Justice Unleashed: Courts Take on Presidential Overreach

You're listening to Civic Media.

You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.

Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.

Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel.

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

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

This is Amicus Law Review here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

My name is Jim Santel, and yes, I am your host this hour and also next hour.

For this, our weekly weekend review of all things related to the rule of law,

The administration of justice, the operation of government, and as always, I am honored and delighted that you have chosen to spend some portion of your weekend with my terrific producer, Max and me, as we not only talk about the landscape in all of these important areas, wedding civics with current events, but also inviting you to be a part of our discussion, our examination, our analysis.

As always, you can call into Max, be a part of our broadcast by reaching out.

And that number is 855-752-4842.

That number, once again, is 855-752-4842.

Be a part of our discussion.

Call in this hour, next hour, about any and all of the matters on our syllabus, as always.

Lots and lots of things to talk about.

And as I often say, it is deep, it is a lot.

but we can cover it and we can handle it because that is our mission here on Amicus, a law review.

We are necessarily going to be talking about some of those major news stories.

You followed them during the course of the week that affect the administration of government and the operation of the rule of law in our nation, in our state, and frankly, sometimes on behalf of all the people on this planet.

We have been reporting an awful lot in recent weeks upon the attorney generals and the president's creation of the so-called anti-weaponization fund.

This huge fund, $1.8 billion carved out from the judgment fund.

Just enough, just enough apparently to provide some compensation according to the description of this fund for those people who feel that they have been aggrieved.

that somehow the government has been weaponized against him in investigations and prosecutions.

Presumably the premise for those is that those investigations and prosecutions were unwarranted.

without facts unjustified when, in fact, we do know that grand juries returned indictments, juries returned verdicts of guilty in many, if not all of the cases that are probably the subjects, the identified targets of this particular fund, lots and lots of controversy there.

We're going to update you on exactly what's going on this past week in connection with that anti-weaponization fund.

It doesn't look good.

It has not been a good week generally the president of the United States of America in this area and others which we will also talk about a federal judge has stopped has stopped has enjoined the fund and its administration from going forward not for a long period of time, but has signaled that he

feels strongly that the matter should not proceed.

No further administration of this fund until there can be a hearing, which is going to happen in early June.

We know as well that in the midst of that, we've got legislative concern about this as well as members of the Senate and the House express concern of a profound nature about what's going on here.

They've left Washington, DC for a brief hiatus here, but coming back,

after deciding not to pursue some of the president's major initiatives, including a $72 million package involving immigration initiatives, doing none of that until they get some clarity on this fund.

And also, oh, by the way, the status of that ballroom construction, all of that going on inside the anti-weaponization fund issues.

When are we revisiting those?

And again, inviting your questions and your comments as well.

We know that one of the

The other federal judges in this case, actually we talked about her in the past, she's back in the news once again.

She is that federal judge in South Florida who dismissed the $10 billion lawsuit, a civil case brought, yes, by the president.

of the United States of America against his own government and in particular the IRS against his own Treasury Department based upon an allegation which is factually true that a contractor had improperly illegally disclosed some portions of the president's tax returns a number of years ago that person serving about five years in federal prison now for doing that.

In the wake and the midst of all of that, the president had filed his $10 billion claim, seeking monies from himself, seeking monies from your coffers, from your tax dollars.

Turns out he decided to dismiss that case in exchange for the creation, not only of this anti-weaponization fund, but also this add-on arrangement, and that is acting and describing it in a charitable fashion, whereby all of the president tax audits, as to him, the president,

his members of his family and his entities as well, would be forever forgiven.

We'd walk away from all those, including any tax liability that would also attach based upon those audits themselves.

Well, it turns out that the federal judge who dismissed that upon the petition of both the parties, although it's actually just one party, has had some second thoughts.

And based upon reporting nationally, she has decided

To go in an opposite direction, we'll tell you exactly what she has done, again, not good news for the president, his family and his entities, as the judges plainly revisiting this and making some very strong allegations about the nature of the ethical posture in which the president and other parties were found at the time of the dismissal of this, all of that, all of that, the messy, the messy involvement with this fund, which itself is unjustified, it's unwarranted.

It is not a premise premised upon any statutory authority.

It is arguably unconstitutional and likely will be found just that in the future.

We're going to talk all about that anti-weaponization fund.

We are then also going to talk about another matter that's been much in the news this past week, and that is the initiation, stunningly, of a criminal, a criminal investigation of Eugene Carroll.

You will call that she is the reporter.

She is the news writer and frequent opinion writer in major news organizations and major magazines in America.

She is the one who had alleged in two different lawsuits.

not too long ago the president physically assaulted her, raped her in a department store in New York back in the 1990s as a result of those allegations and in particular president's denial of that and his defamation of her saying that she's lying about that.

saying some other scurrilous things about her.

She was successful.

She went into court on two different occasions and got millions of dollars.

We'll remind you of those verdicts by juries finding not only effectively that she had indeed been sexually assaulted by the president, but that he'd also defamed her while she's back in the news.

Because even though some of those matters are still pending in the appeals courts, waiting for those judgments to be enforced, while that's going on,

The Department of Justice has apparently reportedly decided to open up a file as to Eugene Carroll unbelievably

alleging, perhaps on the some scurrilous basis, that she somehow lied during the course of that investigation and that litigation, in particular having to do with the funding sources for her litigation.

We'll tell you all about that and the unfocused frivolous nature of this kind of thing, but once again, part of the President's and the Department of Justice's overall mission, which is to give life.

to the president's campaign promise about retribution.

I am your retribution, he has said, and he has made good on that promise.

He has plainly pursued people like James Comey and Letitia James and many others.

And now it appears, according to some reliable reporting, that his Department of Justice, and yes indeed, there's no doubt.

There is no doubt that in this second year of his administration, this is the President's Department of Justice.

The lawyers there represent him.

They do not represent you.

They do not represent the United States of America.

They are his lawyers, and this is the latest example of it.

his direction to the Attorney General plainly pursued, apparently opening a criminal file as to Eugene Carroll on a perjury allegation.

We'll talk all about that as a part of the president's continuing retaliation scheme there in Washington.

And then, and then in more bad news, more bad news for the president this past week, we'll tell you about what happened in a Chicago courtroom, a federal courtroom.

presided over by the judge who was also overseeing a lot of the activities, a lot of the unconstitutional and illegal behaviors of federal agents back in February of this year there in Minneapolis.

We'll talk about what happened when she reviewed some charges that were brought by the federal government against a group called the Broadville Six.

Some people who were

protesting outside one of the detention centers, charges brought by the Department of Justice, bit by bit they have been carved out, they've fallen away, and finally this past week they have been dismissed, but not before.

The federal judge who's reviewing all of this said some incredible.

but supported things about the conduct, the behavior of the attorneys representing you, the attorneys of the Department of Justice appearing in front of her and significantly appearing in front of a federal grand jury.

Yes, once again, we've got problems in the things that your lawyers have been saying to federal grand juries in America.

We know that that happened in the Eastern District of Virginia at the time of those indictments of.

