scene at the time, that is a request.
That is a movement that is recusal of them for this particular case that would not be inappropriate given this circumstances.
Defense Counsel himself says it will be wholly inappropriate for either of them to directly prosecute the case or administer its supervision.
But he did not expect the entire chain of command of the Justice Department
be disqualified and that's the point.
You don't have to disqualify everybody up and down the line.
You can find others in both of those offices at Maine Justice and in the U.S.
Attorney's offices who could handle these things if in fact the two of them, Pirro and Blanche, are accused because of their roles potentially as witnesses, maybe witnessing things, maybe hearing things, even hearing things secondhand at the time, at the time and at the location.
of the crime scene itself.
Again, Cole Thomas Allen pleading not guilty to these counts against him related to his attempt to assassinate the president fairly recently there in Washington D.C.
And then I mentioned before the break this other event, this other anticipated announcement coming out of the White House.
It is not a direct matter.
at least directly involving defendants in courts, but it certainly is one related to criminal prosecutions and investigations.
The Trump administration, as we know, has maintained that many, if not all, of the so-called Biden prosecutions, including the Biden prosecutions,
of then private citizen Donald Trump himself, that all of those, all of those were unsupported by the facts and the law.
He has announced that, as the president has announced and pursued, as have the two attorneys general in this term, an effort, a task force to go after what they've called the weaponization of the Department of Justice.
during the term of Joe Biden in office and America Garland as the attorney general himself.
Now the president has announced something to support those people who he maintains were unlawfully illegally improperly investigated and pursued and prosecuted.
during the Biden administration.
Trump administration, apparently, according to a lot of reporting, considering the establishment of a $1.7 billion, billion dollar fund to compensate some of these people, most of whom are the president's allies, and others who were investigated by the Justice Department when President Biden was in office.
That, of course, creates a huge ethical and political problem for not only Republicans, but Democrats, people inside, outside, and government, as you have all sorts of issues related to the creation of a fund, questions about where it comes from,
The Justice Department modeling the program itself says based upon a landmark $760 million settlement fund that the Obama administration had created to compensate some Native American farmers.
and ranchers who were deprived of access to federal subsidies for decades.
Looking back to history to say we're doing the same thing here, however, in a very, very different circumstance.
Here, here once again, establishing arguably a $1.7 billion fund.
as this matter proceeds.
President Trump has made, of course, a lot of allegations about those things in the past.
And the establishment of this government fund to pay some of those funds and the expenses incurred by Donald Trump's political allies has gained traction, apparently, inside the Justice Department.
They're thinking this may not be a bad idea.
And the White House as well.
And the...
Judges viewing this, of course, will have something to say as well.
When we come back, I'll tell you a little bit more about that particular curious story, and then we'll move on to some other areas.
Yes, indeed, in civil litigation in America, here on Amicus, a lot of you.
This
My name is Jim Santel, your host for this remaining hour of our weekend broadcast.
Always, always appreciating comments, calls, inquiries by listeners.
Mark, very much appreciate your comment.
Heralding back to our commentary in the first hour about the apparent decision by the Department of Justice to drop charges against this Indian billionaire who was accused of fraud and bribery and other misdeeds, Mark noting that bribery has always historically been condemned by leadership in countries across the planet.
Mark also very concerned about the ways in which we're now treating bribery as something not nearly that significant.
The Supreme Court itself talking about there being gratuities and tips, those kinds of things.
This plainly not that marked bemoaning appropriately the fact that we may have an individual here, this Iranian billionaire, his name is Go Tom Adani.
who may in fact be escaping charges here in the United States of America for bribery and other financial crimes.
Mark, I appreciate very much your comment.
Appreciate the comments and insights of everyone else who may be inclined to call in as we talk about things on our docket.
That includes this somewhat curious story coming out of the White House that apparently the White House, the President, the Department of Justice, considering creating a special, what's been called a slush fund, $1.7 billion.
for allies and friends who have been investigated and arguably prosecuted under the Biden administration itself.
Their proposal, of course, comes even in response to the president's own claims.
You may recall that President Trump has made claims against the government itself.
He sought compensation for the leak of his tax returns during his first term
as well as those investigations, which we know well into his handling of classified documents.
That's the Mar-a-Lago case and his 2016 campaign, a potential rise of ties to Russia.
All of those things are matters from which.
The president could arguably seek compensation if this fund is established, if he is able to draw from it.
