Welcome to Amicus, a law review with Jim Santel.
Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant news stories in the areas of law, government, courts, and the aspiration for justice.
And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.
I am your host this hour and also next hour.
Coming to you this weekend from the beautiful Gloria Studios of Civic Media in Madison, Wisconsin, our state's capital just in the shadow, quite literally, almost.
of our capital itself.
I am joined in the Madison studio this weekend by my good friend and terrific producer, Aaron, who along with me will be soliciting, encouraging you to be a part of our discussion this weekend.
You can, as always, call into our broadcast.
That number is 855-752-4.
4842, that number once again is 8557524842.
Erin reminds me that you can also drop your comments, your questions, your inquiries, those things that prompt you to scratch your head about things on our syllabus.
You can drop those into our chat box as well and you can be certain that Erin and I will take a look at those and respond to those during the course of our two hour broadcast.
As always, amicus taking.
its name from the Latin and also the legal term, meaning friend, friend of the court, amicus curiae, but also friend of the community.
And hopefully in the next two hours, continuing that tradition, which is to provide you with information and insight and perspective, not direction, not telling you how to think, but giving you the information so that you can come to your own conclusions and views and perspectives about things.
typically in the areas of rule of law, administration of justice, and the operation of government.
As always, our syllabus this weekend is extensive, lots and lots of things happening, although, as I was mentioning to Erin before airtime this weekend, not a lot from the United States Supreme Court.
We'll get back to that in the course of our second hour.
A few cases they've decided, we'll talk about those, but it was anticipated
participating that by this time with about 15 more business days left in this month before the July 4th of July, July 1 holiday, before all of that happens and we celebrate the 250th anniversary of our nation.
The Supreme Court has about 23 count of 23 more cases to decide and we'll talk in the second hour about why that's important to the kinds of cases they still have to give us rulings on and why this promises to be an interesting and active and maybe even somewhat volatile couple of weeks when it comes to some of the decisions coming out of our highest court in the land.
As we enter the summertime period and specifically this time when the Supreme Court typically issues some of its major decisions, none of those, none of those again resolved to this point with the exception of some of those that we have discussed in previous broadcasts.
But we're going to spend most of our time in this first hour talking once again as we have about federal district court judges.
It has often been the theme, the focus, the prep.
The premise of this broadcast, one of the guardrails to ensure the future of our democracy, the republic itself, is the work of federal district court judges.
These are the judges appointed by various presidents over many decades, confirmed by the United States Senate, and now serving, yes, with lifetime tenure, in some 93 different districts around the country.
Here in Wisconsin, as you know well, we've got an eastern district of Wisconsin, we've got a western district of Wisconsin.
this show from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which includes Racine.
This weekend, as I mentioned, I am in the Western District of Wisconsin here in Madison, federal courts in both of those districts where you can go to have your federal interests vindicated, litigated, and otherwise taken care of.
edition of amicus a law review we're going to focus on the continuing work of those federal district court judges in many ways addressing the attempts by this administration to push back on fundamental
academic and administrative and most importantly constitutional legal principles that have guided and animated our nation for almost all of its 238 years.
We know as well that the federal district courts have done a lot of that in the past for the past 18 months.
They have continued to do it just this past week and I'm going to be highlighting for you
beginning in this hour, in just a few moments, the work of some eight, count them, eight different federal district court judges, everything from immigration processing to visas for skilled workers to national parks, all kinds of things out there that are animating the work of federal district court judges will explain to you what the issues are, what the resolution of them is, and why they're important, why it is important, not just with respect to the particular issues before those judges, although
They are big, they are significant, and they're not to be minimized in any way.
But it's also significant, of course, because of the work that federal district court judges do on a regular basis to ensure that our liberty, our due process, equal protection, all of those kinds of doctrines important to our lives and our livelihoods are upheld.
Federal district court judges, of course, are part of our judiciary.
The other two branches, the legislative branch, article one of the
Constitution, the executive branch, Article 2 of the Constitution, it's Article 3.
It's Article 3 of the Constitution, founding fathers, including people like James Madison and George Mason, probably placed it as Article 3 because they anticipated that it might be the weakest branch of the government, and yet we know in recent times not only our United States Supreme Court, but once again, Federal District Court, and yes,
also federal appellate courts around the country have been the big movers and shakers when it comes to defining
What really is policy and perspective and the ways in which our government works, the things that, as I've often advocated on this program, should be the responsibility of what?
That big white domed building just across the parking lot from the United States Supreme Court.
That's called the Capitol.
It's where the House of Representatives and the United States Senate meet.
They are our legislators.
And yes, indeed, in our Constitution, it's Article 1 because those of the folks who are going to be
representing us and deciding what policy and practice should be.
Today, 2026, and probably for the near future, we have got an executive branch that is issuing executive orders, taking on many of the legislative responsibilities otherwise properly assigned to the Congress, and then courts that are in many ways upholding, upholding in some instances, the work of the executive branch, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court.
But at federal district court levels, the lowest court levels, the trial levels, as we will see.
once again in this broadcast.
They're the judges who are saying to the president, no, we're not gonna permit you to do this, not because they are animated by politics or partisan views, because these decisions are coming from judges appointed by...
Presidents who have been Republicans and Democrats alike, they do this because the Constitution requires it, that the laws require it, and they're the ones who are ensuring checks and balances continue in our nation, even as our executive branch attempts to push further in its responsibilities and candidly our legislative branch, with the exception of some big ticket items about which you know well, with the exception of those kinds of things, the legislative branch not doing what it is supposed to do under
the Constitution of the United States of America.
We're going to begin, however, our discussion with the Department of Justice, some big breaking news just late this past week, and it has to do with a thing called the Antitrust Division, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice.
In past broadcasts, we have talked at great length about the structure, the format, the organization of this huge thing called the United States Department of Justice, the only, the only federal agency
that has, as its name, an aspiration.
And so we have sometimes described for you, for example, the criminal division, the civil division, the tax division, the environmental and national resources division, the national security division, and indeed the antitrust division is among those many specific litigating divisions of the U.S.
Department of Justice, the lawyers who are responsible for specific kinds of cases, the antitrust division
Yes, indeed, for bringing civil cases in our federal courts that challenge decisions that have to do with antitrust and commerce and monopolies that may be out there.
The antitrust division is also responsible for putting its imprimatur, its stamp of approval, if requested, upon decisions for mergers of major companies in America.
And you have heard this.
You have seen this before in our nation's history.
It always comes from the Department of Justice.
sometimes from the administration generally, but generated initially from folks inside the antitrust division at the U.S.
Department of Justice.
They take a look at proposals to merge various companies and in the end render decisions about whether those things can and cannot go ahead.