James Comey and Letitia James.

It has happened again.

I'm going to take up the not extraordinary, but important mission of reading to you at some length.

Exactly, exactly what the judge said about what your attorneys, your United States attorneys have been doing in Chicago, misrepresenting, abusing to the grand jury, not only the law, but also abusing the very functions of the grand jury with respect to the attempt to

Which was successful in getting charges against these six protesters the case now dismissed but not before the judge identifies major problems ethical problems procedural problems constitutional problems in the charging of these people Probably not the last we've heard about all of that happening in Chicago many other things happening in America this past week involving immigration and the federal trade courts and of course

issues related to the continuing creation and recreation of lines, congressional district lines in places like Alabama and Louisiana.

We'll talk about what's going on in Louisiana and in Alabama, including the connection back once again.

to the United States Supreme Court, a court that was hoping desperately as it has in other cases to try to get rid of these matters, send them back to the states.

Well, not quite so fast.

Turns out Alabama back before the Supreme Court will explain to you why that happened.

We'll also tell you what happened in Louisiana to make good.

Finally, on the directive, that incredible stunning directive by the United States Supreme Court telling Louisiana that it had to get rid of at least one.

of its majority black districts, finding that the carving out of those districts was not supported by the Voting Rights Act, not supported.

by the 15th Amendment to the Constitution.

Louisiana now doing what the Supreme Court said it had to do will tell you about the results of the Calais decision there and also Alabama back before the Supreme Court.

Couple of other cases as we are in this period of time when the Supreme Court is issuing lots and lots of opinions.

One case involving jury selection.

In a case brought against someone who is now on death row, we'll talk about something called Batson, B-A-T-S-O-N, a Supreme Court case requiring that there not be discrimination when it comes to the selection of a jury of peers.

We'll talk about what the Supreme Court did just this past week, and also in a...

And not an unrelated matter, but in another part of the work of the Supreme Court, we'll talk about the review of a petition made by some immigration judges to be able to speak out, even as they are judges inside the Department of Justice.

We'll talk about what the Supreme Court said and did not say.

about their free speech rights as the Supreme Court issues those decisions.

All of that and more is coming up here on Amicus Allora View.

Stay with us during 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 Amicus on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

As always, we are encouraging you strongly to let me let Max know all about your questions or inquiries on anything on our expansive but very much achievable syllabus in this our weekend broadcast all about the rule of law.

And the administration of justice, the aspirations for justice in America.

We're going to begin our discussion, our review, our analysis by talking, yes, once again, about the big news coming out of a federal district court in eastern Virginia.

Yes, that's the same district that produced those ill-fated indictments of James Comey and Letitia James.

A district that has been troubled in recent times.

Now we get a federal district court judge.

Her name is Lonnie Brinkman.

and she has determined that this $1.8 billion fund, established through the Attorney General, who the Department of Justice, established in this very curious arrangement that involved a forgiveness basically of the President's tax liability, the shutting down of tax audits there, establishing a $1.8 billion fund.

For people who claim that, presumably, the past administration did things to them, investigated them, prosecuted them, causing them harm unjustifiably without any basis, that was the premise, at least the implicit, if not explicit premise, of the creation of this fund, the carving out of it from something called the Judgment Fund, which we discussed in previous broadcasts.

This fund, which is your money, it's your money, it's established by what?

The United States Congress, and what is it intended to do?

It's intended to provide compensation for legitimate claims by people who brought their cases into the federal courts, having had them adjudicated, juries, courts making determinations about whether or not they are in fact entitled to the recovery of monies from the government for things that have gone wrong, typically what are called torts.

Lots of opportunities out there under federal statutes to sue the government legitimately if you've got a legitimate claim of harm that the government visited upon you.

And yes, indeed, it does happen.

I served for many years as a civil division chief in both Eastern Wisconsin and Western Michigan and presided over these cases, including the judgment fund, how it works, the claims are made, and after they're adjudicated, it is from that fund.

That payments are made to people legitimate claimants who have got a right then based upon the judicial process then completed to get those monies it is administered the Department of the Treasury and yes indeed to recall again one of the major stories one of the principal indications there was something very wrong with all of this is that the general counsel for the Department of Treasury in that office for a whopping seven months confirmed by the United States Senate

Upon the nomination of this president of Donald Trump resigned he left rather than to have to administer what he plainly felt was an unethical unsupported illegal fund He's gone and it appears now that the fund may also be attacked from other

venues as well.

We talked right before the break about the fact the United States Congress is not happy about this.

Suspending its own review of various pieces of legislation until it can get some better answers.

Answers that have not come from this Attorney General, even though he has made at least two visits to Capitol Hill, to try to explain this thing, to justify it, to describe how it's going to work, not to the satisfaction of Republicans and Democrats alike, at least some of them.

And now we do have Judge Lani Brinkma, and she again in the Eastern District of Virginia, she is now saying the same thing.

As of late this past week, some major rule of law news coming out of federal district court, she has prohibited the government.

She said, no, the Attorney General, you can't do this.

Department of Treasury, President of the United States of America.

You can't establish this fund.

Full stop.

And you can't process disbursements.

At least not until she says, I've got a hearing on this.

I'm going to schedule that for mid-June.

This date for that is June 12th.

And until that time, I'm enjoying you.

I'm stopping you from going ahead.

You are prohibited from creating this fund.

And so knock it off.

No longer can you proceed with those plans to transfer money.

From this judgment fund into this special carve-out fund stop that as well We're going to be having a full hearing on this on June 12th where I can figure out the judges saying what is going on here?

What's the motivation?

Is it legitimate?

Is it constitutional the order?

Doing that stopping this from happening Restraining any further action of the government comes in a case.

It's brought by some individuals and some entities

who say that they have faced themselves, partisan attacks by this administration, not the Biden administration, the Trump administration, but who say they expect to be excluded from accessing the fund.

It is an interesting concept and it addresses in many ways the question which we raised before about standing to attack.

The fund itself has been rallied and promoted by the president, certainly by the attorney general as a way of accomplishing justice.

And in fact, Judge Brinkma has said just the opposite.

She described the order creating this fund and suspending any action on it as necessary to preserve the status quo.

She says, I don't want any monies being taken out of this fund.

And specifically, as she wrote, to ensure that no funds are irreversibly dispersed until she holds this hearing on June 12.

Until then.

Until then the judge orders she prohibits the transferring of money to the fund the consideration of any claims submitted to the fund Apparently there are those out there some known some unknown who already submitted their forms and the dispersing of any funds from the fund

And so keep it all in place.

Keep those monies exactly where they are.

Nothing to happen between now and at least June 12th until, until she can take a look at this remarkable stunning, almost certainly illegal plan, this project that involves again the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, and the leaders of those particular agencies.

We know as well that this particular group

includes people who are not happy.

Not only about the fun, but about the consequences of it as to them.

I'll tell you more about them right after this break here on Amicus, a law review.

This

is Amicus Allora View.

My name is Jim Santel.