And we know as well that the president has been attempting to also resolve a $10 billion lawsuit that he brought against the Internal Revenue Service in January.
All of those kinds of things, raising questions about the internal nature of this fund.
the compensation fund not clear not clear at all exactly where this fund would come from but we do know that the Treasury Department is apparently involved in creating it we also know that the Treasury Department has at least been at the table as discussions have been underway about this it may in fact benefit not just the president but many others and critics have noted that the
creation of such a fund could benefit as many as 1600 people who were charged in connection with the attack on the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, but would not be not necessarily limited to those individuals.
They presumably would be in the broad category of people.
who were investigated and prosecuted in part under the Biden administration.
And of course, all of this getting a lot of attention on Capitol Hill as well.
Elizabeth Warren.
who is of course a frequent critic of the president says this is an insane level of corruption even for the president a one point seven billion dollar slush fund for the president's handpicked stooches to hand money to january six insurrectionists and his political allies the senior attorney at the new york university's tax law center has also weighed in on this and said aside from the ethical problems questions about using
What taxpayer money to support this private slush fund doled out by whom we don't know, but he has described the proposed fund as an absurd and extraordinary exchange for dropping lawsuits, for courting favor with the president himself, stopping prosecutions from going ahead.
and that he, among others, would fiercely fight against any such thing.
It does indeed raise all kinds of ethical issues for lawyers, for participants in it, and yes, for people inside government who might be responsible for establishing a government-supported fund that would go to address the outstanding bills and expenses incurred by people
who are facing prosecution investigation in the prior administration.
It is a problem, as I've said before, investigations can in fact be the punishment themselves and there's no doubt that people incur lots of expenses and monies paid to lawyers as a result of having to do that.
The notion of establishing a fund regardless of your political animation, your political affiliations to supply and support
those expenditures unheard of and unprecedented and yet apparently being discussed in the context of our overall review this weekend.
of criminal matters going on in America.
Let's turn now as we often do to some civil cases as well, emphasizing once again that a lot of these things do derive from the White House.
A lot of them are civil in nature, not criminal in nature, but they implicate lots of policy issues as well.
Let's begin with this, going back to the Justice Department itself, accusing, accusing the Yale Medical School just this past week
of discriminating against white and Asian applicants.
We know that the Justice Department at the encouragement of the president has accused a lot of schools in the past, the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.
In March, the department opened an investigation into some admissions policies for medical schools in places like Stanford, Ohio State, the University of California, San Diego, and in February, Harvard University.
Also the subject of an attack by the administration seeking more detailed administration admissions data by the Harvard University being delivered arguably requested by the administration to the administration for its own purposes.
This past week the Justice Department now announcing
that it is accusing the Yale School of Medicine of violating some anti-discrimination laws.
This again, the second major medical school targeted just about the past eight weeks for their policies, their admissions policies, that the government says illegally favored black and Hispanic applicants over more qualified white and Asian students.
When I come back,
We will talk more about those particular allegations and other civil matters involving the settlement of an SEC matter and some subpoenas to a Wall Street Journal and reporters there, all of that as amicus.
my name is Jim Santel and this is amicus on the broadcast stations of civic media in something of a departure from our normal substantive content spending a lot of time talking about things going on in the trial courts of america first hour lots and lots of focus on criminal prosecutions
things that surprised us, things that did not surprise us in the conduct of criminal cases in America.
Now we're turning to civil cases, including this decision by the United States Department of Justice.
accusing the Yale Medical School of discriminating against white and Asian applicants.
Again, that's not a criminal matter, but allegations civil in nature that the school discriminated against those populations in its admissions processes, a part of a continuing effort being pursued by our civil rights division inside Maine Justice.
Harmeet Dillon, who is the assistant attorney general for civil rights.
Describing this particular announcement, she says Yale was subverting that major 2023 Supreme Court decision coming out of our High Court that overturned race-conscious admissions by relying on proxies to determine the ethnicity of its applicants, basically alleging that Yale and these other places, these other schools, including another medical school, violating what the Supreme Court has said when it comes to admissions.
of its entering students.
She said the department will continue to shed light on these illegal practices and demand that institutions of higher education comply with federal law.
In its own response, initial response, after the news of this broke, officials at Yale said the students it admitted have demonstrated exceptional academic achievement, personal commitment,
It was confident in the rigorous admissions processes that it has pursued.