Often very controversial, very, very much a subject of dispute among parties seeking to merge, seeking opposition to that from time to time as
well and in that category a major news of late this past week having to do with Paramount and Warner Brothers and you know what this story is all about the Justice Department announcing again through the Antitrust Division apparently having taken a good and long look at that we'll see down the road announced that it is not not going to challenge Paramount's merger its proposal to join with Warner Brothers Discovery it clears a major hurdle not all of them
but a major hurdle for what's called a $111 billion arrangement, a $111 billion deal.
The merger, the merger as being reported, would consolidate the ownership of these two major movie studios, and you know them well, two major streaming services, Paramount Plus and HBO Max, two television news networks, CNN, CBS News, all under the leadership of
Tech leader David Ellison.
And his name is important.
You will hear a lot about him if you haven't already in recent days.
The upshot of all of that information that reporting about this decision from the Antitrust Division is that this is huge.
It is arguably if not the largest merger or at least movement toward a merger in recent times.
The scale of that cannot be overstated and yet it's raised concerns for that very purpose about reducing the number of buyers for TV and movie scripts.
potential employers for actors and crew members, maybe driving down wages, the prices for creative material, all kinds of things related to this creative enterprise involving these kinds of movies and other public materials out there in the domain.
The Justice Department blocked a publishing deal in 2022 over similar concerns about reducing the market, having an impact upon employment.
It is somewhat unusual.
for the Department of Justice, although not unknown, for it to announce this decision in the way that the Antitrust Division did just this past week.
It said its investigation of this proposal, this deal once again to join Paramount and Warner Brothers, has included, as the department said, hours of depositions, those obviously examinations under oath of people, presumably who know what they're talking about, interviews and meetings, and this quoted from the release, that all led to the same conclusion that the film and television
industry is highly dynamic and the proposed transaction is not likely to harm competition or American consumers.
That's what the Department of Justice said in announcing that it will not be opposing all of this.
This statement obviously could
a plainly held paramount fight any future challenges.
And yes, they are still out there.
Some state attorneys general have pledged to take a hard look at this.
And yes, the question is, do state attorneys general have some authority?
Well, they sure do.
They should, depending upon the allocations of power to them.
And other antitrust issues are also arising in the wake of this announcement.
When we come back, I'll tell you more about those.
And then we're going to visit.
We're going to visit the federal district courts around the country here on Amicus.
Law Review.
Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel, along with my terrific producer, Erin.
We are here in the studios in Madison, Wisconsin, of Civic Media, and we are, as always, taking your phone calls, your comments, your questions about anything on our ambitious but achievable agenda, that phone number is 855-752-4842.
Be a part of our discussion.
Be a part of our examination of these major issues, including as we begin this hour,
This major news announcing that the Justice Department in a rule of law decision has cleared the way for Paramount and Warner Brothers to merge.
It's not completely over.
As I said before the break, an awful lot of attorneys general may also be taking a look at this and deciding whether to put their imprimatur on this as well.
And an antitrust regular in Britain said this week that it would also launch its own investigation of the deal, underscoring the...
cosmic impact of all of this, once again, two major studios, two streaming services, Paramount Plus, HBO Max, two television news networks, CNN and CBS News, all under the leadership now of this fellow named David Ellison.
That's significant because President Trump's ties to Ellison and his father, who founded Oracle a number of years ago,
That's drawn some awful lot of criticism, even as this Paramount deal for Warner Brothers has preceded Larry Ellison undeniably in public settings and in others very friendly with the president and has presided over a number of events.
The administration has been on the receiving end of some pressure from Larry Ellison to accomplish this.
In April, as the Justice Department was reviewing this deal, Paramount hosted a dinner for the
of honoring the Trump White House where Donald Trump and David Ellison sat at the same table.
And why is that important?
That's important because once again, even packaged inside this deal is this continuing concern about yet another theme that we've often had on this broadcast, which is the breakdown of the wall that previously existed under Republican and Democratic administrations.
That wall that says that the Department of Justice should operate in
independent of the White House should make independent decisions about who to prosecute, what civil litigation should proceed, what kinds of decisions, for example, out of the antitrust division should be decided and how those should be decided.
All of that erased during the course of the past 18 months or so, a bit of that during the first Trump administration as well.
And we see perhaps that this decision by the antitrust division may have been influenced
Grammatically directly by a president who has said I want this to happen and it does that is not good for America putting aside whether or not the Decision is right or wrong the process the process is all important to and so that's the reason why This case is a rule of law decision It is a rule of law issue and Americans should be focused on it as always we appreciate the callers and we've got a
and Kristen is calling in from Waukesha.
Kristen, glad to have you with me this weekend.
Good morning, Jim.
Good to hear you.
This Paramount thing really bothers me, and I just... I can't believe that anyone could reasonably look at this and say it's not a monopoly building.
How can you...
How can one company control two major news networks?
And we're supposed to think they're going to operate completely independently and without getting some kind of rules down from on high.
I just don't think any reasonable person believes that.
So, when you say it's not actually over yet, I mean, I'm so sick of this being so transparently corrupt.
So, what next?
maybe actors' guild or something, Sue, and say this is going to affect us negatively in our jobs, or who has standing in something like this?
Right, I think your question and comments, Christian, as always, focused and exactly on the right issues here.
Again, in addition to, there's some folks overseas that may be taking a look at this, and again, questions about authority due to just that.
The prospect of attorneys general doing this, again, state attorneys general saying, well, with respect to the people in my state,
This is going to have a dramatic impact.
And I think, Kristen, you identified perhaps the major issue that's still out there.
All these people who are affected, potential employers, actors, crew members, their wages are going to be affected, prices for the creative material itself, all those creative things about which I myself know very little.
And because this broke so late just this past week, it's entirely possible that we could see precisely the kinds of litigation, the cases that you're talking about as this goes forward.
It is not done.
It is moved forward in a major way by virtue of this stamp given to it, again, according to the Department of Justice, after long hours of depositions.
But this is the kind of thing that's going to remain in the public domain for a while, especially as the public responds to this.
And any time you indicated, obviously, the notion of monopolies and reducing commerce generally out there, bringing all this together, CNN,
and CBS News together, Paramount, HBO Max together, all of these kinds of things, the streaming services, reducing the opportunities out there.
It is a very significant, yes, corporation move and commercial move and creative move, but it's also raising, again, these issues about how this happens.
And I think that's your principal point, Kristen.
I appreciate so much the call and the question, and I suspect that we'll be looking at all of this as Americans down the road as well.
appreciate, Kristen, you're being a part of our broadcast this morning.
Good as always to have you calling in and voicing those good and thoughtful views.
Let us move from the Department of Justice, although actually not.