As

always,

inviting you to raise your questions.

Your inquiries by calling in or texting in your questions, your comments, your perspectives, the things that prompt you to scratch your head.

That phone number is 855-752-4842.

Encouraging your participation in our review, our analysis.

Right now talking all about this anti-weaponization fund.

Not a good week for the president when we have one federal judge who is saying, stop it.

suspend this until I can get a better sense about what, if anything, is legal in connection with this.

This comes in the wake, in the midst of a lawsuit that's filed by a number of people who do appear to have standing, appear that they can in fact make a claim to some at least prospective injury as a result of what's going on here.

The group that brought this lawsuit includes a former federal prosecutor,

who says that he was fired for his work on the January 6 investigation, and also joined with this plaintiff group or professor in California.

He says that he was arrested while protesting an immigration raid.

They contend that they have been victims of genuine partisan persecution, but not by the Biden administration, but by this administration.

So for example, the prosecutor's name is Andrew Floyd, described working his way up to the Department of Justice since 2000.

2014 and then culminating in his work with the task force that was investigating and prosecuting those individuals responsible for the January 6 insurrection and riot.

Floyd says he was fired in 2025 despite an otherwise stellar record in the department.

He says the president's anti-weaponization fund is not a serious attempt

to address the weaponization and abuse of government power, goes on to write, while I have been targeted by the abuse of exercise of government power, the elected official responsible is a Republican, not a Democrat, he writes, by its own terms, the fund is not available to me.

He has joined in this lawsuit, lots of people creating, standing, establishing their claims for damages.

Other plaintiffs, the city of New Haven,

And the city says that the president's administration has slashed its federal funding in retaliation for its status, its self-described status, as a sanctuary city.

and establishing law enforcement policies like that.

This is retaliation and that's the basis for their joining this lawsuit.

There's a group called the National Abortion Federation and they contend that its members could in fact face some violent extremism by activists who are empowered and encouraged by the fund.

Lots of people coming forward, different theories, all of them alleging present and more likely future harm if this goes ahead and the judge saying I want to hear more about

I want to hear more about the fund and we'll do that in mid June.

Not good news for the Treasury, for the Department of Justice, for the President.

And then there's more.

And this is arguably just as bad, if not worse, for the President when it comes to all of this and it's unraveling.

after this big announcement of a couple of weeks ago.

This is a federal judge we spoke about before in a number of contexts, including at the time of the announcement of this fund.

Her name is Kathleen Williams.

She is and remains the judge who was responsible for residing over the president's $10 billion lawsuit.

Following all this, there is $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for what?

improperly illegally releasing some pages of his tax return.

Now as a result of that, and he appears to have been right about the factual predicates for that, the IRS investigated, found a contractor.

Not a permanent employee, but a contractor did, in fact, release those items.

That contractor persecuted, prosecuted, and as a result, he's spending time in prison.

The president, not satisfied with that, files his 10 billion with a B lawsuit saying that the IRS owes him that money.

And of course, one of the things we talked about before was who's on either side of this lawsuit.

The judges always require a case or controversy.

You've got to have legitimate people who are really fighting about something.

There has to be an adversarial nature between them.

That's the basis upon which all of our litigation, civil and criminal proceeds and absent that adversarialness, which the judge bemoaned the absence of previously.

absent that you don't have a real case.

And so although she dismissed this upon the representation that both sides, although they're principally the same side, both sides indicated that they want to get rid of this lawsuit.

She signed off on that and now has had second thoughts in the wake of all of this coverage about what was really going on here.

And so, and so Judge Kathleen Williams in this significant additional blow to all of this,

She had voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit previously, now says she's reopening it.

The president and others now commanded to reopen this and to look at it once again.

The ruling, the ruling again reinvigorates the case.

Along the way, as the judge reopens this $10 billion case, not so much on the merits, but for the purpose of figuring out what happened here, she says that she wants to investigate what she calls grievous allegations.

Her words, grievous allegations that this hasty deal, this hasty settlement, which she calls a non-settlement, to resolve it was, quote, premised on deception, on deception.

And she wants to hear all about this in a brief but but very clear order just issued late this past week says she wants to investigate the circumstances surrounding Donald Trump's efforts to settle the lawsuit in a way that according to reporting that she is saying benefited him and his allies not only with this related tax deal getting rid of tax audits and presumably all of his past present and future tax liability, but also also

along the way, establishing this fund.

The judge writes that she says that she is empowered to investigate serious misconduct.

In this case, it's still before her.

She's reopened it.

She's reordered the lawyers for the president to tell her by June 12th.

whether the case should be formally reopened because she says the court was the victim of a fraud.

Let me repeat that.

She says this court was the victim of a fraud perpetrated by you, the lawyers for both the defendant and the plaintiff.

You're all the same on the same side.

And she asked whether the president had colluded

with his own government to settle the case to avoid judicial scrutiny.

Once again, those are her words.

Did you try to get out from under my review of this settlement by settling this, colluding with yourself, basically, to avoid judicial scrutiny?

She was pointing in particular to a number of reports, including one from the New York Times that described, again, how the Internal Revenue Service had prepared a 25-page memorandum

outlining defenses that the Justice Department could raise in this lawsuit, but also underscoring the fact that everybody's on the same side.

And the judges and their counsel, again, the judge here requiring the counsel to show up and tell her why it is that this happened, premised upon deception.

That's how she describes the settlement.

the victim of the fraud.

That's how she describes herself and asking whether the president of the United States of America concluded with, colluded with his own entities, which certainly he.

participated with them and putting this together.

No adversarialness here at all.

And the judge wants to get to the bottom of it.

It is probably going to be reopened.

She has effectively done so already just by demanding that they come back into court.

And again, June 12th going to be an important date.

More bad news for the president of the United States just this past week.

All of that related to this colossally stupid.

and unsupported and unconstitutional and illegal fund that has been established by the Department of Justice by your Attorney General and their attempts to defend it falling on more and more deaf ears both legislatively and in the courts and in the court of public opinion as well.

Let's talk about another thing that the Department of Justice apparently is doing.

also in the category of colossal stupidity and colossal lack of support in what can only be described as more retaliation, a commitment that the president made during the course of his campaign for the second term here.

The reporting which appears to be accurate from many different sources is the Department of Justice under this attorney general, his name is Todd Blanche.

He is still the acting attorney general in the wake of the departure of Pam Bondi.

the acting attorney general has apparently authorized it certainly could not be opened absent his authorization and we know where this is coming from it's coming from the white house to the attorney general directed to open up what a criminal let's underscore that once again a criminal investigation of e gene carol e gene carol once again

One of the president's foes, certainly not his ally, one of those people who has apparently run afoul of the president, as have many others.

We've already mentioned multiple times, people like James Comey and Letitia James, many others out there, Christopher Ray and others out there who have also been the subjects of an investigation, including, for example, Jerome Powell, in a case now dismissed, people like Adam Schiff, a senator from California, others who likewise have been

public opponents of this president and the response has been, we will investigate you, we will prosecute you.

That's the retaliation.