Again, the fight is afoot now, and as before, we've got now Yale involved in a fight with the Department of Justice about its admissions policies.
Here's some interesting information about demographics here that the Yale Medical School and others will certainly use.
Across the country, black students account for about 10, a little more than 10%.
of the total medical school enrollment, and about 14% of our nation's population overall is black.
Hispanic people make up about 20% of the US population, about 12.3% of all medical students in the country.
And here's perhaps the most significant thing that certainly Yale and others will be looking at.
Study published last year by some UCLA doctors, again on the receiving end of this attack by the Department of Justice, based on about two decades of research, looking at these various things, show that black and Hispanic patients treated by doctors of similar race, race, similar ethnicity, led, promoted, encouraged, increased communication,
They talked about patient satisfaction, shared decision-making, and better adherence to treatment plans, all positive benefits of having a diverse population that includes, that includes not only white and Asian populations, but also black and Hispanic students as well.
Again, the latest foray by the Department of Justice, the Civil Rights Division, into academics.
obviously authored by and encouraged by the president of the United States of America.
Here's another one involving a civil case, not criminal, but you recall this as well, comes out of our not too distant past.
This is the Securities Exchange Commission, which again, we talked about in connection with an omnibus sort of a broad approach to settling charges.
criminal charges against Gotam Adani, SEC also involved, again, not in the criminal forum, but a review of this fellow named Elon Musk.
You know all about him.
The SEC this past week announcing this reached a $1.5 million settlement with Musk in a lawsuit that you will remember well, accusing Musk, he is the world's richest person on the face of the planet, accusing him of breaking securities laws
during his now past purchase of Twitter.
You probably remember this well.
An awful lot of people talking about where he's getting the money to do this, the disclosures that he has and hasn't made to investors and to stockholders.
The SEC at the time specifically said that Musk hid, failed to disclose some purchases of the social media company's stock.
prior to all this becoming public in 2022.
Also, the SEC saying that Musk did not disclose those things, those transactions in a timely manner, which the law also requires.
And as a result of that, the SEC maintains all that allowed him to underpay when he bought Twitter for $44 billion, $44 billion later that year.
the revocable trust that Musk set up has to pay the settlement here.
And according to a filing in federal court, the matter will proceed.
Again, a $1.5 million settlement of those allegations, those security violations, bringing to an end the Biden administration era case.
that Mr. Musk was facing there.
The Trump administration, as we know in this case, other cases, has pulled back on some of these very aggressive
but appropriate law enforcement allegations involving corporate malfeasance companies doing bad things.
This is another instance of that.
Notably in the past recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission has retreated from a whole bunch of lawsuits against the cryptocurrency industry.
They've also settled over the last year with targets of antitrust and consumer protection companies, lawsuits involving them, including Amazon and Live Nation, which is the
owner of Ticketmaster.
The settlement here plainly helps Musk reduce his legal entanglements and also helps him fund other things including SpaceX.
The SEC said the settlement was the largest penalty ever.
for the type of case that had been brought against Musk.
In a statement, Musk lawyer said, Musk has now been cleared of all issues related to the late filing of forms in his acquisition of Twitter, which was the basis once again of the SEC action.
As the lawyer said, we've said from the outset, a trust vehicle has now been set up.
We're going to agree to play with the
The lawyer said it's a small fine for being late on filing.
Well, again, it's a $1.5 million settlement bringing to a close that pursuit by the SEC against Elon Musk of his securities violations at the time of his purchase of Twitter, now called X. And here's yet another matter also involving the Department of Justice.
And it's pursuit of the media.
We have talked before about the continuing efforts by the Department of Justice to pursue members of the media.
Just last week, we described in great detail the execution of the search warrant at the home of a Washington Post reporter.
Recall her name, her name is Hannah Nathanson, agents collecting her phone, some laptops, a watch, portable hard devices as a part of its investigation, allegedly.
of a government contractor who was charged ultimately with disseminating classified information.
The concern there, of course, as articulated by the judge who is presiding over all this, is that the administration may not actually be seizing all that and taking all that information for a legitimate criminal pursuit of that particular defendant, but instead
trying to inhibit, trying to chill the work of reporters.
Indeed, the Washington Post has demanded the return of all that material, alleging First Amendment violations.
The magistrate judge there is saying, I'll take a look at what this is all about, and I'll get back to you on whether or not any of that has to be returned, redacted, what the result of all of that will be.