We'll move from the Department of Justice venue itself there on 9th and Constitution, 9th and Pennsylvania, into various federal district court judges, chambers and courtrooms around the country.
I've got as many as eight of those coming up here on Amicus Halla review, including two that are visiting issues of past weeks.
The notion that judges are saying, nope, I mean what I say and I say what I mean.
We'll talk about at least a couple of those right after this as Amicus Halla review.
Continues.
My name is Jim Santel, and this is Amicus, a law review on the broadcast stations of civic media.
As you know, you can be a part of our discussion.
Call in.
Call in to Erin and me at 855-752-4842.
Be a part of our discussion that now includes federal district court judges.
You know the theme.
It is that these judges out there, federal judges, lifetime tenure.
They're the trial court judges.
They make findings in the first impression on a great variety of cases.
We're going to revisit something that was said just last week.
by a federal district court judge.
Her name is Leone Brinkma, B-R-I-N-K-E-M-A.
You may recall that she was the judge who last week basically said that she is likely
going to bar the Trump administration from going ahead with its $1.8 billion fund, she effectively said that and did that, but it was happening at the same time that the administration at least was indicating, not without clarity, that the whole program would be going away.
And so what has happened is that in the wake of the uncertainty,
articulated by the President, by the Attorney General, but whether or not this $1.8 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund
Is it alive?
Is it dead?
What is its status?
This federal judge late this past week formally issues a preliminary injunction stopping the administration saying, nope, you can't go ahead with this until further notice from setting up this $1.8 billion fund again to compensate those people who maintain that they have been unfairly prosecuted by the government.
And the judge, Judge Brinkma says she's got to do this because of some mixed messages that have been coming out from the administration, even since the time of her initial reporting and her decision on all of this.
The ruling, again, the strongest effort to date by anyone in government to hold the administration to its word.
on this whole proposal to create the fund.
Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general at the time that it was announced now, now again, still in that position, but facing a confirmation hearing, told Congress last week that the fund would not move forward, but significantly also said that he's not willing to put that in writing.
That causes concerns, does it not?
When the chief lawyer, the chief federal law enforcement officer, the department of justice says, I'll tell you that, but I won't commit to it in.
writing.
And Donald Trump himself has been much more circumspect.
He insists that he still loves the idea.
He says that routinely believes that people who suffered in court at the hands of the government should get financial compensation.
And so you've got Judge Brinkma after last week saying, well, if this is done, all right, you know, we're going with this.
She seizes on all these statements during a hearing in the federal district court.
She is in Alexandria, Virginia, just across the Potomac River from Washington, DC.
And she said,
that it appears to her that there is still the possibility that this whole thing could be brought back to life, despite the acting attorney general's promises and assertions orally that this is all done.
She says this, we just don't have the absolute certainty that this fund won't rear its head in another form.
She did, however, give the administration a bit of a way out.
She said that she would consider rescinding her order if within one week, you got one week.
Administration if the Justice Department sends to her file with her in the district court They're a declaration.
That's a written document filed under the penalty of perjury This is a judge who plainly does not trust the Department of Justice anymore if you file this it's got to be under the penalty of perjury You swear that this is the truth that the fund is a dead thing and Once and for all it is over.
She told Andrew Block who's a department lawyer who appeared in court for the government in front of her
that that declaration, that written document needs to be signed by whom, by the Attorney General himself, Mr. Blanche, and Scott Besant, who, of course, is the Treasury Secretary.
I've got to have two cabinet officers swearing under oath that this thing is dead.
It extends, once again, her temporary pause that she sort of put in place last week at the encouragement, again, of a number of petitioners who said this thing is unconscious.
institutional, it's illegal, it is unethical.
We've talked a lot about that.
And it is significant to note that all of this comes as well after a federal judge and another one in Washington, his name is Richard Leon.
We've talked about him before.
He refused to issue his own order, putting the fund on hold.
Judge Leon took the Justice Department and its word said, I will trust you that the plan has been shelved, but still warned that the administration
Don't play games with me, he said, by pretending it is dead if it is not.
Don't play possum with this court.
So Judge Leon does not do the thing that Judge Brinkma does after she sees way too much indication of vacillation going back on its heel.
Judge Brinkma underscores those concerns by reading aloud a passage about payments being made to the rioters of January 6.
Apparently these appeared in a brief criticizing the fund.
That was submitted to her last week by two senators, Cory Booker from New Jersey and Bill Cassidy from Louisiana.
The scheme, according to this information, deliberately is designed to recast insurrectionists, including those who perpetrated violence against law enforcement officers as victims and legitimate prosecutions as persecution does not rewrite history.
The judge is reading that from the bench.
She says it creates incentives for similar conduct in the future.
with the explicit encouragement of the officials responsible for administering justice.
The nonprofit group that brought the case on behalf of five different people, five different clients, among them was a former federal prosecutor who was fired after working on those January six cases.
They asserted that they had been wronged by the Department of Justice, by the Trump administration, and would be prevented, however, from filing claims under this fund because
because it was designed to compensate people alleging harm by democratic administrations.
Judge Brinkman made clear late this week that her order applied only to the compensation fund itself, putting the government to its proof and focusing on this notion that the Attorney General and the Treasury Secretary have got to tell her in writing under oath that it's dead.
Significantly, it does not include this particular peculiar tax provision.
She noted that the entire settlement deal, including both the fund and those IRS protections that have previously been given unilaterally, also almost certainly illegal, unconstitutional, granting some sort of freedom, some free pass to the president and his family and his companies for tax audits, tax liabilities, present, past and future.
She said that was being scrutinized as an act of fraud by federal judge, Kathleen Williams.
We've talked about her before.
She happens to be in South Florida.
and you recall that she's the one who's presiding over that IRS suit and she is determined that she needs to have the attorneys come in and talk with her more about the basis for the dismissal of that lawsuit when she closed it based upon their initial representation she noted that there was no settlement of record and shortly after that the Justice Department released its own agreement
The judge down there, this is Judge Williams, effectively has said, I'm opening this file again.
And as a part of her inquiry, she said that she is concerned about the dismissal of that case.
Recall this being premised on deception.
Whether it should be formally reopened because she was the victim, she being the judge, the victim of fraud.
There is a lot going on here, but you've got at least two federal district court judges, arguably three there, who are still on top of this, even in
in the wake of what is perhaps maybe sort of kind of the administration saying that the fund is dead, they want certainty and they're going to insist upon it.
That's what Judge Brinkham and the others have done just this past week.
Yet another instance of the rule of law in action, judges holding this administration accountable for its conduct in our nation.
Let's talk about another case.
This one having to do with asylum and immigration processing, also going back to
a previous order that was entered before by a federal district court judge.