The investigation, as we have often said, is the punishment of itself.

And it appears that we've got more of that, more incarnation of that process when the Justice Department, apparently this past week, opens a new file, a criminal investigation of Eugene Carroll.

She's that former magazine writer, that journalist who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault, basically a rape.

in a department store, the Bergdorf-Goodman store in Manhattan in the mid-1990s in a dressing room there.

The investigation centers, apparently, the criminal investigation centers on whether Jean E. Jean Carroll committed perjury, whether she lied in her civil lawsuits against Donald Trump.

And at least according to the reporting up to this point, the allegation, the reason for opening what is a razor thin criminal case,

No merit to this, even as I say this out loud.

The question is whether or not Eugene Carroll lied knowingly, purposefully.

when she described the fact that there were no outside sources for the funding of her lawsuits.

Now you may recall well that all of this again derives from this allegation, basically proven in two, count them two different lawsuits.

She won a $5 billion civil judgment against Donald Trump based upon her allegation of that sexual assault.

in that dressing room in the mid-1990s, and that he therefore, after that, defamed her by saying that never happened, saying other scurrilous things, untrue things about her.

And beyond that, beyond that, Eugene Carroll also wins based upon that same fact scenario, for all sorts of procedural reasons, an $83.3 million civil judgment, again, from another jury.

against the president in another defamation lawsuit.

And in the apparent opening of this criminal investigation, question mark, the allegation once again is that Eugene Carroll, during the course of the deposition, in one or both of those, had concealed the nature of the financial support that her case received, a fellow named Reed Hoffman.

who is the co-founder of LinkedIn and a strong critic of Donald Trump.

The lawyers, apparently in support of this investigation, came up somewhat during the course of these civil cases, contended that this failure to disclose that, at least initially, they did come forward eventually and confirmed that, yes, indeed, some funding was coming from Mr. Hoffman.

But the lawyers for Donald Trump said, this raised some significant questions about her credibility.

Well, there's a big difference between being wrong about something in a deficit.

and correcting it and committing perjury.

Her lawyers again pursuing that at the time of these pieces of litigation and again pursuing that apparently now through the offices of the Department of Justice as they open up a criminal lawsuit against the successful plaintiff in these cases.

When we come back a little bit more about that and then more about the administration of justice here in the United States here on our broadcast on Civic Media.

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 Amicus on the Broadcast Stations of Civic Media.

We are closing out this first hour and this is our final segment with some further commentary about this curious inexplicable...

and unsupported apparent opening of a criminal inquiry into each and care about whether or not she lied committed perjury in the course of a deposition describing who is supporting her several successful successful lawsuits civil lawsuits against the president for defamation you recall that she was rewarded five million dollars again by a trial jury this wasn't the court

This wasn't any other singular entity.

It was a jury and that verdict was upheld in December of 2024.

by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

They unanimously rejecting the president's position in opposition to that judgment, saying that Donald Trump had not demonstrated that the district court aired in any of the challenge rulings.

That has been supported.

Another case in which Eugene Carroll received $83.3 million again from a jury

January of 2024 after another trial, the verdict includes $65 million, $65 million in punitive punishing damages after the jury found that the president had acted with malice.

Malice in defaming Eugene Carroll.

Her lawyers had argued that that extraordinary amount of money was large and requested the jury agreed.

It was necessary to stop Donald Trump from continuing his relentless attacks on her, which he made at news conferences and social media posts and from the Oval Office itself.

During the course of that second proceeding, the $83.3 million verdict also supported by a Second Circuit Appeals Court

Again in a unanimous three-judge ruling now some of that suspended by virtue of the president's attempt to delay paying on any of that and along the way his Department of Justice plainly at his directive again we should bemoan the fact that president can apparently direct the Department of Justice to open up a criminal investigation breaking down any sort of wall an appropriate ethical procedural wall

between the Department of Justice and the White House, apparently this criminal lawsuit determining whether or not she has committed perjury, a hugely difficult thing to prove under the best of circumstances here.

No basis for doing that whatsoever.

The other important piece of this, which caught my eye, is this.

The investigation here apparently

being pursued by Andrew Butros, B-O-U-T-R-O-S.

That may not be a name that is familiar to you, but if you're in the Chicago area, you probably do know him.

He is the U.S.

Attorney in the Northern District of Illinois, based principally in Chicago.

He is the

presidential appointed chief federal law enforcement officer for the counties in northern illinois and it appears from this credible reporting that he has been assigned responsibility he is a trump supporter a plainly uh there in this law enforcement capacity has apparently been asked to lead up this investigation and that is important because of something else we're going to be discussing in this the second hour

Some other problems that Mr. Boutros has when it comes to grand juries and investigations and statements and representations made in front of federal judges.

But the significance of this, again, not apparently being handled by anyone at the Department of Justice, but instead by Andrew Boutros, the U.S.

Attorney in Chicago, Illinois, just to the south of us here in Wisconsin, significant because, to his credit,

to his credit the acting attorney general his name once again Todd Blanche the former attorney the private attorney for Donald Trump has decided to accuse himself that is a good thing even the midst of this unsupported and ridiculous attempt to pursue Eugene Carroll on a criminal basis he has said that because of my prior involvement

as the personal representative of the president, I should not be involved.

That certainly is the right decision.

Unfortunately, it comes inside a file that shouldn't be opened at all.

It does raise other concerns, as we have talked on this broadcast repeatedly, about the uncomfortable and probably unethical posture in which the Attorney General finds himself

not just on this silly pursuit, but also other cases.

Why?

Because the Attorney General, the United States Chief Federal Law Enforcement Officer, has and continues to have an attorney-client relationship with the President of the United States of America.

That premised upon his private representation of the President, during which the President certainly provided him with information of a confidential nature.

Now,

We should never ever know about those conversations.

That's why the confidential privilege is so important.

It ensures integrity.

It ensures honesty between a lawyer and her or his, his client.

And so we don't know and should know what the president has said, but the fact that the attorney general himself, whose loyalty should be to one thing, and that is the constitution, the Department of Justice and centrally, the people of our nation,

also has the split responsibility to his former and arguably continuing client Donald Trump.

A problem that will animate this relationship as long as he's in that position, especially as long as the president plainly continues to make good on what he did visually a number of weeks ago, which is claim that a pertinent justice as his own Donald Trump's face through one of the many banners that now is hanging.

throughout the Washington D.C., the capital area there, has claimed the Department of Justice.

We know that Pam Bondi previously said the same thing, that we work to support the President of the United States of America, a posture contrary to everything else we have understood from every prior administration, Republicans and Democrats alike, the very problem that caused the Watergate scandal in America, and ultimately the downfall of Richard Nixon.

We're going to be talking more about that problem, even as we'll continue to monitor this particular peculiar, illegal, unfounded, unsupported opening of a criminal case against E. Jean Carroll, attempt to retaliate against her.

to tell her that her successful litigation is not going to go unanswered.

When we come back, the start of our second hour, we're going to talk more about the Northern District of Illinois and the U.S.

