Gavel to Gavel: Supreme Court Showdowns and Legal Tangles

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 indeed Amicus, a law review on the broadcast stations of Civic Media, and my name is Jim Santel.

I am your host on this broadcast, both this hour and also next hour.

Always joined in the Racine Studio by my excellent producer Max.

Together we're going to be taking your phone calls, your questions, your inquiries, your comments about anything on our ambitious but yet achievable agenda in the area of the rule of law this weekend.

You can be a part of that discussion.

Be a part of our reporting and our examination of these major issues.

in those areas related to the operation of government, the administration of justice, you can simply call in at 855-752-4842.

That number once again is 855-752-4842.

Max always reminds me that it is also an option to drop your questions or inquiries into our chat box.

Be a part of our discussion.

Delighted and honored, as always, that you have chosen to spend some portion of your weekend hours busy, though they are in conversation, in discussion, exploration with me of these major issues of Justice Past Week.

And yes, indeed, there have been a lot of them.

Our syllabus this weekend spans, as it always seems to, from Supreme Court down to Federal District Court.

And indeed, this weekend broadcast is

There's no exception to that.

We're going to be spending some time talking about where the United States Supreme Court is right now, about 26 count them, 26 more cases to be decided presumably before the 4th of July, which yes, just a few weeks away, that's a lot of cases, including some major decisions.

We'll talk a little bit about those to remind you of what those are.

We're also going to talk with you about some major decisions coming out of the Supreme Court even this past week.

one of them having to do with the regulatory authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission, another the Federal Communications Commission, both of those regulatory cases, both of them government wins, both of them affirming the authority of the administration of those agencies to exercise its

responsibilities as it has been given authority to do so.

We'll tell you about the FCC and the SEC case in just a few moments.

The other big thing coming out of the Supreme Court this past week is its decision.

Skeletal, but nonetheless shocking, if you will, in terms of the whipsaw of actions going on in and outside of the state of Alabama.

The Supreme Court this past week, once again, affirming the capacity of Alabama to go back to a map that has only one majority black district, purportedly reaffirming its position in Calais, which we've talked a lot about in this broadcast, and telling them, telling a lower court.

that found actual racial discrimination by the legislators, by the officials in the state of Alabama in drawing those new lines, the Supreme Court overturning that finding.

telling that federal court that it failed to follow the instruction of Calais and permitting Alabama to go ahead with its reduced majority black district configuration of Congressional districts.

No small thing, no small thing coming out of Alabama, but also the first test case.

in the wake of the Calais decision, certainly an indication the Supreme Court is going to regard very, very narrowly the exception to the rule in Calais that says you can in fact overturn the line drawing of a legislature of a lower court if you prove

If you prove intentional discrimination, we'll talk all about what that means, and not just for Alabama, but for the rest of the United States of America.

We're going to talk a little bit about one of the appeals courts.

And yes, indeed, their apparent reaction to a challenge to the president's ballroom construction that continues to go ahead, even as this matter is mired in litigation, will tell you what an appeals court seemed to be headed toward doing.

And it's not good for the president.

We'll talk about that appeals court ruling, if you will, anticipated down the road, not yet made.

And then we're going to go in some district courts as well, as we often do, reaffirming, reaffirming this fundamental notion that it is the federal district courts in America among three or four other major stanchions that are presuming democracy and keeping a republic in place.

We're going to talk about a federal district court judge that overturned a major, major policy initiative of this administration having to do with immigration.

asylum deportation ruling that affords due process now to those individuals who are seeking asylum fighting deportation in this country will tell you all about what a federal district court judge did to shut down a policy and immigration policy of this administration and then in another area but similarly

shutting down a policy of this administration will tell you what another federal district court judge did in ensuring that snap recipients have access to those funds given to them.

through the auspices of the United States Congress.

Things going on at the highest court, the Supreme Court, at least one appeals court, and federal district courts as well.

Along the way, we will chat about another thing going on in one of those district courts.

That is this lawsuit.

brought by the United States Department of Justice against the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Two major developments this past week.

One is a superseding, a new indictment, changing some of the language, redefining some of what was originally charged in that case.

And then along the way, almost in the same time, the same breath, we'll talk about the sanctions that are sought by the SPLC against the government for its apparent mishandling.

of that indictment, all of that coming up in connection with that SPLC lawsuit in which the government seeks basically to shut it down, alleging violations of various laws.

all of which, all of which are a part of our discussion this weekend.

And then, and then we're also going to be focusing on a couple of other things, also pending in federal courts, major, major development in that criminal prosecution of John Bolton, the former national security advisor, former United Nations ambassador.

He is pleading guilty.

He is pleading guilty to mishandling of national security matters.

And we'll tell you about what that means, not only for the case, but also to put it in context with the other lawsuits, the other criminal investigations and criminal prosecutions brought by this administration.

We'll explain why the John Bolton lawsuit.

The John Bolton prosecution is different from those others that have been brought by, oh, for example, against James Comey and Letitia James, investigations of others out there as well.

And in that connection, we'll also drop a footnote with respect to the James Comey prosecution, noting very interestingly.

that the chief prosecutor in that case has decided to drop out of that prosecution.

The prosecution itself still in place, but the principal prosecutor, the person who's bringing this into court, has said, no longer going to participate in that.

A sign, perhaps, of some lack of commitment to that particular prosecution.

We've talked about the demerits of that case in the past.

A lot of things going on in the rule of law this past week.

We're gonna get too many, if not,

all of those, all of those things, also inviting you to be a part of our discussion.

Again, the phone number is 855-752-4842.

You can also drop your comments, your questions or inquiries into our chat box and be a part of our discussion or reporting here on Amicus Law Review.

Let us begin.

Let us begin as we often do with the United States Supreme Court.

At least two major things of this past week.

Let's begin with that case coming out of Alabama.

The Supreme Court, the headline is, once again, clearing the way for a Republican friendly map in Alabama, restoring after back and forth like a tennis match, restoring a map that Alabamians have embraced that establishes only one majority black district.

that majority black district redrawn if you will after, after the decision in Calais.

The Supreme Court once again this past week, clearing the way for Alabama to eliminate one of the two majority black congressional districts, plainly a win for the Republicans, plainly a win for the president in those continuing efforts to try to limit the number of districts nationwide, including in Alabama, that might send Republicans and Democrats back to the United States.

Congress, the ruling is important for a number of reasons, including the fact that it is the first time that the Supreme Court has given some life and some meaning to its decision in Calais.

You recall Calais?

Well, we have spent a lot of time talking about it on this broadcast.

Calais, this decision coming out of Louisiana also.

Previously, with two majority black districts, the Supreme Court saying, nope, those cannot survive, and sending the case back down for Louisiana to do exactly what it has done, which is to reduce the number of majority black districts down to one, basically turning six of those seven districts into Republican majority districts, and affecting dramatically the politics of that state, arguably the politics of America.

Kelly.