We talked a lot about him.
His name, he comes from Rhode Island.
His name is John McConnell.
He had ruled that a policy having to do with processing, immigration processing, asylum processing was unlawful.
He said it's arbitrary, had left countless people, as he said, without work, without legal status, and without any meaningful ability to plan for their future.
He's looking at all this with respect to a case.
before him involving applicants from about 39 countries around the world.
And all of that, all of that prompts him to order that the USCIS, Customs Immigration Service, resume the immigration processing in this area.
Well, just this past week, again, a follow-up to that, the Trump administration is saying late this past week, after again, perhaps dragging its heels a bit on this, not completely embracing right away what the judge had said there.
Again, Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island said, okay, okay, finally, finally, and this is a good thing.
comply with that corridor to restart the processing asylum and all those other immigration applications were filed by a broad group of great numbers of people who had been left in basically some legal limbo as a result of what the administration has done.
And so that's the follow-up.
More than a million applications ground to a halt as a result of what the administration had done.
Apparently, apparently now at the urging, the insistent of
Judge John McConnell, like his colleagues in those other areas, telling the administration, you've got to go ahead and do this.
Stop your cessation of all of this.
Stop preventing many people from obtaining green cards, their citizenship status, immigration benefits.
The Holt had also disrupted people's ability to legally work here and basically left them waiting indefinitely for decisions on their applications.
All of this, all of this, apparently if the administration is to be
taken at its word now proceeding.
But why once again?
Because the federal district court judge here said, yes, I meant what I said and I said what I meant.
Do this now.
And it is one instance.
It is one instance where apparently we can take some small solace in the notion that this administration, this Department of Justice, this USCIS will follow the rule of law, will not further give us evidence of the declination, if not the destruction of the separate.
of powers and the rule of law in America, and will give some life to the notion that maybe, just maybe, there's a crack in the constitutional crisis that has been afoot for so many months after this administration has repeatedly said no to federal district court judges.
Here, here, it appears that maybe, just maybe, with respect to John McConnell in Rhode Island, the administration's saying, okay, we'll start again.
We'll do all these kinds of things that affect people dramatically.
in that connection.
Let's talk about another judge, another judge who is not nearly as pleased, if you will, if that's what you can describe John McConnell as, not nearly as pleased with the Department of Justice.
In fact, fairly furious at the Department of Justice's efforts to ignore him, more evidence of the constitutional crisis at maybe a foot.
This is a federal district court judge in Florida appointed by Donald Trump for what that is worth.
His name is Kyle Dudek, D-U-D-U-D-E-K.
He was appointed just nine months ago, and he is seething at this administration in a new ruling.
He's accusing them of cooking up a flimsy excuse to bypass his own judgment in a case pending for him in favor of a career official within the administration itself.
The ruling itself, the whole case comes from an immigration detention case, involves an immigrant named Dmitry Lasterbov, who's a citizen who had been sitting in lockup without a proper hearing.
This is a common problem.
we have in this country, as you well know, you can be detained, but you've got to be afforded due process.
When the government doesn't do that, that's a violation of the Constitution.
And the Trump administration, with respect to this detention case, arguing that the administration's own appointed immigration judge, rather than a U.S.
District Court judge, should have the final word on the matter.
Judge Dudak writes that this case borders on the surreal.
These are his words.
And he says an immigration judge refused to hold the
ordered hearing, claiming Lastrobob is not covered under the statute and thus ineligible for bond instead of defending the court's mandate.
The government's counsel acquiesced in that refusal and waived any administrative appeal now faced with a renewed habeas petition.
The government casually announces that its previous concession was in error.
That's what the judge writes just this past week.
When you come back, we'll talk more about federal district court judges upholding the rule of law in America.
This is Amicus, a lot of you.
My name is Jim Santel in the studios of Civic Media here in beautiful Madison, Wisconsin.
talking this morning as we always do about those major rule of law issues in America, focusing on federal district court judges, many of which, many of whom are not particularly pleased with the Department of Justice, with the administration, even as they begrudgingly, that is, administration folks, move toward some measure of compliance, not the case with respect to a matter involving an immigrant, a detention case involving Dimitri Lasterba...
He's a non-citizen who's been sitting in lockup without a proper hearing for a long period of time.
Judge Kyle Dudek, he's a judge in Florida for what it's worth, appointed by this president about nine months ago.
He's very upset.
He talks about the government's position bordering on this surreal.
He says the government was right the first time should not have gone back on its heels and basically removed, rescinded its
previous position.
And he goes on to say, it's a request for a do-over.
This is the judge writing now.
A do-over is not just legally unsupportable.
It is a master class, he says, in litigation cynicism.
That's a federal district court judge talking about your Department of Justice.
He says, a federal court is not a testing lab.
where the executive branch can pilot a concession to get a case closed, stand by silently while its own administrative process flouts the resulting mandate, and then stroll back in demanding a clean slate.
He says that Laster Bob's right to a hearing has already been litigated in painstakingly detail.
He said that's in front of him.
And because the government has shown that it cannot follow this court's explicit directions and offers zero assurances that it will comply with the statutory process it previously championed, the immigrant here, Laster Bob, will be immediately released.
I'm gonna release him as a sanction for the governments.
inappropriate behavior, the court of course responding.
not happy at all about the way in which your Department of Justice it's not it's fair to say that he is furious about the conduct here and directing as a remedy that because there has not been compliance with what he said which is simple due process tell him what he's been charged with and give him a hearing the judge was not finding that he is not deportable but simply that because you haven't given him that due process or the Constitution you have to do that and instead this Department of Justice
Refuses to do so and eventually the judge says don't go back to your own immigration attorneys We're into the direction of the attorney general do what I say and if you don't do that This is the remedy and the immigrant is released as a result of this bad behavior unethical behavior misconduct of Department of Justice attorneys this time in front of this federal district court judge in Florida Let's talk about something in that same category having to do again with
Immigration broadly speaking this happens to come from the courtroom and the bench of Judge Leo Sorokin.
He is in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts SOROKIN We have spoken about him in the past and he says this past week once again that the administration is wrong can't do this Stop it when it comes to the things you've been putting in place with respect to visas for skilled workers.
What does Judge Sorokin say?
He tells the Trump administration
that its effort, its initiative, its program to impose $100,000 fees on employers seeking visas for skilled foreign workers.
Amounts, according to the judge, to an unlawful tax on those companies has to be void in its entirety.
It is done, cannot do this.
He issues a 42-page opinion.
He acknowledged that the policy imposed in September appeared to step on Congress's
exclusive power, those are his words, to levy taxes under the Constitution.