Attorney there, Mr. Boutros, and some very troubling things going on in that district.

All of that, as Amicus Alaraview 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.

This is the second hour of amicus a lot of you here in the broadcast stations of civic media as always You are much encouraged to be a part of our discussion are reporting on some of these major issues in the areas of law government and The aspiration for justice in America in our states and across our planet So appreciate your involvement in our discussion appreciate especially mark who is from prairie du sac?

Mark commenting on our chat line about one of the topics of our first hour noting.

his great concerns about what the president's position is and this tax matter and also this weaponization fund issue.

Mark writing one of the galling parts he says of this settlement now going to be revisited apparently by the federal district court judge in Florida is that Donald Trump and his family again not be audited and that that particular provision of all of this is unsupported.

Mark goes on to say any tax crimes that he or they may

have committed.

Be ignored.

All of that is outrageous, effectively, Mark says.

The taxes that the president pays are not a part of his presidential duties, Mark goes on to say.

But those are the obligations of a U.S.

resident, not subject to his immunities for official acts.

Of course, Mark, they're talking about

That major decision, that catastrophic decision by the Supreme Court granting a president any president some immunities, Mark appropriately, rightly noting that this is not about that.

These are individual personal liabilities upset about this settlement, upset about the passing over of any tax liability, apparently by the IRS.

And it goes on to note some history here.

Mark goes on to say, since the president said he was going to release his returns anyway, how was he harmed?

that some other person internal to the IRS, that's the contractor, ultimately exposed that he lied about how much he actually pays in taxes.

Mark, we appreciate that gloss on one of the many subjects in our first hour.

And thank all of you for not only participating in our discussion, but also offering your perspectives and your questions in particular about things that trouble you, that concern you, or that simply prompt you to scratch your head.

In that category, let us return to the Northern District of Illinois as promised.

Let's talk more about the U.S.

Attorney there again.

who has found himself on the receiving end of some very critical comments by a federal district court judge.

And we'll talk about his response, which included dismissing outright with prejudice, meaning can't bring them again, charges against some of the people who are protesting a lot of the government, the federal involvement on the streets there in Chicago in the fall of last year.

Let's begin.

by talking specifically about the predicates for all of this.

We know, we know that in the past we have had a situation in Chicago where members of the community

were hugely, hugely concerned about the presence and the activities of camouflaged federal agents on the streets of Chicago.

Hundreds of them, as you recall well, sweeping up many, many people accused of violating immigration laws and sometimes questioning U.S.

citizens themselves about their legal status.

That effort, as we know, principally because of the pushback

by many of those people on the streets.

The protests, the opposition by members of the public pulled back and the government no longer there in the great numbers that used to be a result of advocacy by Americans who have been saying no to the government.

An important lesson to learn from all this

And also an important lesson to learn about the misbehavior, the misconduct, not only about those agents on the street, but also now apparently about more attorneys inside the Department of Justice in their interactions with and their false and inaccurate and misleading representations, their involvement with, yes, that's right, the grand juries.

Grand juries, as you know, the only entities that can actually bring charges against individuals

And it appears that the judge has once again not just stumbled upon but has identified material misstatements, misconduct by lawyers of the Department of Justice in front of a grand jury.

In the wake of those protests, back in the fall of last year, resistance by many Chicago residents, blowing whistles and warning neighbors, forming volunteer groups, all those kinds of things.

Watch groups and as to schools and businesses,

protesting ultimately leads to some charges and there's the important point here against some of them

According to the allegations taking place on September 26th of last year in a place called Broadview, Broadview, Illinois.

That's important because the people charged, they ultimately get known as the Broadview Six.

It's a Chicago suburb and it's one of those places where one of these detention facilities where many of the immigration detainees are being detained and it become a focus of some of these protests.

Regular protests were held there at the Broadview facility

and frequently became physically confrontational undeniably in october and here's the rub a grand jury indicted at least these six people and that included a congressional candidate and the charges including interfering with a federal agent and conspiring with each other to interfere with that agent those charges against the defendants

Returned again the indictment returned against them by the grand jury could have resulted in multi-year sentences the original indictment Asserted that the protesters had banged on a federal vehicle blocked it pushed it against and damaged a side mirror

and a windshield wiper.

One person scratched the word pig into the vehicle according to the charging document.

And almost immediately there were allegations that the charging of these protesters, even in the midst of this violence, was meant to be retaliative and was politically motivated.

That is something plainly that continues to be a subject of a lot of debate heightened now by what was discovered in a federal court just this past week.

What happens

is that the attorneys for the defendants concerned about representations made in front of the grand jury about the basis for the charges against their clients make these requests and they get the transcripts of those grand jury proceedings.

Ultimately, ultimately those grand jury proceedings and the transcripts get presented to

a federal district court judge, and her name is April Perry.

We have talked about her before.

You've heard from her before.

She is one of those judges who is presiding over many of the goings on there in Chicago, even as those protesters were going forward with their street advocacy.

and being on the receiving end of these criminal charges for doing just that.

So these transcripts eventually get to April Perry, who is in this review capacity, and stunningly, initially, what happens is that the government at the hands, presumably of the United States Attorney there, his name is Boutros, as we've said before, at the hands of U.S.

Attorney Boutros are redacted.

and they give to the judge only certain excerpts of those transcripts, plainly identifying that there are problems, there are problems in what was presented to the grand jury.

And so what happens along the way is that the judge gets notice of the fact that these particular transcripts that she has got in front of her, she's looking at them to review them, that they are not complete.

and so she conducts a hearing and she calls in the defense counsel representing the defendants who are still under indictment still being charged at the time of this hearing.

that changes, as we'll note in just a few moments.

But she also calls in Andrew Boutros and the assistant US attorneys who are responsible for the prosecution of this case.

And she conducts an in-camera, not public hearing, again, because much of this in the grand jury domain, not public, not disclosed generally.

And she begins to identify many of the problems that she sees in these grand jury transcripts.

the things that are presented to her as a result of her continuing review of all of this matter.

And she notes, she notes that there are some initial problems that go well beyond just what she's describing here.

But let us hear specifically from what the, from the judge in particular, she again, in the middle of this transcript says that she's not going to prejudice these issues without a hearing.

But having reviewed the grand jury transcripts myself in full and unredacted form, she says there are significantly bigger problems than mere mis-instructions to the grand jury.

In other words, she says she's already seen sometimes when the assistant US attorneys have improperly, inaccurately told the grand jury what the law is.

But she says, I'm not going to prejudice at this time.

We're going to have a hearing of this.

But she does say that while she's not going to be prejudiced in the issue resolution, she says, I will say that I was incredibly shocked by the redactions that were made.

She said, I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of grand jury transcripts involving prosecutors who are the most junior of prosecutors to several United States attorneys who appeared before the grand jury.

She says, I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in these transcripts.

She goes on.

At a high-level summary for the defendants who do not have the benefit of having seen the transcripts yet, several potential jumped out at me immediately.

These issues jumped out glaringly, she says.