Notably, not permitting, not permitting the Department of Justice itself through the FBI and others to do that analysis.
All of that from our reporting last week.
Well, there's been more justice past week, this time not involving the Washington Post, but now involving the Wall Street Journal.
Wall Street Journal has received subpoenas in connection with what appears to be a leak investigation into its reporting on the war in Iran.
The department saying that in connection with its defense of these subpoenas trying to protect the lives of soldiers who could be harmed by leaks of classified information Plenty suggesting that the Wall Street Journal has got information that would support either a leak investigation Maybe even a prosecution there
Again, going after members of our media, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, he says this.
He says, prosecuting leakers who share our nation's secrets with reporters, in turn, risking our national security and the lives of our soldiers is a priority of this administration.
He goes on to say, any witness, whether a reporter or otherwise, who has information
about these criminals should not be surprised if they receive a subpoena about the illegal leaking of classified material.
That is plainly what the Department of Justice believes the Wall Street Journal has done and apparently attempting to justify the issuance of those subpoenas.
Wall Street Journal
pushing back on that, not only indicating that they cannot support this particular investigation because they are the media should not be required to give up confidential sources, but arguably because these subpoenas will not produce any evidence of any of that at all.
All of those things are going to be contested as this matter now goes forward.
Recall the time in the recent history of our nation when
Doing search warrants of reporters' homes, seizing their information, their electronic devices, issuing subpoenas to the media could be done under appropriate circumstances, but only, only with great review, only tremendous consideration because of the concern about chilling the First Amendment rights there, this administration doing it on a regular basis.
Let us now talk about another civil case, this one getting us back to the United States Supreme Court.
Finally, as we near the end of our broadcast, talking now again about a free speech case, but in a very different way, also talking about subpoenas, but again, in a very, very different circumstance.
The United States Supreme Court ruling.
Just recently, a nine to zero, a unanimous opinion.
Yes, indeed, it does happen.
The case is First Choice Women's Resource Center versus Platkin.
It involves the obligation or the non-obligation of an entity to respond to a subpoena.
The court this past week, ruling that a New Jersey crisis pregnancy clinic should be able to challenge a subpoena.
They should be able to go into court and say we object
to our obligation to respond to this subpoena issued by state officials who are seeking donor information from that entity.
Now the state officials in New Jersey, including the Attorney General, has subpoenaed this particular clinic in 2023 as a part of its investigation into whether the clinic
and the administration there had misled some of its donors over its state admission.
Again, this involves not only pregnancy, but issues related to abortion.
The state investigating whether or not this particular entity was misrepresenting what it was doing there.
And as a part of the investigation of that, issued this subpoena seeking donor information.
The justices this past week did not decide the issue.
This is not to say that the results of that subpoena will dictate whether or not the entity will be civilly prosecuted, criminally prosecuted, nothing about that, but simply that the Supreme Court clearing the way for the clinic to object to it, to go into court and to bring a First Amendment challenge.
just as the Washington Post is in that very different setting in Washington, DC, just as a Wall Street Journal is doing in connection with the so-called leak investigation.
Here, once again, the United States Supreme Court in standing up for the First Amendment, standing up for the right to challenge subpoenas, has said that this crisis pregnancy clinic should be able to go into court and challenge that subpoena.
They will do that.
The case involves, again, an anti-abortion clinic.
And the legal issue is a jurisdictional one, whether or not the state, a subpoena, can be challenged in a federal court.
Supreme Court just this past week saying, yes, you can go ahead and challenge it as you go forward.
When you come back, a little bit more about the Supreme Court as amicus continues after this.
My name is Jim Santel and this is Ann because the final segment of our weekend broadcast returning now to the Supreme Court.
Major decision issued recently nine to zero a unanimous court in this case involving the right of an agency and entity to contest in federal court a state subpoena issued by state authorities there.
Supreme Court saying yes it is a stand in favor of the First Amendment.
You can in fact you can in fact challenge in federal court a state
Issued subpoena because of its narrow focus and the implications for the First Amendment here the interesting part of this There's always a backstory right is that the dispute brings together some very unusual alliances here the American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief in support in support of the anti-abortion clinics argument again an interesting not typical alliance and the ACLU Asserting that requests for donor information could chill
free speech.