He dismisses what your Department of Justice has been arguing in front of him, that the fee was a regulatory payment, some linguistic gymnastics going on there, that would have been within the executive branch's power to set and the government maintaining it's not a tax.
The judge writes this, we get a little bit of Latin here as well, this is mere ipsy dixit.
IPSE, new word, D-I-X-I-T.
He defines that, of course, that's something being offered without evidence.
Ipsy Dixit, that's your Latin, that's your legal term for this weekend.
He says, defendants offer no definition for what constitutes a regulatory payment, although that's the basis for their argument.
They cite no cases, the judge says, or statutes employing that term and advance no reasoned argument, explaining how this term encompasses something
different than a tax or penalty.
The judge goes on to write that this whole rule was hastily formulated with no formal process, a request for public opinion, which is required under the thing called the APA, the Administrative Procedures Act, despite what plainly was going to be broad opposition.
to this rule across huge numbers of industries that make our country go and that relied upon these visa programs to fill critical needs in fairness, which is difficult to do in this situation.
The administration argued in its filings that this thing called the H-1B program, you've heard a lot about that, has been deliberately exploited, the administration maintained, to replace rather than supplement American workers who are often mispaid in this instance.
85,000 new visas have been provided annually to hire these so-called high-skilled foreign workers at companies throughout a lottery process in this program.
and finance and hospitals.
Universities have all made ample use of these visas that, again, promote the commerce, the livelihood of our nation in all of these highly skilled areas.
Variety of companies have said the fee would be prohibitively expensive.
They couldn't do their job if, in fact, it goes forward.
In particular, true, of course, for smaller companies, nonprofit groups you can well imagine, too.
They rely, what?
They rely on hiring workers from abroad.
A coalition about 20 states sued to end this policy.
in December of last year.
They, of course, are arguing that it was certain to exacerbate shortages of skilled workers in areas like teaching and academic research and medical workers, those kinds of things.
And as a result of all of that, all of that, again, just this past week, the judge throwing out this policy imposing $100,000 fees for skilled worker visas.
That happened in America as we continue in our second hour more from federal district court judges.
in our
nation.
Civic Media's weekly review and discussion of some of the most significant news stories in the areas of law, government, courts, and the aspiration for justice.
And now, here's your host, Jim Santel.
This is the second hour of our broadcast.
And we'll see at the top of this hour that we've got a major important news item to talk about has to do with the future of this particular broadcast.
I'll tell you more about some good things coming up down the road when it comes to Amicus a lot of you at the very end of this hour.
So stay tuned for just that right now.
We're continuing to talk all about federal district court judges in our first hour.
Among others spoke about this judge named
on it, Brinkma, B-R-I-N-K-E-M-A, who has said, I need clarity on the notion that this fund, the so-called anti-weaponization fund, is completely dead, that it won't be going forward.
And in that connection, we do have another caller into our broadcast, and Mark, we're glad to have you with us from Prairie Due Sack.
Your comment, I believe, about the future of this fund, or someone who might be making an application to it.
Mark, thanks for calling in.
My guess is that Jim Trupas, who just applied for a change of venue in his case, his involvement in the fake collector's conspiracy, would probably be applying for that fund as well.
That it's kind of ironic that he says, well, part of the case should be thrown out again.
He's got to draw Trump pardoned him.
Well, the fact is that Trupas was involved in the fake collector conspiracy, won the engineers of it.
You know, one of my beefs is that we should know each and every person that was involved in
that.
All the enablers, including Scott Fitzgerald, who arranged room for the fake collectors to meet.
But it's just, you know, all the others, you know, me, perhaps Tom, if did the entire Wisconsin Republican delegation know that this thing was going on, the delay was going to happen with that insurrection.
And Mark, your good comments again underscore the notion that boy, as long as this fund is still out there, as long as there's this notion that the judge is trying to nail down, you may still have these recurring conversations about things as you have accurately noted this history here in the state of Wisconsin.
Right here, just frankly, within a walking distance of where we are right now here at the studios of civic media may have happened and
almost certainly did happen to try to undermine our election.
The fact that we are still talking about this and that this fund is an attempt perhaps to place some monies back in the hands of people who feel that they've been inappropriately prosecuted, they have not been.
It is a great concern.
Mark, I appreciate the comment and the inquiry, and we'll certainly continue to monitor what's going on with respect to the fund, to the larger issues.
around the country, but also plainly here in the state of Wisconsin, Mark, as you have just done so very well.
Let's continue to talk about federal district court judges.
Here's another one, another one who has decided that something that the administration has done that you've heard a lot about in the past 18 months cannot continue.
This is a judge.
She is in the district court of Massachusetts.
She's a federal judge.
Her name is Angel Kelly, K-E-L-L-E-Y.
She has temporarily blocked the national
National Park Service from removing or revising signs and films and any other materials at national parks across the country to comply with a directive from President Trump.
The ruling pauses.
It says, nope, can't do this anymore.
The enforcement of Trump's executive order, recall this a number of months ago, that called for removing or covering up materials in national parks that, according to the president, inappropriately disparate
Americans or cast the United States in a negative light.
And of course, code words for not wanting to disclose some of the darker and more uncomfortable portions of our own history.
We all know that that's the reason why we do these things, which is to grow from them, to understand them, to appreciate our history as a way of making certain that we do not repeat that.
But knowledge itself about our past is appropriate.
President, by his executive order, plainly attempting to cover up that knowledge to prevent the
Exposure in our national parks.
The ruling again from Angel Kelly says no more.
We're not going to continue to comply with that directive.
Provides a temporary reprieve for the plaintiffs.
In this case, there are a coalition of advocacy groups that sued over this executive order way back in February.
To comply with the president's directive, the park service has now taken down plaques about slavery at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia.
I suspect many of you have visited
that very site.
They have taken down a sign about climate change at Fort Sumter in South Carolina and a sign about indigenous people at the Acadia National Park in Maine.
The federal judge has already ordered the park service not to make further changes to the slavery exhibit at the president's house site at Independence National Historic Park.
And Judge Kelly, again, sharply rebuke the Trump administration for taking down these materials.
She said, not only does this undermine the integrity of the national parks, it sets a dangerous precedent of censorship and sanitization in our national park.
She wrote a 63 page ruling.
She lists examples, some of them I've just recited, of national parks that help educate people about difficult, difficult periods.
of American history.
And those also include the significant contributions made by people of color who are transgender, gay figures, women, other marginalized groups, all of the people a part of our nation's history.
And in particular, the judge writes this.
She says, from the echoes of abolition in John Brown's Fort in Harper's Ferry, to the genesis of the modern LGBTQ plus civil rights movement at the Stonewall National Monument, to the retreat
Reading Ice of Glacier National Park in Alaska, the National Parks preserve the multi-faceted and multi-layered history of our nation, including the good, the bad, and the ugly.