First, improper prosecutorial vouching to the grand jurors with the Assistant United States Attorney putting her personal credibility and trustworthiness

on the line in support of those charges.

Now, why is that a problem?

You do not stand up in front of a grand jury or in front of a trial jury under any circumstances before any trial of fact and say, these are credible people and I can vouch for them.

I can tell you that they're truthful.

Not appropriate misconduct misbehavior and she identifies that from an assistant United States attorney Vouching for the credibility of witnesses in front of a grand jury that has to make determinations about whether there is probable cause to believe that the particular targets of the investigation have committed crimes second

the judge goes on to say improper, improper prosecutorial communications of a substantive nature with the grand juries outside of the grand jury room.

Unbelievable.

Unbelievable.

We have communications between the assistant United States attorneys, again, presumably not on the record, but somehow memorialized here, they get to the attention of the federal judge out in the hallway, not a part of their routine proceedings.

wildly inappropriate as well.

The judge goes on to say third.

The prosecutor excusing grand jurors who disagreed with the government's case from the deliberative process.

In other words, if you don't agree with our proposed charges here, we're going to dismiss you from this prosecution.

I do not need to tell anyone.

how violative of grand jury process that is.

And the judge says, which brings me to problem number four, which is the fact that all of this was redacted out of the versions of the transcripts that I got.

Basically says, you hit this from me.

You attempted to deceive me.

And frankly, it is that she says that I found them most problematic.

She says, mistakes happen.

They happen to all of us.

But as I tell my children,

This is the judge, April Perry talking.

You own it.

You admit to it.

You apologize for it and you move on.

What you do not do is hide it.

She says, I relied on all of you.

She's look at the government, your attorneys, the attorneys representing the United States of America and the people of the United States of America.

I relied on you and your personal representations in this case about what has been issued in discovery.

about the types of searches you have done, about what types of arguments you will and will not make, and the judge says, you've let me down.

When we come back, I'll tell you more about what she said and why this is so critically important to the rule of law in America and why it is a stunning revelation about your Department of Justice in 2026 here as the broadcast continues on Amicus, Alara.

My name is Jim Santel.

This is Amicus, a law review here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

As always, just like Mark from Prairie Due Sack, you can also be a part of our discussion, raising questions, issues you have about anything on our syllabus.

You can call in to Max, my producer, at 855-752-4842, being a part of our reporting on your reaction to

The news events of the day and that includes this stunning, this incredible exchange between a federal district court judge and your representatives in court, assistant U.S.

attorneys and the United States attorney himself will get to that in just a moment or so.

As the judge there, April Perry identifies huge problems in the presentation of the cases against the broad view six before the grand jury misrepresentations, engagements with them outside of the grand jury room,

vouching for various witnesses, all kinds of problems.

But she says, most importantly, you tried to hide all this from me and I find that unacceptable.

She says, because I put more reliance on the Department of Justice attorney, she's talking about the presumption of regularity that she would have relied previously upon the notion that the government attorneys will be honest with her.

will not be hiding the truth, the facts, the evidence, the things that she's got to know.

And she says, that has been breached.

Your sole goal, she says, is to do justice.

Your client is justice itself, she says.

And expressly and implicitly, she says, you have failed.

She says, I do believe deeply in the presumption of regularity and that most government attorneys are doing the best they can to do the right thing.

But here's the compelling language, he said, that trust has been broken.

The defendants have argued that prosecutorialness conduct would entitle them to dismissal of the indictment with prejudice, including the misdemeanor charges that are set for trial next week.

Yes, that's right.

This is happening right before, a week before the trial on these charges.

And she goes on to say, I'm not sure that's true, given that there is no need for a grand jury at all.

She's talking about the fact that these are misdemeanor charges, not felony charges.

They do not have to be presented to a grand jury.

She says, well, there's a lot of case law about misconduct before the grand jury.

What I have not seen is much case law about the dismissal being with prejudice, meaning if I dismiss this case, if it goes away, you can't bring it back ever.

There have been a lot of dismissals of indictments, she goes on to say, in all of the ones I have seen at least, the government is allowed to try again.

But she says, that's not to say it doesn't deserve to be briefed and it doesn't deserve to be argued.

But I am looking for case law on that.

And what I think rears its head again is this idea of vindictive prosecution.

And then goes on to talk about the procedural

progress of this case, identifying again the reasons why this may be vindictive and maybe the product ultimately of prosecutorial misconduct, the kinds of things that no government attorney should ever ever do.

She says, you all stated repeatedly that you are not alleging any misconduct that occurred at the U.S.

Attorney's Office level.

The motions before me are based solely on the theory that someone external to this U.S.

Attorney's Office had

urged this prosecution.

Again, we've got another federal judge concerned about vindictive prosecution, perhaps selective prosecution, someone beyond the U.S.

Attorney's office here.

She is talking once again about people at Maine Justice.

She is arguably talking about the president of the United States of America, once again dictating who is going to be charged and under what circumstances.

And this goes on for more than a few hours.

this past week in chambers, in camera, before the federal district court judge.

And along the way, the U.S.

Attorney, who's there, who's listening to all of this, does not comment specifically on the descriptions other than to say that no one, these are his words, this is Andrew Butros, he's the U.S.

Attorney, he says, no one acted with the intent to mislead your honor.

And I think that they were following your order to give the law.

He's referring to the prosecutor's conduct

people for whom he is responsible.

But then he goes on to say, and he criticizes the defendant's behavior.

He says that their actions outside the detention facility, outside that location broad view, were unacceptable in a civilized society.

So now let's talk about the merits, he says, of what's going on here, as if somehow that excuses the prosecutorial misconduct that the judge has just outlined to which Boutros does not disagree.

does not oppose that description.

And Judge Perry responds.

She says, you, Mr. Boutros, you U.S.

Attorney Boutros, are significantly undercutting your mea culpa, meaning I'm responsible by standing here behind the charges and continuing to vilify these particular defendants.

Wow.

Not a good exchange.

And what happens in the wake of that is the headline story.

But all of that is the background that should horrify and terrify anybody who's concerned about the rule of law in America.

These are federal prosecutors who are abusing the grand jury system once again.

We've seen that before.

We reported on that before in this broadcast.

And now we've got transcript confirmation.

identification by the judge herself who's horrified by not only all of these instances, but also by an attempt to hide things, to ensure that the judge doesn't even know about the miscarriages of justice.

What happens in the wake of all of this, again, this happens in a camera without the presence of the public there.

What happens eventually is that the prosecutor

U.S.

Attorney Butros comes back and said the misdemeanor charges against those people had protested there at the Broadview facility near Chicago would be dismissed.

They're gone.

A stunning, shocking end to the Trump administration's gotta be one of the most highly publicized prosecutions of demonstrators who opposed this crackdown and others.

This pastor, it is gone.

It has been dismissed.

It's gone with prejudice, which means it cannot be brought back.

But it happens only after all of these misstatements, misrepresentations, the misconduct by the prosecutors in front of the grand jury, and after, after the federal district court judge looking at the record in this, asking for explanations for it doesn't get a clear explanation from the U.S.