Kelly, once again, affirming a previous decision of the Supreme Court that says, we're not going to challenge.

We're not going to get involved in decisions on.

partisan gerrymandering and so legislators can do what they want when it comes to partisan gerrymandering.

And the only way, the only way that a viable attack can be made upon those partisan gerrymandering decisions is if the parties who are challenging them can also show that the purpose, the intent in doing that, if it was in part political,

also had to do with racial discrimination.

If you can show in court that the intention

the purpose behind drawing the lines as you have done them in this particular state is motivated by an interest in racial discrimination limiting the capacity of principally majority black populations in a particular state limiting their capacity to elect people with whom they have similar interests if you can show that then you've got a viable case but that's a very high standard a very narrow area and the assumption has been

that with that very high standard articulated now in Calais, many people, including me, indicating that this is basically a final straw when it comes to the enforcement of section two of the Voting Rights Act.

In the wake of that, determining that this very high standard is going to be difficult to meet, turns out, turns out, as we reported in the past, that a three-judge panel previously, previously found exactly that.

found that there was in fact racial discrimination in the drawing of those lines.

That panel previously writing that we are painfully aware of the gravity of our ruling.

We do not find this issue particularly complex or close.

Finding racial discrimination in that new map in Alabama, 79 page ruling.

They said they do not lightly intrude in the state's affairs, but that their previous review left them in no doubt.

that Alabama's new map, quote, intentionally discriminated based on race in violation of the Constitution.

They are seizing upon, or were seizing upon, that very narrow possibility inside Calais of overturning even partisan gerrymandering if, if the intent was to discriminate.

Goes back up to the Supreme Court, and just this past week, once again, the Supreme Court, early in the week, says no.

They overturn what that panel has done.

Again, this first major test since the justices in April had made that decision in Calais.

The practical effect of this four-page ruling, it's not extensive.

It's almost exactly like what we have seen in those other applications, those other shadow docket orders.

Unsigned, Alabama can immediately swap out its current map, which has two majority black districts.

from a map that is only one.

And yeah, that gives Republicans, of course, a crucial advantage in flipping that seat back into conservative hands.

The three so-called liberal justices dissent.

The conservative justices, nonetheless, say the lower court has failed to follow their direction.

When we come back, I'll tell you more about what the major...

You're listening to Civic Media.

Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.

Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.

My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus, a law review.

This is our weekly weekend review of all things related to the administration of justice, the application of justice in ways big, small, in between the operation of government.

We are beginning our broadcast this weekend talking, as we often do about the United States Supreme Court, this blockbuster ruling.

Once again, the first one in the wake of Calais, at least the first one coming back to the Supreme Court, finding that a three judge panel,

in Alabama that had itself previously determined that Alabama's latest map was the product of racial discrimination, trying to keep black people from voting in that state.

That that ruling cannot stand the United States Supreme Court saying that because that lower court, that three judge panel had failed to follow the instruction of Calais,

the decision that it entered, that it returned cannot stand.

The Supreme Court saying that the lower court had improperly interfered with elective representatives as they organized an imminent election.

The majority specifically saying states are free to decide for themselves where the last minute changes to an election are in their best interest and therefore.

and therefore criticizing the lower court for failing apparently to follow Calais, determining that that decision has to be overturned, reversed, and Alabama now free once again, as it has been able to do at some points in the past.

going ahead with its congressional delegation with only a singular majority black district.

There are dissenters, of course, to that four-page order.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing on behalf of herself and the others, asserts that the court's decision would lead to, as she said, a chaotic election held under never before used congressional maps that intentionally discriminate against black Alabamians.

She said,

that she believed the decision to bases the democratic process, corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama's gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.

Strong words.

Strong words coming from the dissenting justices.

They nonetheless on the losing side of this panel in Alabama, presumably now able to go ahead.

We have not been in the practice of saying never again on this broadcast just because all things can happen.

This Alabama matter, an indication of just that as it has gone up and down and in and out.

as maps have been approved and disregarded, re-approved and disregarded again.

So Alabama, one of the major decisions coming out of the Supreme Court just this past week.

And that decision, again, will also send messages to other states around the country.

We've talked a lot about them that might similarly be thinking about invoking Calais.

Many of them already have done that.

Tennessee, Louisiana, others as well.

as they attempt to determine the breadth the scope of that Calais decision, certainly an indication just this past week that the very narrow, the very narrow exception to the Calais possibility of finding discrimination is extremely narrow.

Again, the lower court, the three judge panel, had found unequivocal evidence of discrimination.

Supreme Court says that's not enough.

And oh, by the way, let the Alabamians do what they want with respect to the

their upcoming election in terms of timing.

Supreme Court, of course, also confronting a lot of decisions, a lot of situations in this present term involving the administrative, so-called our administrative agencies out there and the Supreme Court in particular, looking at a couple of cases having to do with the Securities and Exchange Commission and also the Federal Communications Commission.

In the area of the SEC, the case is STRIPH versus SEC.

The legal way of describing this result is that a showing of financial or pecuniary loss to investors is not required.

Not required before the agency, the SEC, may obtain what's called discouragement.

an award under the particular statute.

Now, what does all that mean?

Well, what is discouragement to begin with?

Well, it's one of those legal words.

It means a person or an entity being forced to give up the profits that it obtained through some illegal or unethical act, basically being compelled to give up the products of that illegal activity.

And the concept is that by doing that, by forcing this discouragement from the wrongdoer, you are preventing an unjust enrichment of that, and that the wrongdoers don't profit from their misconduct, the funds therefore can be restored to the victims.

Well, this past week, the United States Supreme Court

rejected a certain high evidentiary bar when it comes to proving the bases for disgorgement the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the SEC and also by the way in a somewhat related case the Federal Communications Commission preserving their enforcement

powers in these two separate cases.

The justices, unanimous, unanimous, all of them agreeing together, confirmed that the SEC can in fact recover illicit or illegal profits without proving, absent proof, that the victim's financial losses were there.

They don't have to show exactly how the victims were compromised, the amount, the nature of those financial losses, and this plainly impacts future fraud cases

dramatically.

It emphasizes the court does as it makes this determination in favor of the SEC's authority under this fairly low standard that the traditional equitable principles, as the court says, focus on stripping wrongdoers of their unjust profits even without.

even without taking into account or getting evidence on some measurable victim losses.

You don't have to have that in order for the SEC to order this discouragement process.

This decision is one of those that resolves a split among the circuits around the country and preserves once again one of the Securities and Exchange Commission's most

potent enforcement tools when it comes to actions against people who are engaged in securities fraud, including things like insider trading, record-keeping violations, high-profile cases, like even the agencies sued against Elon Musk over delayed stock disclosures, what we talked about last week when we come back.

I'll tell you about another case also affirming a decision of an agency and its capacity to act

as Amica Solar Review

continues.

This is amicus a lot of you on the broadcast stations of civic media.