That's the judge.
That's Judge Kelly writing this.
The plaintiffs themselves petitioning successfully in front of Judge Kelly had been arguing that removing these materials is arbitrary and capricious in violation.
Second time we mentioned in this broadcast of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that before you do these things, you've got to get hearings, you've got to get notice to people, have it have an opportunity for comment.
They also accused the Park Service of exceeding their legal authority.
And as a result of all of that, again, a directive, a directive to take this down.
The administration through the interior department that is in charge, of course, our national parks has said that they will probably be appealing that ruling stunningly.
and so this matter also not done but again late this past week yet another federal district court judge saying to this administration stop the removal of these things that educate that force us to appreciate our history whatever it may be and ensure that future generations in addition to the present generation know about american history
Don't stop that from going forward, Mr. President.
District Court Judge Angel Kelly, another of the federal trial judges enforcing the rule of law, a safeguard against the kind of abuses that we have seen recently.
Here's an interesting case that we have not spoken about before.
The federal district court judge here, his name is Mark Walker, WLKER.
He is in Tallahassee, Florida.
And in this particular case, he finds that a campus Republican
group, a group of students Republican affiliated at the University of Florida within the jurisdiction of the court there, had failed to prove to establish that the school had violated its First Amendment rights when it banned that organization after that organization had exhibited some anti-Semitic behaviors.
The federal district court judge once again, his name is Mark Walker, said there was insufficient evidence to show that the group's
constitutional rights had been violated, the First Amendment, free speech, and so he dismissed the College Republicans lawsuit against the university.
The university had blocked the group at the University of Florida College Republicans in March amid a social media uproar there over a photo, a photo that was circulated online showing two people giving a Nazi salute.
Members of the group denied that involvement.
The organization nonetheless had been accused of anti-Semitic behavior, racist behavior, and the University of Florida deciding, no, we cannot have that.
The college Republicans suing the university and the judge now saying insufficient evidence to say that there's been a violation of the First Amendment, the case is dismissed, and it goes away.
no further First Amendment challenge there.
And the case now no longer on Judge Kelley's, Judge Walker's docket there in Florida.
And yet, let us look at yet another federal judge, another federal judge who has become also a part of our routine discussion here on our broadcast.
This is US District Judge Mary McElroy, M-C-E-L-R-O-Y.
And she has before her a petition
a civil lawsuit in which the Department of Justice sought the names, the social security numbers, the addresses, medical histories of transgender minors.
And the Department of Justice, obviously representing the administration, claimed that doctors off-label prescriptions justified that demand for that information.
and after apparently some initial negotiations with the hospital, the Department of Justice attorneys filed in the Northern District of Texas without notifying parties in another jurisdiction in Rhode Island where Judge Reed O'Connor quickly enforced the subpoena.
A lot going on here, a lot to reveal, a lot to unpack.
McElroy, what you need to know here is Judge McElroy later found out about the Department of Justice misrepresenting
representations in Texas, she finds those misleading about what's happened in those other districts, and she noted that they omitted existing anonymization agreements with other hospitals.
And she is not happy about that.
And as a result, Judge McElroy referred Department of Justice attorneys based upon the things that they misrepresented to about all of this to a disciplinary committee.
Finding, she has said, that they engaged in misconduct regarding this dispute over subpoenas for the transgender minors' medical records at a Rhode Island hospital.
The referral, again, to this disciplinary committee, follows a ruling back in May that the department, here we go once again, had acted in bad faith, misrepresented facts to multiple courts, all of those I've just described, in that cacophony of cases in and out of our federal judiciary, and also the judge finds that the attorneys have violated ethical duties.
McElroy had invoked a local rule to Tanbi to justify that, and she says this.
She criticizes the senior department of justice attorneys for allowing an inexperienced junior lawyer to field questions about all of this going on there and in these other states.
And she talks also about serious procedural violations.
The Blench language includes this.
It's a rare, but it's a public collapse.
She says in judicial trust toward federal prosecutors, she says this in particular, the discrepancy between the honorable conduct expected of federal prosecutors.
The Department of Justice's tactics, in this case, is unsettling.
Once again, a federal district court judge talking about the decision by the Department of Justice not to be forthright in federal courts.
The judge goes on, this court cannot help but share the sentiment that the presumption of regularity
that has previously been extended to the Department of Justice, that it could be taken at its word that you can rely upon what the Department of Justice lawyers say, and if they don't know, they'll get you the proper answer.
That's no longer there.
She said, with little doubt about its intentions and its stated purposes, that's the presumption of regularity.
She said all of that no longer holds.
It is regrettable.
She says that this is now the case.
And again, McElroy's findings add to this pattern of judicial pushback against what the Department of Justice is doing in these and other cases reported on in this edition and in prior editions of Amicus, a law review.
When we come back, yet another federal district court judge, we've talked about what he has done with respect to an investigation.
That coming up here on Amicus, a law review.
My name is Jim Santel, this is Amica Salar Review, and yes, we're doing an extensive review of federal district court judges and what they are doing across our land to promote the rule of law.
and fundamental notions of justice in our nation.
Let's talk about yet another one.
We've talked about him a lot in previous editions of Amicus.
His name is James Bosberg.
He was that judge who has been involved in lots of disputes involving this administration.
You may recall that most recently, among those many cases on his docket, he is in the District of Columbia.
He had previously found that that so-called investigation of now former Federal Reserve Chief Jerome Powell was unsupported, and he had quashed.
He had thrown out some subpoenas issued by the U.S.
Attorney's Office there in Washington, D.C., seeking to investigate supposedly, apparently,
a case of perjury by the now former chair of the Fed before the Congress having to do with that renovation of the building there.
It's all very circuitous.
It's all ridiculous.
It was all frivolous.
And the judge found that.
And he quashed those subpoenas a while back.
Well, believe it or not, the Department of Justice not satisfied by simply going away.
The Department of Justice deciding not to appeal that decision, which tells you a lot in and of itself,
But Judge Bosberg now presented Justice past week with a request from the Department of Justice basically to wipe his order, quashing those subpoenas off the records, remove it so it can't be used as precedent, no longer a part of the official records of the federal judiciary.
In other words, get rid of our bad behavior here from the annals of history.
The U.S.
District Judge, again, James Bosberg, denies that request to vacate his March order that quash those subpoenas.
says no, these are going to continue to remain in the public domain.
Regarding all of this, the government, the world should know about what you try to do.
Bosberg finding the government's justification for the subpoenas were mere pretexts, were meant to harass Powell, pressure him to carry out the president's economic policies.
All of those things are part of the record in this matter.