Attorney, he wisely decides to get rid of all this.

And that's the report from Chicago.

of just this past week.

When we come back, other rule of law news also of concern in America here on the broadcast stations of civic media.

My name is Jim Santel and this is Amica Salaro View.

We are in this portion of our second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast talking about the misconduct and the problems of prosecutors, certainly in the city of Chicago, appearing in front of a federal district court judge, other problems like that involving the integrity, the ethics, the accuracy, the forthrightness of

federal prosecutors, both civil and criminal, should be a source of great concern for all Americans.

The judge, April Perry, once again making reference to this notion of a presumption of regularity that has attended prosecutors of all administrations in the past.

The notion is that judges should be able to rely upon the truth regardless of how ugly or uncomfortable it may be from criminal prosecutors, from civil litigators, because you work for the government.

often said that the government always wins when justice is done, the judge making some reference to that, bemoaning the fact once again that she's got in front of her a situation where apparently the U.S.

attorney, assistant U.S.

attorneys failed to produce information to the judge and maybe knowingly failing to disclose to where it was going on in front of the grand jury because those grand jury proceedings disclosed what inappropriate behaviors by the prosecutors in front of the very people making decisions about who's to be charged,

and who isn't.

We recognize that in other jurisdictions as well.

there is identification of bad governmental behavior.

Let's go to Minneapolis in Minnesota.

We know from reporting of a couple of weeks ago that the District Attorney there, her name is Mary Moriarty.

The Hennepin County District Attorney had previously charged a federal agent during the course of the engagements there in February in Minneapolis with brandishing a weapon, with brandishing a weapon at another

vehicle while the vehicles are driving down a highway in Minneapolis that charge is pending and she has brought that a state official a state prosecutor against a federal agent that case is pending and now and now we know that there's a second one we know that the same

a state prosecutor, again, Mary Moriarty, has charged Christian Castro.

He is an agent of ICE and has charged in particular with shooting one of the Venezuelan immigrants last year and then lying about the event, making up some story about the exchange between the agent, the law enforcement official, and this Venezuelan immigrant.

Those charges were issued by her fairly recently.

Again, a state law enforcement prosecutor filing charges against a federal law enforcement officer.

His name is Christian Castro.

He was arrested, arrested in Texas this past week after investigators from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension tracked him down and arrest him, charging him with four counts of second degree assault in this matter and then also, also misrepresenting.

making false reports to the government about what happened.

All of those cases now pending again in the state court in the Minneapolis court there against this particular federal officer.

That is once again a sign of the dissolution of the traditional relationship between state and federal law enforcement.

I would offer to you that it is an extraordinary thing.

that the prosecutor there has now charged and in one case arrested a federal officer for his conduct undertaken when he is given authority to represent you on behalf of the people of America on the streets of our nation and violates that trust by engaging in assault and then lying about it to other law enforcement agents.

We'll continue to focus on those extraordinary charges.

coming out of minnesota and minneapolis and then we have something that may not be as dramatic in terms of physical violence but certainly in terms of economic concern also a reason to be concerned about compliance with the law and the rule of law we know we know that the supreme court several months ago now issued that major decision finding that the president's invocation of that statute called the

IEEPA was unconstitutional, can't impose tariffs through that statutory means, have to do it constitutionally under the Constitution.

The Congress, the House of Representatives, United States Senate's got to do it.

A major blow for the President's initiative to assign and to impose these tariffs for the first term, first year of his term.

We know that that was issued by the Supreme Court.

In the wake of that, the President has been back

back once again trying to do things in a different way that case the second case now also pending in front of the major trade court this past week the past week the federal trade court in connection with the refunding of tariffs the reimbursement to those companies who paid tariffs improperly because of the

Program and the initiatives the policies of this president the federal trade court has ordered a person named Rodney Scott He is the head of us customs and border protection to appear at yet another hearing next month on the administration's handling and its lethargy Maybe even its failure to live up to its obligation to refund about a hundred and sixty six billion dollars in tariffs the federal court

is going to be reviewing what the administration has done and has not done over its concern that the government, your government has not fully complied with its directive.

Again, in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, tariffs are no good.

We need to return these to the people who paid them, the companies who submitted them are directive to return all of that money amassed under duties that were declared illegal.

At the heart of the matter, of course, of these so-called reciprocal tariffs that President Trump had previously applied to imports around the world, and it was in the wake of that major order from the Supreme Court that all of this was turned on its head.

The Court of International Trade took the first formal steps way back then.

to compel the administration to begin the refund process.

And although, as you recall well, the president and others publicly opposed that, his administration still did undertake to set up a system to make certain that some reimbursements were underway.

It officially began accepting some of the importer's request for repayment in late April.

But the refund system...

does not allow all the importers to recover the taxes that they paid from tariffs imposed under the IEPA and the court Has learned through the government that the government apparently cannot process refunds for the total amount only about 127 billion dollars of the 166 billion dollar the lack of clarity on all of this Prompted again Richard Eaton.

He's a judge on the trade court

on Wednesday of this past week to order hearing.

Lots of judges ordering lots of hearings at which time he directed.

Mr. Scott, Rodney Scott, he's again the head of the US Customs and Border Protection Agency.

To come and explain himself, the judge directing Mr. Scott to appear to answer the court's questions as to the anticipated timing of customs compliance with the court's order.

Separate filing, the same judge cited some concerns that he has about millions, millions, the judge says, of entries for which the government has not presented a proposal for providing refunds.

In other words, what are we going to do about these?

And beyond that, the judge wants to do general oversight.

The US, the problems here, the court's action, the US involvement and all this could prompt yet another, another round of ragging.

between the government and the importers.

The judges again have already determined that even the second attempt by the president to impose what's called this 10% rate on most foreign goods, that also violated the law, that also still in litigation, that case still in appeal.

And if the president loses that, could also add to the amount of tariffs that are owed in refunds.

It is complicated, it is a lot.

and suffice it to say that the Customs and Border Protection Agency going to have to explain what it's doing or not doing this coming month before the trade court.

Again, all of that, all of that coming up in America's courts as we consider all of these issues under the rule of law.

Let's move as we often do to the United States Supreme Court.

A couple of very big things happening there.

We know that the Supreme Court once again is in this time period.

during this time period, reviewing and making final decisions on somewhere between 20 and 30 more cases has got to issue.

This is going to be the high intensity time, and we anticipate that in the weeks ahead.

Programming note, we're going to be taking up those major decisions that the Supreme Court will issue between now and probably just right around the end of the month in June.

the 4th of July as we celebrate the 250th anniversary of our nation.

A couple of cases, a couple of cases from just this past week.

One of them having to do with the death row and the death penalty inmates on death row and in particular something called Batson, a previous Supreme Court case that said in criminal matters that the selection of jurors

has to be nondiscriminatory in nature.

And if prosecutors, for example, strike and get rid of all the jurors who have the same race as the defendant, that can be not only a violation of the Constitution, but a reason for declaring a mistrial and starting over.