My name is Jim Santel I am your host for the remainder of this hour and also next hour along with max my producer We are as always taking your phone calls your questions your comments the phone number 8 5 5 7 5 2 4 8 4 2 You can also be a part of our broadcast by sending your notes your comments your questions into our chat box and indeed

Mark has already done so, and he is commenting upon the collateral impacts of the Calais decision and certainly this Alabama decision about which we have just been speaking.

Perhaps even here in Wisconsin, one never knows where this may be going down the road.

doesn't have to be immediate.

These are precedents that the Supreme Court is setting, and as Mark notes, all kinds of things can happen.

He highlights possibilities with respect to the seventh congressional district here in Wisconsin.

We know that the Supreme Court's orders in these cases do have impacts around the nation, not just, for example, in Louisiana or Alabama.

And so, Mark, we appreciate your observation about the extended tendrils of decisions like this.

Into states, all 50 of them,

Around the nation arguably perhaps including Wisconsin as well.

Thank you for that Comment and writing into our broadcast Supreme Court again facing a lot of issues having to do with administrative agencies in addition to the SEC case that we were just now talking about giving the SEC the capacity to order this Discouragement this surrendering up of profits absent the need to prove some specific loss

Absent the need, sometimes even to prove who the victims of those losses might be.

Losses being difficult to calculate.

You can still go ahead and order discouragement.

That's what the decision this past week from that case.

Sripitch, S-R-I-P-E-T-C-H versus SEC is all about.

Supreme Court on the same day also issues a case in FCC, that's the Federal Communication Commission, versus AT&T.

a little bit simpler.

Basically, the Supreme Court here is addressing what are called forfeiture orders, once again, surrendering up properties and monies, finding that the Seventh Amendment does have some applicability here, but no violations of the Seventh Amendment and process there for the FCC to issue orders

without the involvement of a jury.

In other words, you have to have a jury determination.

The FCC does have this authority in forfeiture proceedings, again, asking individuals and specifically companies over which it has jurisdiction to give up things, awards and judgments, forfeiture proceedings.

And finding that the FCC's factual findings do not have to be premised upon the involvement of a jury can go ahead again through the FCC in that administrative process.

Another win for the government with a small G.

and another affirmation of the long-standing authority of agencies to do what the Congress has told them they can indeed do.

Sripitch versus SEC and FCC versus AT&T, two cases involving two agencies, Supreme Court taking those off its docket, and still having about 29 days out, that includes weekends as well, an obligation.

to issue decisions in, by my count, about 26 more cases.

And assuming they do not go, do not go beyond the 4th of July when all of us will be celebrating the 250th anniversary of our nation.

And at that time, of course, the Supreme Court typically issues its final decisions, usually some blockbuster decisions out there.

Supreme Court has about 26 of them yet in the coming weeks to issue.

Those include, of course, other regulatory issues, having to do with the capacity of the power to fire, to fire to terminate people, members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve,

members of the Federal Trade Commission.

What is the capacity of a president to terminate the leadership of independent agencies?

Two different cases there may go in two different directions.

We'll see all about that.

A major power case, an authority case involving the presidency.

The other one that is perhaps more predictable is the birthright citizenship case.

Here it appears that the Supreme Court is going to reject what the president has advocated for.

in that executive order when he first came into office about 18 months ago, going to reaffirm our fundamental notions about birthright citizenship, but it hasn't done so yet.

And when that is issued, that will be a big case also on the docket of the Supreme Court.

Two major guns cases having to do with the operation, the carrying of guns under private properties, and also gun possession by individuals who may be addicted to drugs, may have addictions.

Those issues, second amendment issues, looming large, no decisions yet on either one of those major firearms cases.

We do have, we do have some other actions.

going on in the areas of asylum and protections from deportation, even as, even as a district court just this past week has issued rulings in those areas.

But we'll talk about that in just a moment or so.

There is also a major religious rights case that is still awaiting resolution.

There is a case involving the...

transgender athletes opportunities to participate in women's sports transgender women in women's sports yes or no what do legislatures have the capacity to do and then some major cases when it comes to voting and elections what about mail-in ballots can you can you count those if they're postmarked but not received until after election day

Supreme Court somewhat skeptical of that process, which takes place in several states, and also campaign financing.

What about the capacity of political parties generally prohibited from contributing directly to the campaigns of candidates?

Can they do that?

And is the restriction on them in violation of their First Amendment rights?

all of that and yes other things still on the docket of this court as those cases are issued presumably in the next couple of weeks we will on this broadcast of course spend a lot of time talking about those what probably will be predictable but nonetheless significant cases in many of those different areas the supreme court

indicating at least on its calendar that coming Mondays will be the days on which it will release some of these cases.

It still has a number of decision conferences these times when the Supreme Court members get together and vote and discuss things and disagree and agree on various dispositions.

Those are still on the calendar for this month of June.

Again, all of that anticipating that perhaps, maybe, maybe by the 4th of July, all of this will be resolved.

Again, there's no mandate.

There's no statutory constitutional mandate that says that they've got to be done by that time.

And yes, indeed, in the past, we've had decisions issued in late June and right up to the celebration of our nation's anniversary.

We'll see if they need to go beyond that into July in this term.

Again, about 60 cases or so, a little bit more than 60 cases altogether.

26 of them still have to be resolved here, here in the month of June, maybe in July.

Let's talk about the appeals court.

Obviously, the appeals courts around the country, including the DC Court of Appeals, those many courts, including the 7th Circuit, in which we are here in Wisconsin, also Illinois, Indiana, these are the courts that are right below the Supreme Court.

And so if you are dissatisfied with the decision of an appellate tribunal, what do you do?

You appeal that to the United States Supreme Court, and that's exactly what happened with respect to that three-judge panel in Alabama.

The Alabamian leadership taking those decisions up to the Supreme Court as the court of next review appeals court, a very important portion of our administration of justice in America.

And again, reading some tea leaves from what one appeals court seems to be doing.

in connection with yes that's right the president's hopes of building a legacy defining ballroom there on the south lawn of the white house that construction for what it's worth after demolishing the 123 year old historic east wing a number of months ago that construction of a ballroom continues underway without a disruption in spite of a federal lawsuit and it landed this past week in front of an appeals court

that hurt arguments on whether any of this, any of the President's actions in directing the construction to go ahead, undertaking it, destroying the East Wing, and building at least the basis for this new ballroom, whether any of that, that project searching forward to this day,

can, in fact, be legal.

And, of course, it serves as yet another indication of whether the courts will assert that it's congressional power to rein in these kinds of things or to permit the president to rebuild Washington in the way that he seems to want to do.

During a hearing, two members of a three-judge panel grilled an attorney named Yakov Roth, R-O-T-H.

He's a Justice Department lawyer over exactly what authority.

Donald Trump has to unilaterally bulldoze the East Wing of the White House without input from lawmakers.

And for much of the morning and here are your tea leaves.