The government
ultimately opted to close the investigation to go away and sure enough it led ultimately to the
final vote by the United States Senate on the new chair.
His name is Kevin Warsh.
The case of all of this, the subpoenas is apparently turned over to the inspector general to review some cost overruns.
That's where it should be.
But following the determination of this investigation, the federal department of justice asked the judge to basically wipe out his previous order.
Boseberg pointed out that the Justice Department opted not to appeal and he added
that even with the investigation purportedly closed now, no further going ahead on this frivolous matter from the start, the government had been adamant that it may reopen it.
And indeed, the U.S.
attorney there, Jeanine Pirro, had said that, well, I might reconsider this.
That suggests that the March ruling from this judge was not moot.
The judge goes on to write, instead of appealing, the government closed its investigation.
It now proposes a creative way to clear its loss from the books.
It asks this court to vacate the prior opinion and order that because any appeal challenging this court's decision would be dismissed as moot, get rid of everything.
the court will deny that motion."
Boseberg writes.
The judge also notes that if the Justice Department prevailed on its motion to vacate to get rid of all this in the records, then any party that lost a court case could choose to moot the matter, erase an unfavorable decision, and freeze the accumulation and refinement of precedents on which our legal system depends.
Yes, indeed, Judge Boseberg.
He adds that while his previous decision
will not like to create a binding precedent because it's so particular.
He nonetheless says, the reasoning behind the ruling still offers a public good, public good.
Those are his words.
Indeed, that's what animates all of these federal district court judges as they go forward, including now James Bosberg saying, no, Department of Justice, I'm not gonna wipe from the books the history of what you tried to do in this case.
It stays there on the docket.
And finally, let's talk about something else that has percolated up
Washington DC much in the news even this weekend and that of course is the removal the apparent removal of the name of Donald Trump from the Kennedy Center apparently going on
even as we are broadcasting and continuing to monitor that situation, a 12-hour reprieve in the removal of those letters from the facade of the Kennedy Center.
We know well from our discussion last week that a federal district court had said, nope, that name of Donald Trump has got to come off the building.
It's a part of a congressional establishment of that, not only the building, but the institution, the Kennedy Center, created by Congress only the
Congress can change the name, that was what the federal district court judge had said, and ordered the removal of Donald Trump's name from that building, goes up to the Court of Appeals, a three judge panel just late this past week looks at the same thing and says, yes, the district court has it right.
There is no basis upon which this president, this administration can simply affix his name to the side of the building.
And finally, after going back and forth on this, after a sheath is covered in front of the building, apparently to prevent attempt.
van pictures of the removal of the name.
Apparently that name down from the Kennedy Center.
Finally, as a result of all of that, we know that the Congresswoman, her name is Joyce Beatty, who is on the board there, who brought this lawsuit seeking to vindicate not only the congressional purpose, but also the point of all this.
She is there at the Kennedy Center watching the removal of this.
But there's also collateral impact, not just the holes in the building, quite literally and physically, which presumably can be repaired.
not only the disruption of all of this and the inconvenience, the sending all of this in a direction that should never have happened in the first place, but there's a huge economic consequence of all of this and the President's decision to take over.
Here's one of them, that the Washington National Opera, which recently severed its long-standing relationship with the Kennedy Center because of the things that this President was bringing to that institution, it has done what?
It's filed a lawsuit.
asking for $17 million from the Kennedy Center that the opera company estimates its own, its own.
The suit says that the opera company struck out on its own and had to find alternative places to perform.
Indeed, they did that.
When we come back, I'll tell you more about that.
And then also down the street, back at the United States Supreme Court, as the broadcast continues.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is Amica Salaro, viewer spending most of our broadcast this weekend talking all about federal district court judges.
And yes, appeals court that just recently affirmed a lower federal district court in Washington DC and said that Donald Trump's name, the name of our president needs to come off of the facade.
the eastern facade of the Kennedy Center because it is a creation of Congress and the president cannot unilaterally as the chief executive place his name on it.
That order apparently now being followed by this administration as his name comes off.
that important building in Washington DC right there in the shores of Potomac.
But as I was indicating before the break, not without its consequences to the arts in America, the president causing an awful lot of disruption as a result of his takeover of that location, including to the Washington National Opera that had used the opera house for many, many years.
The opera house now suing to collect $17 million from the Kennedy Center as a result of its having
to find other venues to locate its performances in.
The season now beginning, this fall includes a new production of Puccini's Madame Butterfly.
That's gonna be at the D.A.R.
Constitutional Hall, not too far from the Kennedy Center.
John Adams Nixon in China, that also being produced elsewhere, all sorts of other things by other companies, other artists finding other venues, not there.
to do their important cultural, artistic work, their creative efforts, and their initiatives, including the opera company, suing for $17 million.
The opera company left the center in January.
That is because, of course, along with many other artists and donors, very dissatisfied with not only the mission and the purpose, the administration of the Kennedy Center by a Trump-installed board.
And all of that, all of that resulting in a huge disruption.
The removal of the president's name does not bring an end to all of that.
The disruption continues.
The opera lawsuit just underscores the impact of these unilateral, unjustified, illegal decisions by this administration consequences far beyond the photographs that we will see soon of a Kennedy Center now with the removed name of our current president.
Let us talk now about the United States Supreme Court and what is going on or what is not going on at the United States Supreme Court.
Again, at the other end of the mall, if you will, of the Washington, D.C.
area there in Washington, D.C.
By my calculation, the United States Supreme Court has about 23 count them, 23 more cases to decide, typically as you know from our previous broadcasts and previous discussions that you have had, and your own exposure to Supreme Court work and mission.
Supreme Court tends to announce all of its major decisions by somewhere around the 4th of July.
And there are about 15 business days between now and then, about three weeks between the time
of the Supreme Court's resumption of its work.
this coming Monday and the entry into the 4th of July holiday.
Again, about 15 days from now, 23 cases to decide by my count.
So what is still on the docket?
Well, before we get to that, let's talk about three cases that it did decide very briefly this past week.
It decided a bankruptcy case and determined in particular that the bankruptcy courts have to assess the totality of circumstances when they're issuing orders and determining things related to a debtor's
to disclose a legal claim.
What are the circumstances of that?
If a debtor coming to bankruptcy court inadvertently or purposely.
fails to disclose some information.
The court has to assess all the circumstances in determining whether or not some sanctions should issue how that should impact a bankruptcy case.
There was another SEC case involving whether the Investment Company Act, section 47B of that particular congressional act, finding that it does not grant a private right of action, does not grant individuals in the community generally the right to bring lawsuits, that enforcement
under the Investment Company Act by the SEC is SEC-centric, and that only the Securities and Exchange Commission can bring lawsuits under that particular statute, interestingly, Justice Kagan issuing her first solo dissent.
in that case, usually joined with two others on the court.