That notion of having a jury appears

who represent you, at least in part, is so important.

The Supreme Court has said we're going to look very carefully at the selection processes of prosecutors and ensuring that there is no discrimination based upon race in that process.

Well, this past week, a divided Supreme Court, major decision sided with a black death row inmate from Mississippi

who accused a white prosecutor and he has had a long record of doing this in his case of intentionally and illegally striking potential black jurors from the panel that heard his case.

Terry Pitchford.

That is the name of the defendant, convicted back in 2006 for his role in the murder of a shopkeeper by a 12-member jury that included only one black member.

Again, heinous underlying case, horrific violence involving, again, the death of a citizen of a residence here.

At the time of the trial of Mr. Pitchford, the county where the trial took place was 40% black.

And so looking at all of this and applying this Batson rule, this previous Supreme Court case, five to four, the Supreme Court said that Pitchfors lawyers should have had an opportunity, which they were denied, to challenge the prosecutor's reasons for striking.

all but one of the potential black jurors on this panel.

Consistent with, again, Batson, it's a 40-year landmark precedent that bars race discrimination in jury selection.

The decision basically means that Pitchford, who has served on death row for more than two decades, is entitled to a new attorney.

And the case, stunningly, involves the same prosecutor, the same person.

whose jury selection process was condemned by the Supreme Court in a separate decision in 2019 that also drew some considerable focus and attention.

The prosecutor, Doug Evans, spent decades trying to convince another person named Curtis Flowers of the 1996 murders of four people inside a furniture store and during the course of six different trials,

Doug Evans, again, the prosecutor, repeatedly ensured that black people, potential black jurors, were excluded from juries.

And that, of course, draws the attention of our judicial system and charges ultimately dropped against Evans because of that.

In recent years, again, the Supreme Court has turned away most appeals from death row inmates, but writing for the majority.

Supreme Court justices across political aisles have been concerned about this, including Brett Kavanaugh.

And when he can return, I will tell you more about what Brett Kavanaugh said about jurors and selections in America.

Here on Amicus, a law review.

This is Amica Solar Review.

This is our final segment of this two-hour broadcast.

We are talking about a couple of cases returned by the Supreme Court in this time period when it's going to be doing a lot of that.

This one is an affirmation of a case, again, a 40-year-old case that establishes that you can't be engaging in discrimination when it comes to the selection of jurors.

The particular case here involving Terry Pitchford

His challenge was to the manner in which the jury that found him guilty of admittedly some heinous murder, heinous murder back in 2006, that nonetheless the process was tainted by the fact that the defense counsel representing him was not given the full opportunity to challenge the reasons why the prosecutor had stricken virtually every black potential juror in that pool.

The Supreme Court's saying, nope, you gotta do better than that.

Writing for the majority, Brett Kavanaugh says the state judge had failed to provide pitchfors lawyers sufficient opportunity to dispute the prosecutor's race neutral reasons for striking four of five potential black jurors, had failed to explore if the prosecutor's reasons were pretextual.

In other words, the prosecutor is standing up and giving reasons other than race.

And because the defense counsel was not given an opportunity to explore that, the case goes back down.

Kavanaugh, who also wrote the previous decision, attacking the prosecutors involved in that 2019 case, joined in this decision.

by the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and also Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Katanji Brown Jackson.

I should note, as we always do, that Neil Gorsuch says nothing in this record indicates a trial court seeking to thwart defense counsel's ability to represent their client.

He opposes this.

He's in dissent and his dissent is joined by Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito and Amy Coney Barrett.

A five to four split decision, but nonetheless affirming this central notion about the importance of non-discrimination when it comes to the identification of jurors.

And there's another case having to do with the capacity of immigration judges to speak out a free speech lawsuit.

It is a loss for the judges.

These immigration judges

who in 2020 challenged some work-related restrictions on their public speaking engagements.

And recall once again that these are not Article III judges.

These are immigration judges.

They are inside the Department of Justice.

They're the ones making these all important decisions.

But they're also very important decisions in terms of the resolution of immigration cases.

They're subject to appeal plainly.

But they are inside the Department of Justice.

A group of immigration judges filed this law

over a government policy limiting their work-related public statements, saying it was violation of our First Amendment rights.

Can't do that.

The National Association of Immigration Judges said those restrictions interfered with their ability to guest lecture at universities and to speak to community groups, something again that these judges were routinely doing, and to do so about matters of public importance, things in the public domain.

And that issue, of course, has taken on some greater significance

as Donald Trump has placed new pressures on the immigration system, not only monitoring more of what the immigration judges do, but making determinations about who will stay, who will be terminated, and new hires coming in to do this all-important work.

to this result.

The justices siding with Donald Trump, with the Trump administration, with the Department of Justice, they reverse a lower court decision that allowed that challenge of these judges to proceed in federal court.

The Supreme Court saying in an unsigned ruling that this is procedural, allows the litigation to go forward.

But the justices said that a lower court, the Fourth Circuit,

had basically overstepped it kind of gotten it wrong essentially decided the case on grounds not raised by either of the parties and they bemoan the fact that federal courts are not roving commissions the court said to sally forth each day looking for wrongs or rights and because of that

the judges, again, are restricted in going back to having their cases heard in front of the Office of Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and not going into federal court.

So they've got remedies.

It is simply not in the federal courts and the Supreme Court on Monday dealing a blow to their position that they should be able to go into federal court to advance their first amendment position.

That coming out of the Supreme Court

just this past week as well.

And again, many other cases coming up too.

And finally, as we enter the end of this broadcast, note, note once again, what a Federal District Court judge has done much in the news.

His name is Christopher Cooper, Federal District Court in Washington, finding that the president's effort to rebrand the Kennedy Center after himself

flew in the face of the lawmakers original intent in creating the kennedy center as the national cultural center

for America.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, designed by this act, shall be the sole national memorial to the late John Fitzgerald Kennedy within the city of Washington and the St.

Varnes.

That was quoted by Judge Christopher Cooper.

In the end, Judge Cooper says, Congress made clear that the Kennedy Center would serve as both the nation's premier performing arts center and a living memorial.

And the sole one dedicated to the light president

in the Washington D.C.

area.

The judge writes, the center has played those roles for over four decades, and Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name.

He says, only the Congress, only the Congress can change it.

The judge says that the change has to be reversed and that within two weeks he expects that the name of Donald Trump will come off of the facade of that building and needless to say this draws a scathing rebuke from the president who has made this sort of one of his centerpieces of his effort to transform Washington

We see a lot of reporting these days about the undertaking of many, many construction efforts, not only there on the grounds of the White House, but in other places throughout our nation's capital.

Just this past week, Judge Cooper of the Federal District Court ordering that the 18 new letters added to the center's white marble facade, which currently reads the Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts be removed.

Next time, as always, we'll talk about federal district court judges, appeals court judges in the Supreme Court, as Amicus Law Review continues to explore and report on these and other issues in the rule of law, administration, government, and the aspiration for justice.

Have a good weekend,

everybody.

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.