They appeared to bristle at the government's claims that the courts should not step in or halt this, almost indicating the courts have no jurisdiction, should stay out of this completely, even, even if the construction itself is unlawful.

It is a stunning position to take, and yet that's what your government did in front of the appeals court just this past week.

The attorney, Attorney Roth, arguing.

that the National Park Service that Congress affords authority to over federal lands, including the White House grounds, had the power to put up buildings in federal spaces in Washington, including this ballroom.

So that authority given by Congress to the National Park Service, the president invokes that authority, tears down the East Wing and builds this.

He said, he said in response to a request and inquiry from one of the presiding judges, he said that even the government were to hypothetically demolish the Statue of Liberty.

Groups was a sentimental attachment to that monument and I like to think that every single American

343 million of us, yes, in duty, including children and toddlers, would not automatically be able to sue over that decision.

One of the judges, her name is Patricia Millett, M-I-L-L-E-T-T, says, if the government decides to move very quickly and bulldozes the Statue of Liberty, the people whose ancestors, that was the first thing they saw coming to this country, but the government moved too fast, nothing can be done, she says.

And the attorney for your government looks at her and looks at the panel and says, I think that's right.

Yes.

The decision here comes after a lower court.

His name is Judge Richard Leon.

We talked about this case.

He is an appointee for what it's worth of President George Bush.

He issued a blunt order back in March.

He concluded that there was no legal path.

to building without congressional authorization and judge leon had said that unless and until congress blesses this project through statutory authorization construction has to stop he wrote and after the word stop there's an exclamation point but here is the good news judge leon wrote it is not too late for congress to authorize the continued construction of the ballroom project plainly congress has not done that and this past week this past week again

The appeals court looking at that order coming up from Judge Leon now in front of the appellate tribunal expressing a good deal of skepticism about the capacity of the president to go ahead without that congressional authorization and determining that he can proceed not only to tear down

Whatever may be left of the East Wing, there's very little, but also to build this new project there on the South Lawn.

It appears that the members of the Appeals Court, they haven't made their decision yet, are skeptical of that ballroom argument advanced by the government, including that notion that apparently the government can tear down the Statue of Liberty.

We'll see what happens when this issue is resolved.

Ultimately, the Appeals Court

may eventually end up where?

Yes, again, in the United States Supreme Court.

When we come back, we'll talk about some district courts and what they've done to uphold the rule of law here on Amicus, a law

review.

Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.

My name is Jim Santel.

This is Amicus, a lot of you.

We are, as we often do, talking about the federal judiciary and the ways in which they are shaping and reshaping our lives and our livelihoods here in the United States of America in ways big, small, and in between reviewing this decision by the Supreme Court, basically reaffirming the capacity of people in the state of Alabama to embrace that singular

One majority black district reversing reversing the decision of a lower court finding that there was in fact discrimination in Creating that new map the Supreme Court saying nope Calais permits the states to do just that that's a major decision in connection not only with voting in America, but also

for the Voting Rights Act and the ways in which it will or will not be enforced going forward.

Also talking about these other two administrative cases coming out of the Supreme Court, affirming the authorities of agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission to do their jobs in regulating their particular areas.

And also, also talking then about an appeals court that appears very skeptical of the president's proposals

beyond proposals, his actual construction underway of that new ballroom on the south lawn, and his already completed, virtually completed destruction of the East Wing.

What happens if the appeals court said that was done illegally?

Certainly the president will take this up to the Supreme Court and we'll see what they do, but all of this, all of this happening while the underlying construction continues apace to this day.

the appeals court there in washington dc very skeptical of whether or not the authority is there without congressional approval and so all of that taking the measure of all of that

in our federal courts and also talking then about two other major decisions of our federal judiciary now at the trial court level, the lowest court, but probably no less important than those higher appellate courts.

These are the federal district courts around the country.

There are 93 of them throughout the nation, hundreds of federal district court judges.

And we're gonna talk about two of them now because in both of these cases,

The District Court judges addressing decisions, policy decisions of this administration.

Both of these cases represent additional failures, defeats,

of this administration for its policies, one of them having to do with the areas of asylum and immigration processing, and the other having to do with SNAP funds.

You recall, well, those are supplemental nutrition assistance program funds, much in the attention of our nation during the course of the pandemic when the Congress was slow in re-upping funds to ensure that families had monies to feed children

and adults.

We'll get back to that snap case in just a moment.

Let's begin with this case in which a federal judge in Rhode Island late this past week struck down a whole group of immigration policies that were enacted by the Trump administration and writing that those measures had, quote, placed the lives of countless individuals on hold solely by virtue of their countries of birth.

The judge

His name is John McConnell Jr.

He writes in a 135 page opinion that the policies of the Trump administration that halted asylum grants as well as the processing of immigration benefits for people from some 39 different countries, they're no good.

They have to restart.

immediately.

He wrote that the actions to lock eligible asylum seekers out of the immigration system and beyond that to deny others temporary work permits had made it functionally impossible for many in this group a broad swath of people to remain in the country.

The judge, Judge McConnell, saying the measures were improperly fueled by what he described as anti-immigration sentiments and contrary to immigration laws.

Now, the policies themselves that were attacked successfully in front of this judge coming from Rhode Island, they're enacted by the US Citizenship and Immigration Service, USCIS.

They included a global hold, a stop on asylum applications filed with the agency.

The USCAS had also paused decision on immigration applications that, again, had been filed by many, many people from these 39 different countries, most of them in Africa and the Middle East.

And those countries, of course, those people also subject to the president's travel ban, basically halting their ability to attain green cards and other benefits.

And this, of course, has been a part of the president's continuing focus on immigration.

and even touching lawful permanent residents arguably who lived in this country legally for years but have been ineffectively unable to be approved for citizenship because decisions on their naturalization applications have been ground to a halt.

The general counsel for the Homeland Securities Department, the parent agencies of USCIS, blamed this decision halting

halting the previous halt, in other words, double negatives there, directing the administration to go ahead and restart these asylum and immigration processing procedures.

The general counsel blamed this decision on the left, his words, for sabotage dressed in legal clothing.

The General Counsel says this, he says it goes like this, obviously highly critical, highly critical of Judge McConnell in saying these processes have got to be resumed.

He says it goes like this, the administration is racist, therefore a policy I don't like is motivated by race, therefore it is invalid.

They, and he's talking about the left, according to his comments, have used it on virtually every Trump-era department of Homeland Security policy.

and did not indicate exactly how the administration is going to respond to this.

Again, all of these policies effectively suspending the processes that have been in place for a very long time.

Judge McConnell wrote that the various holds violated our immigration laws established by the Congress.

They governed the responsibilities of the USCIS and that the agency had routinely applied the law unequally under these policies.

He noted

that the particular stride claims that Donald Trump our president had made last year after a shooting in Washington blaming immigrants for a range of social problems including housing shortages and urban decay were not a proper basis those allegations for suspending that the

Judge goes on to write, he says, the court is reminded of a line often repeated in discussions around immigration policy.