It's significant, again, that the Supreme Court, nine to zero, unanimously says, yes, indeed, you have the right to contest that subpoena, not ultimately deciding ultimate issues here, but the right to contest the subpoena in federal court, that coming out of the Supreme Court as a part of its increasing
This trend now of issuing many decisions, which we'll talk about in a future broadcast.
In that category, two other follow-up stories from things we reported on previously.
We have spent a lot of time talking about Calais and the implications of it.
This major case basically bringing to its knees, if not destroying completely the applicability of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
We know what's going on in many states to feverishly, we draw lines, Louisiana, Tennessee,
South Carolina, Alabama, and also Virginia.
Most of those initial states that I listed, those Republican initiatives and initiative by Democrats in the state of Virginia to try to re-describe and redefine four different districts in that state.
Virginia Supreme Court, as we have reported on previously, striking down the state's referendum approved map that would have created those four additional
Democratic majority districts in that state.
The representatives, the officials of the Democratic Party there in Virginia, including the legislature, including the governor, as we reported last week, seeking review of that Virginia Supreme Court decision before the United States Supreme Court saying Supreme Court
overturn overrule what the state court has done here the argument being made that what the virginia supreme court did was to deny to reject the will of the people as a result of this referendum and we know that just this past week late this past week the supreme court rejecting rejecting that emergency request by those democratic officials in virginia
to use a newly approved congressional district in the midterms that would once again give parties there, the Democratic party, the edge.
The justices declined to overturn.
that recent decision by the Virginia Supreme Court, striking down the map in a blow to the Democratic initiatives there.
This once again on the emergency or shadow docket, one sentence emergency order is produced.
Justices do not give account of how they voted.
They didn't provide any reasoning.
which, again, is what we bemoan when it comes to these kinds of emergency applications.
No dissents.
No dissents were noted on this.
And again, the Supreme Court does not ordinarily review rulings by state Supreme Courts interpreting state constitutions.
They're plainly as jurisdiction to appeal from state court, ultimate judgments and findings.
But federal courts, the Supreme Court typically
pull back when it comes to state determinations of determinations about state constitutions.
Supreme Court here, maybe that was the reason decided not to intervene, not upsetting the decision by the Virginia court that struck down this referendum approved redrawing of lines there in Virginia.
Major news coming out of the Supreme Court and yet one more item.
And that has to do with another issue that we have reported on previously.
That is Mipha Pristone.
You recall well.
that the Fifth Circuit had recently in connection with a Louisiana claim that the mail-in telehealth access to Mipha Pristone, this major abortion drug, violated Louisiana law.
Louisiana has a near total ban
on abortion there in that state.
The allegation is that by mailing that drug into the state, violations of state policy and law there.
The Fifth Circuit, not only supporting that notion, but establishing a nationwide universal injunction against male in
access to this particular drug and that of course goes up to the United States Supreme Court.
We reported late last week that Sam Alito, who was the author of the Dobbs decision, had said, well, we're going to stay temporarily what the Fifth Circuit has done while we take a look at this.
He ordered briefing on it and directed that the parties tell the Supreme Court as a full body
what it was all about, the merits and demerits of the Fifth Circuit's position.
The Supreme Court has now ruled on that.
They ruled that this widely used abortion medication, mipipristone, can in fact continue to be prescribed by telehealth.
mechanisms and sent to parties by mail.
Two manufacturers again had asked the Supreme Court to intervene when the Fifth Circuit had prevented that from happening, restricting access nationwide.
Supreme Court order again blocks what the Fifth Circuit has done.
probably for months, if not longer, while litigation continues on this particular issue, the matter could ultimately return to the High Court.
The majority did not explain its reasons for its ruling, as is often the case once again with these emergency orders.
But we do know that Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito dissented on this one.
Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito also, of course, supporting the Dobbs decision.
The two most conservative justice as in the Supreme Court, Alito calling the majority's order remarkable, his words, and complaining that was unreasoned, even so.
the Fifth Circuit decision establishing this universal injunction against telehealth with respect to Mipha Pristo no longer in place, suspended, overruled, blocked by the Supreme Court, at least for now, as we go ahead.
The power of the Supreme Court when it comes to oversight of lower federal courts.
When we return next week, the next installment of
of Amicus a Law Review.
More on the Supreme Court as we enter that period of time when the issuance of opinions becomes fast and furious.
Join us then.
Stay with us here on the broadcast stations
of Civic Media.
but it can be hard to find news about your local community.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.