He says, if people wish to immigrate to the United States, they ought to follow the law and do things the right way.

This is the judge writing.

Goes on to say, this case serves as a perfect example of immigrants doing just that.

That coming out of Rhode Island.

Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel.

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

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

This is Amicus, a law review.

My name is Jim Santel.

This is the second hour of our weekly weekend review of all things related to the administration of justice, the operation of government, and how all of those things affect our lives on a daily basis.

We spent most of the first hour talking about the Supreme Court, a couple of cases, actually three altogether, in which it decided some of those major issues pending before it, including that Alabama case.

Affirming the capacity of Alabama to redraw its map to eliminate a second majority black district couple of cases before the Supreme Court in which it affirmed the authority of our federal agencies to act as they do under congressional authorization those cases involving the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission talked about this appeals court argument before the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia apparently very skeptical of the president's law lawful authority

litigation authority and constitutional authority to go ahead with the building of this ballroom we'll see what the appeals court does in that area and then also now talking about one of the other major standards one of the other safeguards

to ensure the continued vitality of our democracy.

And that, of course, a common theme on this broadcast.

That is the strength of the power of federal district court judges to enter injunctions, orders stopping these illegal and unconstitutional things from going ahead.

And it is significant to note that among the many judges who in the past 18 months or so have issued orders, not unanimously, but many of them, most of them prohibiting the administration from going ahead and doing

doing what it wants to do illegally.

Those judges are from all sides of the political spectrum, Republican appointees, Democrat appointees, all of them, virtue all of them, looking at the Constitution saying, no, there's no authority here to do just that, can't do it, or, or looking at the congressional delegation.

of authority establishing programs, establishing initiatives and determining that the president does not have the authority unilaterally to overturn those, to suspend those in a way that will be contrary to what the Congress has wanted.

to the detriment of the citizens of the United States of America, including those who might otherwise benefit from those congressionally approved programs.

And there is another district court decision of just this past week that falls into precisely that category as a federal district court judge.

halts this administration, halts Donald Trump in his efforts to impose certain conditions on the grants of supplemental nutrition assistance program funds.

We call those SNAP funds.

Recall this fund much in the news during the course of the pandemic.

Well, a federal judge late this past week cited with some 20 Democratic states

and halted, stopped, suspended, said, can't continue to do this.

This effort, this initiative by the administration to force the states to comply with a whole range of conditions to get billions of dollars from the government to support the SNAP funding.

U.S.

District Judge Myeong, M-Y-O-N-G, Joann, J-O-U-N, granted a preliminary junction in this lawsuit that challenged those conditions for getting SNAP funding.

Among those specific restrictions, those conditions imposed by the White House, are restrictions related to gender ideology, immigration,

and fair athletic opportunities for women and girls.

The judge said he would issue a memorandum later explaining his decision.

Where does this come from?

Well, in the lawsuit, the states had argued that the Agriculture Department had thrown unconstitutional and unlawful roadblocks between the programs created by the legislature, by the Congress, and the states that are the beneficiaries of those, the constituents in those states, that rely on those programs that the Congress has established, including the SNAP program.

And by doing these things, by somehow requiring that funding,

be given to the states only if they're in compliance with some vague policies related to gender ideology and immigration and athletic opportunities for women and girls, that that threatened this critical nutrition support for many, many Americans.

and it also threatened agricultural research and the safety of our national food chain and communities.

All of that alleged in this challenge, this litigation challenge, now at least preliminarily resolved with this injunction entered

by the judge lawyers for the government of course are supporting what the president has wanted to do they argued in their filing that these new requirements would help promote the sound stewardship of taxpayer dollars strengthen the department of agriculture's control and oversight of obligated funds and ensure that grant recipients comply with federal laws regulations and policies a fairly vague statement but nonetheless there it is just by way of background once again

Snap, it is hugely important as we have all understood and reaffirmed during the course of our recent recent health crisis.

Part of our U.S.

Department of Agriculture effort to ensure that people have food, that families do not go hungry, helps about 39 million Americans, about one in nine buy groceries.

and beneficiaries decreased by about 4.3 million from January 25 to January 26, according to preliminary government data as a result of the president's initiative.

These new requirements mandated by a massive tax and spending cut bill that Republicans passed through Congress, you may recall that well, are the primary reasons for that significant reduction.

A judge, again, just this past week,

finding, finding that the limitations, again, Judge Joan, J-O-U-N, finding that the limitations imposed by this administration on states receiving these snap funds cannot stand.

and promising, of course, another order to explain this further, but also certainly going to be entertaining a more extensive hearing on what's called an injunctive relief, a permanent injunction, perhaps, in resolution of the case.

This is important enough that whatever Judge June does in this case, almost certainly will be appealed to an appellate court as well, may ultimately reach a Supreme Court, perhaps in a next term, 2026, 2027.

Another major effort by our litigants out there and a major signal of the ways in which our federal courts continue to enforce the law as major safeguards and standards against unconstitutional and illegal statutory decisions by our president.

We know that there are other safeguards out there, other guardrails, they include grand juries that more and more have decided not to simply

return indictments upon bold requests of the government to do so.

We've seen that repeatedly.

We have seen individuals both inside and then outside of government refusing to participate in actions with their being requested to undertake.

When they find themselves that they're unethical and illegal, some have remained and fought that fight internally.

Others have said, no, I need to leave.

Many of those inside the Department of Justice, bulking at directives to litigate cases, civil and criminal both, that are contrary to the ways in which they have been taught.

the experience that they have gotten and their basic ethical touchstones.

We also know, of course, that there is a fourth or perhaps even a fifth way in which the American population has pushed back on all this.

And that is through protests and specific targeting of various operations, including detention operations of the sort that we have seen in Chicago and Minneapolis and even the building of detention facilities around the country.

Americans have responded to law enforcement efforts in major cities of this nation, resulting in the law enforcement authorities of the federal government withdrawing from those cities and in some instances deciding not to go ahead with the construction or the opening of detention facilities.

That is the power of public advocacy.

Advanced by Americans.

Lots and lots of things to be proud of in this nation.

Not because of the results necessarily, although plainly those enforce the law, but because we do have mechanisms that are standing strong and those include once again federal judges, and I'd include appellate judges in that as well.

They include grand juries, they include individual civil servants, and yes, even political appointees inside and then outside of government, and perhaps at the top of that list.

The best safeguard, the guardrail against this kind of unconstitutional, non-statutory behavior is the work of our populations themselves in places, cities, municipalities, towns, and villages across the country.

We see a lot of that, and we continue to see a lot of that as this administration continues to undertake, not only to defend its initial orders from early administration, but also to do things.

that will stop the administration of justice, frankly stop the adherence to the law, to the rule of law in America.

All of that going on inside our federal courts and in other venues around our nation.

Let's talk about a couple of criminal prosecutions about which we have also spoken some significant goings on in connection with two somewhat related

but actually quite different criminal prosecutions being advanced by the U.S.

Department of Justice.

You recall well that John Bolton, a former White House advisor during the president's first term, former UN ambassador, former national security advisor, was charged after his home was searched.

in a case involving his mishandling of classified information.

He was purportedly compiling notes for a book that was harshly critical of the president, and in the wake of a search of his property and certainly other investigations, he was charged with illegally retaining classified information and perhaps using that as well.

the case itself in an original 18-count indictment against Bolton accused him of using personal email and you may remember this as well a messaging app to share about a thousand pages of notes which included some national defense information with two family members who did not have security clearances that was what the basic gist of the initial indictment was all about the information was shared as a part of Bolton's effort

purportedly to write a memoir of his time and his experience is in the White House during that first term.

The relatives were Bolton's wife and daughter, and they spoke on the condition of anonymity, that is people describing all of this, the wife and the daughter.

to describe some of the goings-on that were not a part of court filings.

After the indictment, after the indictment, Bolton, who denied these charges at the time, said he was being treated unfairly by administration that had used the Justice Department to silence, to quash the public advocacy, the public statements of the President's foes and his critics.

And the counsel for Bolton had said,

that the issues in the case had been litigated and investigated years ago had not been deemed worthy of criminal charges.

The indictment charged that, as he wrote notes for his 2020 book, a book called The Room Where It Happened, Bolton indicated that he knew he was describing carefully guarded government secrets.

One entry by Bolton began, the intel brief first said, while in the situation room I learned those were the two things that he said,

The Trump administration obviously is seizing on that for the purpose of this particular investigation and the prosecution that followed.

And it is significant to note that, yes, indeed, Bolton has been, has been a virulent critic of the president ever since he was inside the administration, giving rise to some legitimate concerns that this might be, this might be among that group.

of prosecutions that are without merit and therefore simply the product of vindictive prosecutions.

I'll come back on the far side to tell you why that's apparently not the case here and why it's different from another case that also showed up in the federal courts this past week, that one involving James Comey, all that when our broadcast continues right after this.

My name is Jim Santel and this is Amica Salaroview on the broadcast stations of Civic Media as always.

Delighted, honored that you have chosen to spend some portion of your weekend hours in exploring some of these major issues, civics issues in the rule of law, justice administration, delivery of justice, and the operation of government as well.

We are talking now

about these cases in which the Department of Justice has criminally prosecuted individuals and describing two categories of them and also underscoring the problems the problems attended upon the president's criticisms

in the public domain of these people who are his political foes.

We're talking in particular about John Bolton, the former national security advisor, his former UN ambassador who was previously charged with mishandling classified information connection with books he's written going to write.

You recall well that his home there in suburban Washington was searched very dramatically.

a number of months ago.

And at the time, of course, John Bolton said, I've done nothing wrong, his attorney defending this and saying that it is in fact yet another of these cases involving vindictive prosecution of the president's political foes.

Well, it turns out, and we knew this at the time, we commented about this at the time, that this prosecution seemed to be somewhat different.

because it seemed that there was in fact a basis for going ahead and charging and indeed that's exactly what the government did in this indictment that has been pending and the big news that comes out of the federal district court or at least the docket of the federal district court just this past week is that that proposition that this is one of those cases that is probably both both a product of the president's directive to prosecute

but also legitimately and apart from that, a product of legitimate investigation and prosecution on the merits of facts and the law.

And this is the problem.

This is the problem when the president not only comments about prosecutions, invites prosecutions, urges prosecutions, is that it's hard sometimes to tell the difference between those that are legitimate and those that are not.

Those that do have some basis for them.

some facts, some indication, some probable cause to believe that crimes have been committed, and those that are simply based upon frivolous allegations.

And there are a lot of those that are out there.

And that's the reason why, once again, this complete destruction of the wall.

that existed for so long between the White House and the Department of Justice, the destruction of that under the Pam Bondi administration, now under the Todd Blanche administration, the removal of that wall, its destruction, is so important and so devastating to the rule of law in America.

Because we are now compelled to try to figure out, it's not all that difficult, but figure out and discern the difference

between a John Bolton investigation, for example, where there is something there.

But the president is also hugely critical of him, suggesting that there is not legitimacy to it.

Well, it turns out that this past week, we got an awful lot of information indicating that both of those things are true.

The president is criticizing John Bolton.

He indicated he's happy to see his prosecution an inappropriate thing for the president to gloat about, but also that it appears that this prosecution

going to result in a conviction.

Why?

Because we know that a notice was filed in the federal court just this past week in Maryland.

Bolton indicted there last year.

And it indicates that John Bolton is now scheduled for a rearrangement being called in for a new hearing.

A hearing that can, in fact, it almost certainly does signal a planned plea of guilty.

That new hearing is set for June 26.

Again, indications that this is going to be the entry of a plea of guilty by John Bolton to at least some portion of the charges charged in that indictment against him still requires, still requires the approval, the imprimatur of a judge.

A judge has still got to authorize the taking of the plea on the basis that there is a foundation, a factual foundation for doing that.

And it appears, it appears that John Bolton is going to plead guilty to a single count, one count of illegal retention of classified information and therefore pay a fine of anywhere from, who knows, a small amount to a larger amount and facing anywhere from no prison time to five years of incarceration when he is sentenced in yet another hearing down the road.

And all of that, all of that is significant because it reduces dramatically, dramatically the exposure of the defendant here, John Bolton, who otherwise, otherwise could have spent years in prison on an 18-count indictment, now apparently going to plead guilty to a single count of illegal detention, exposing him to five years, unlikely he will get even that amount of time, if any, in prison.

but he could, and probably some kind of fine as well, including some supervised release.

depending upon the exact terms and conditions of what the judge may enter in this case.

It is significant once again because it underscores this distinction, the deliberation between a legitimate prosecution, again, based upon facts and the law that support a legitimate prosecution, identification of a defendant, identification of the crimes that he or she or it committed, and pursuing that legitimately in court.

And on the other hand,

initiating criminal cases without any of that foundational background.

We have seen a lot of that.

We know, perhaps most notoriously, the return of indictments by a federal grand jury in eastern Virginia against James Comey and Letitia James.

James Comey and Letitia James.

Those cases dismissed.

James Comey back in the news again.

based upon the other indictment that was returned against him.

And when we come back, I'll tell you more about why that case was back in the news here on Amicus, a law review.

This is Amicus, the law review, and my name is Jim Santel.

I'm your host for these concluding segments of our broadcast here on our weekend broadcast of all those things related to the rule of law, the administration of justice.

We are reviewing at this time reporting on some of these recent events in federal criminal prosecutions, one involving John Bolton, who appears to be ready to enter a plea of guilty to a single count of illegal retention of classified information

Setting forth a mechanism, a path for the resolution of the criminal charges previously brought against him, a hearing is set for later this month, June 26th, in front of the Federal District Court judge, likely to be the entry of a plea.

And we will see exactly what happens on that day.

In advance of that, almost certainly some additional pleadings to be filed giving us all some better indication of what that hearing is going to be all about.

John Bolton appears to be resolving his case that partakes of two things.

One is a credible reason for prosecuting him.

And the judge's review of that basis is going to be pivotal.

to his accepting that plea, but also coming in the wake of the President's glee over this prosecution, as we have often mentioned, nothing under any circumstance, any time.

Is there a reason for joy?

These are all cases involving human tragedy.

The president not only identifying John Bolton as one of his political partisan foes, but also happy that this is happening.

That is a great problem for the administration of justice and our understanding of how things should work in America.

There is another case.

It's also in the news this past week, although for another curious reason.

And this case, as do others, fall on the opposite end.

That is where there is frivolity.

and lack of information, lack of facts, lack of supporting law to support the prosecutions, even though the government is going ahead with them.

This one, of course, the case against James Comey.

You recall, well, James Comey and Letitia James, the current secretary, or the current attorney general, rather, of the state of New York, both indicted in the eastern district of Virginia, both of those cases dismissed upon a finding that the government's attorney

Lindsay Halligan, the U.S.

Attorney, did not have the authority to indict them, and those cases went away.

James Comey, again, not evading the continued gaze of this president, gaze of the Attorney General, and gaze of the Department of Justice, is re-indicted, this time in North Carolina, because of a photograph.

that he posted last year of seashells.

Yes, that's right, seashells arranged in the numbers 86, 47.

A message the Justice Department says basically amounts to a threat against the president who is the 47th president of the United States of America.

The former FBI director, former Department of Justice leader indicted on two counts of threatening the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce.

And if convicted, he faces up to 10 years in prison, as we've commented before, huge problems with that kind of a prosecution, including a showing of intent to accomplish this threat to the president.

That will be a huge, huge burden to overcome, especially since...

The defendant in this case, James Comey, almost immediately took it down when he realized, as people were commenting to him, that it may be interpreted that way, indicating it was not his intent in any way to do that.

And James Comey at that time

defended not only his innocence in the wake of this indictment but continues to do so even as the prosecution of him on what is a frivolous case without real merit but based upon the fact that James Comey is again in that category of a political foe of the president that's what this is all about we've got a second indictment here the first one unsuccessful a second one equally frivolous and what has happened now

Why is this back in the news?

It is fascinating.

And we know a little more about it than simply the headline, but it perhaps speaks volumes because the lead prosecutor in this case over that social media posting of the seashells has apparently withdrawn.

according to a court filing in that case.

So we know that that prosecutor is no longer there.

The Justice Department has filed notice with the court late this past week indicating that Matthew Petraca, P-E-T-R-A-C-C-A, a prosecutor from the U.S.

Attorney's Office in the Northern District, in the Northern District, or rather the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern North Carolina, that's where he's the prosecutor.

That's where this case is being charged and prosecuted.

He is withdrawing.

He has withdrawn from the case.

He's been replaced by an assistant U.S.

attorney named Timothy Severo, S-E-V-E-R-O.

Both of them playing the civil service, both of them appointed through the civil service process, neither one of them political appointees.

It is certainly of note that the change here

does not include any explanation for the fairly abrupt withdrawal of the lead prosecutor in this case.

Justice Permanent Spokesman did not comment on it, but the fact that the lead prosecutor in a case of this notoriety would withdraw is probably a signal, once again, that you have somebody else, a civil servant, who is looking at this case attempting to identify

what indeed he and perhaps his colleagues are going to present at a trial in this matter, how he is going to overcome the basic standards that he needs to establish to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a legitimate credible material viable threat was made against President Trump.

that this defendant, James Comey, intended to do that, that there's evidence that he intended to threaten the president by doing this, and that he transmitted this threat in interstate commerce with purpose and design and motive to accomplish that threat.

Very difficult to prove under these circumstances, and perhaps just maybe we don't know for sure, but it may well be.

that the principal prosecutor here who's withdrawing, his name again Matthew Petraca, may have done that because he can no longer ethically pursue this.

We will find out probably at some point if there are more pleadings, we'll find out again based upon what happens as this case proceeds.

Right now it is still heading toward trial.

It is highly unlikely that unlike the James Bolton situation,

There is no opportunity.

There is an opportunity, but there's no option here.

No likelihood that James Comey is going to plead guilty to anything, nor should he.

And there may well be a trial of this matter at some point.

If indeed this prosecution survives the pretrial attacks that are already underway by the defense attorneys, those include vindictive prosecution at the top of the list, also allegations and claims.

that the government's case is simply unfounded, that on its face it does not establish a case and does not make clear probable cause to believe that there is a crime that was committed here.

This case could still be dismissed in advance of that, or if it goes to trial, difficult, if not impossible to believe that a jury, a trial jury, would find this defendant or any defendant guilty of these charges alleged in that case.

Let's do a footnote to all this and talk about another matter that's back in the news.

With respect to someone, a bit of a blowback to previous litigation, criminal litigation, this involves George Santos.

S-A-N-T-O-S, I suspect you have not heard that name recently, but you recall that he's the former Republican Congresswoman from New York.

He's 37 years old and he previously, of course, was not only prosecuted,

but thrown out of Congress way back in 2023.

He was charged with fraud at the time after he lied extensively about his biography, his mother, all kinds of things that he has and has not done.

Prosecutors that time accused him of lying on official forms, stealing from donors, among other schemes, lots and lots of things, again, expelled by the house.

No small sanction and ultimately sentenced to seven seven years in prison.

You may recall as well that this president based upon some very flattering things that George Santos said about the president not only before but also while he's in prison.

Santos complaining about the fact that his circumstances in prison are not supportive of him.

It doesn't like that at all.

And it turns out that the president did in fact commute

which means reduce that sentence and pardon him but commuted the sentence and Mr. Santos free ever since that time and that leads us to the reason why Mr. Santos is back in the news again and apparently back at at least according to reports federal authorities yes indeed Department of Justice probably here on a legitimate basis because there appears to be a there there

Apparently investigating whether George Santos engaged in, yes, some insider trading by doing this, get this, by betting on a prediction market about whether he would show up at President Trump's State of the Union address in February.

That bet was whether he would be there.

And just before the speech, Santos apparently announced on social media that he planned to be there.

And whether he would be there or not was apparently a hot topic among online betters

on a prediction market, a prediction market called Kelsey, K-A-L-S-H-I.

And they're wagering, these people are wagering on the guest list.

Santos teases in a video on Twitter, on X. He says, I'm gonna be in the gallery.

And then Santos does not appear.

He misses a speech.

And around the time of the event, Kelsey, again, this prediction market, detected that Santos had bet against his own attendance.

and that according to a person that's familiar with this investigation, not describing this on the record.

The company were then referred the matter to the Justice Department and something called the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC, and that's a financial regulator that oversees these kinds of things.

It oversees this recent development of prediction markets.

It appears that Santos again, presumed innocent,

He's not been charged yet.

He's presumed innocent until proven guilty.

According to, again, people familiar with this matter, and not immediately clear whether the Justice Department has formally opened an investigation, whether this is underway, Santos is not responding to any of this.

But once again, it appears that Mr. Santos has run afoul, at least gotten the attention of the CF

tc the commodity futures trading commission as a result of his betting against his own attendance at a and an online betting service this prediction market that will get you in trouble and the cftc apparently looking at that kind of thing this is the third insider trading case i note.

to come to light in recent weeks.

You may recall that last month the Justice Department and the CFTC, this same agency, has charged a Google employee with using insider information to bet on internet search results.

That will get you a criminal charge.

And in April, a member of the US Special Forces, recall this, was charged with illegally using a confidential government information source to make more than $400,000 betting.

on the operation to do what?

To capture Nicholas Maduro, the president of Venezuela, who as you know was captured along with his wife in that intrusive military operation of a number of months ago, the Special Forces member illegally using that confidential information to make bets on the operation.

And that will also get you a charge, charge once again through the CFTC for engaging in that kind of insider trading that is illegal.

and will result in criminal prosecution.

There appears to be our latest entry in this at the hands of George Santos.

All of that, all of that coming out of reliable sources from just recent times and recent weeks.

We should note that there are other things going on, of course, in the area of the rule of law and especially

criminal prosecutions again this is one of those that may or may not take partake of both sides of that line that i described before you know well we've reported on this a lot on this broadcast that the southern poverty law center

has found itself on the receiving end of an indictment, an 11 count indictment, an awful lot of indication that this may also be the result of vindictive prosecution based upon the president and the administration's views about the Southern Poverty Law Center.

When we come back, we'll remind you of what that indictment was and is.

We'll talk about a superseding indictment and we'll tell you what the SPLC has asked the judge to do when it comes to an unsigned indictment, some sanctions they're requesting

against the government itself, all that, as the broadcast continues after this.

My name is Jim Santel and this is Amicus Allarview, the final segment of our two, our broadcast

this weekend and reviewing in ways big, small and in between criminal cases, prosecutions around the country, and including, including the prosecution of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Again, the focus of a lot of attention by this administration, alleging that the Southern Poverty Law Center does things that are inconsistent with the administration's overall policies and practices when it comes to civil rights, we know once again that the government had previously charged criminally the SPLC for engaging in wire fraud and making false statements to a federally insured bank, a kind of conspiracy to commit concealment,

money laundering and other violations of federal financial statutes.

All of that according to an original 11 count indictment.

Of course, as we commented, in order to prove those kinds of things, wire fraud and making false statements and conspiracy to conceal money laundering, there has to be an illegal and an illegal result.

You simply can't allege a transfer of monies without describing exactly what the illegal

the improper purpose for that was.

And so the government, in its early statements, including statements that accompanied the return of this indictment by the then deputy attorney, Todd Blanchett, said, the thing that they did wrong was they were engaging in this effort, which they admit they do, to pay off to provide financial monies support to undercover people.

who are serving, getting information, serving on behalf of the SPLC to get information about civil rights violations.

And it is significant, of course, to note, as we have commented previously, that the government does that.

Federal, state, and sometimes even local authorities engage in undercover

law enforcement operations, nothing illegal about that.

The SPLC has done that as well and responded to the initial charges here by saying that we've done nothing wrong and that indeed this will be a part of our presentation to the court when we go to trial on this.

Well, it turns out that now the federal court has received what is called a superseding indictment.

and that prompts a lot of the news attention of this past week.

The superseding indictment says that the SPLC secretly funneled about $4.1 million in tax-exempt donations from 2010 to 2023 to informants embedded in these extremist groups who then engage in activities like recruiting members, hosting rallies, and purchasing materials.

The Department of Justice says that the group

used shell entities to disguise these payments and claims that the SPLC inflated extremist threats to bolster its mission.

The SPLC, of course, maintains that all of this was legitimate, nothing wrong, and there isn't anything illegal with paying undercover operatives, but they say there's nothing wrong with the legitimate intelligence operations to gather that information, especially if it's intended

to push back on violent behaviors.

They argue that the informant program, which is really the attack by this prosecution, has saved lives and the organization never ever misled donors or banks.

The interim president, his name is Brian Fair, F-A-I-R, called the indictment and the superseding indictment, the renewed indictment here that adds some language, deletes some other language, doesn't really change the charges, calls it retaliation for the group's protected

speech and the defense lawyer on behalf of the SPLC likewise said this new indictment merely rewords some flawed charges, some language in that initial charging document.

An awful lot of people out there also have framed this case as one of an attack on civil rights and public safety and the groups that would advocate

for that.

Interestingly, interestingly, as this matter goes forward, the release of that new indictment, of course, it will guide the future prosecution of this case, pretrial matters, pretrial motions to be filed, attacking and defending the case before this case goes to trial.

But interestingly, the reason that this case is back in the news, in addition to this superseding indictment,

not fundamentally changing the focus, adding some additional language, describing with a bit more particularity what the nature of this is all about.

The Southern Pottery Law Center has also come forward and said that the government acted improperly.

Why?

Because the government engaged, here we go once again, in grand jury abuse and violated and predicted the secrecy rules by doing what?

The SPLC is urging the judge to sanction.

to sanction your Department of Justice for allegedly sharing into the public domain in with reporters an unsigned indictment, a draft version of it, a grand jury item, an item coming out of grand jury proceedings, which are their very nature private and secret and not in the public domain.

The allegation by the SPLC is that your government, the Department of Justice prosecuting this case,

disclose this draft of the new indictment into the public domain to this reporter.

If that is true, and yes, you can figure this out.

They will figure out whether or not this happened.

and presumably the reporter himself, herself, whatever the agency is, is not going to confirm or deny that.

That's not what reporters do.

But it may well be that there'll be some evidentiary hearings on this now about whether or not there was an improper disclosure of a draft of this indictment.

That in itself is illegal government conduct, and it may well be the subject of review by the federal judge who is presiding over this matter.

It is significant that all these things, of course, come in the midst of a Department of Justice that continues to engage in these kinds of cases.

There is an awful lot that is being prosecuted in America in the 93 different districts that is legitimate and right and decent.

The processes are affording people due process.

And this is not to condemn from top to bottom all of the things that the Department of Justice is doing.

But we see this increasing number.

of situations where the government prosecutors lying to district court judges, hiding the ball from them as we saw with respect to that judge in Chicago just last week, deceiving them, failing to tell them information that they know, and providing them with honest information, violating the presumption of regularity about which we've spoken so often.

When we come back next week,

presumably some additional cases being decided by the Supreme Court and other matters in the rule of law which will also be on our ambitious but achievable agenda here on Amicus, a law review.

Have a good weekend

everybody.

Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.

With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.

Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.