And finally, something I'm gonna do with criminal venue and the Supreme Court determining that defendants have to be tried, makes sense.
In the district where a record falsification occurred, a defendant charged with having made false statements, some materials, some records, some signatures on documents that are false.
The question is where does that lawsuit, that criminal prosecution take place?
It doesn't take place where the federal investigation
of that conduct could be pursued, but rather has to happen in the district where the record falsification occurred makes sense, a decision unanimous from the Supreme Court, which indicates once again that indeed all nine of them do from time to time agree with each other.
The question is, what are they doing right now?
And are they agreeing with each other or are they not?
Let's spend some time talking about what the Supreme Court still has on its extensive docket as we approach mid June of 2026.
You know what these cases are.
There's a huge case, of course, involving Donald Trump and his executive order having to do with birthright citizenship.
What does the 14th Amendment mean?
Way back in 1868 about who is a citizen appears the Supreme Court is not going.
to embrace the president's position on that and find the traditional view of the 14th Amendment.
That is, if you're born here, you're a citizen, but we're still waiting on that particular decision.
We've got two big guns cases pending before the Supreme Court.
They are very significant under plainly the Second Amendment.
Can the government make it a crime for habitual users of unlawful drugs to have a gun, or does that violate Second Amendment rights?
There's a Second Gun Rights case.
The court is deciding whether
Hawaii, California and three other states may forbid licensed gun owners from carrying a firearm into stores or private businesses that are otherwise open to the public unless they have express authorization to the owners having to do with concealed carry private
areas and public areas, two big gun cases coming out of the Supreme Court sometime soon.
We know about that transgender athlete case.
The court is going to rule on whether states can maintain separate sports teams based upon biological sex has a lot to do with Title IX protections, nationwide policies, a huge amount of focus here.
And can the president, can the president in this particular area, can the administration force states
It's to do various things.
specifically focusing on what those states can and cannot do with respect to women in women's sports and transgender women in women's sports.
There's an election law, at least one case, involving whether a Mississippi law allowing election officials to count mail-in ballots received up to five days after election day.
Is that legal?
What is election day all about?
President Trump has repeatedly railed against, as we know, those mail-in ballots despite himself
voting by mail himself.
And of course, striking down Mississippi's law, which is parallel in many other states, including Illinois, could have implications around the country for November and in future elections.
What is election day?
How do you count?
When do you count mail-in ballots?
There's also an issue related to a challenge having to do with
funding of political candidates there is a challenge that could chip away at the limits on the amount of money political parties can spend
In coordination with candidates, can political parties directly or indirectly supply monies for candidates?
A huge decision affecting, once again, money in campaigns, deportation and asylum.
The administration, again, has moved to strip protections from hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals as a part of its ongoing immigration crackdown.
The High Court entertaining argument about this notion of
eliminating temporary protective status.
We've talked about that.
It's called TPS.
For Haitian and Syrian residents and people presently in this country, that decision also could have broad implications for immigrants from other nations beyond Haiti and Syria.
The administration arguing there that ending TPS designations isn't subject to judicial review and the conservative leaning justices signaling some agreement during
in the course of that particular oral argument.
And again, the justices have a second case also deciding where the process of applying for asylum takes place.
Where do you go?
to seek asylum protections, where does that physically have to happen?
By law, non-citizens presently physically present in or who arrive in the United States may apply for the asylum.
The question in this case is whether the person stopped on the Mexican side of the southern border has officially arrived as a legal term in the United States.
The administration argues that they have not.
And perhaps in some of the biggest cases pending before the Supreme Court,
The question about...
the power of the Presidencies.
We've talked a lot about these particular cases, in one case involving the Federal Trade Commission and a former, now former member of the Board of Directors, a leader of the Federal Trade Commission named Rebecca Slaughter.
She is fired by the President based upon, not based upon cause, due process there, but based upon the notion he doesn't like her policies there, goes back to a 90 year old case called
Humphrey's executor.
which the Supreme Court said that the president does not have the authority to terminate FTC, Federal Trade Commission leaders, just because you don't like what they're doing.
That's Humphrey's executor.
And it appears that the Supreme Court is going to overturn Humphrey's executor, a 90-year president, and say that no, president has the authority, in this case, to terminate people like Rebecca Slaughter for, without cause, and based upon political views.
The Supreme Court also determined
whether or not the administration can fire a board member of the Federal Reserve.
This is Lisa Cook.
And interestingly, in this case, the Supreme Court may go in the opposite direction, apparently signaling that the Federal Reserve is somehow sacrosanct, unlike other federal independent agencies, which all these others appear to be, and saying that the administration does not have the capacity, apparently, to fire.
the Lisa Cooks of the world because you don't like who they are.
You don't like the fact that you've got some allegations against her involving mortgage fraud, unproved, untested, all of that pending before the Supreme Court.
Having to go, it's the big power decision.
Having to go to whether or not the executive can intrude into once again the purview of Congress and say that these congressionally established organizations meant to be independent of the administration.
Can the administration go in after
After all, this is the unitary executive theory brought alive.
And the notion is that the president, because of the way the executive branch works, does have the authority to terminate people that he or one day she does not like.
The question is whether that's consistent with the charges, the initial conversion of these cases into these authority matters.
And so big cases having to do with the power of the presidency that are probably among
the top decisions that the Supreme Court is going to be issuing.
It is no no secret that I believe that the single most significant decision as important as all of those are has already been issued.
It is this voting rights act in this case called Calais that basically brought section two of the voting rights act to its end finding that now now you can draw lines in states around the country including Louisiana and Tennessee other places South Carolina that are now using the decision
to redraw congressional elections, redraw lines for congressional elections, based not upon the best interests of the people, but based raw upon politics, which they could always do, but now eliminating, eliminating the focus on the impact that that line drawing may do to racial minorities and people of color.
Voting Rights Act Kalei, the most significant case, others still coming up.
in the remaining weeks and days of the Supreme Court term, when we come back, talking about Amicus, a law review, and the importance of what we do and the mission going forward when our broadcast continues.
This is Amica Salarview.
My name is Jim Santel.
This is the last segment of our broadcast and we're going to go to one of our callers calling in from Waukesha, Greg.
Glad to have you with me in our broadcast this weekend.
Hi, Jim.
It's great to talk to you.
I hope you end up staying around at Civic for a while because you are just great at what you do and
You are awesome.
And I consider each episode, I listen to each two hours of your broadcast, and I consider you just like my professor of law, just as I'm taking, which maybe makes Aaron Zomber the producer today, your TA.
Absolutely.
I just wanted to say, boy, we have some pretty, you know, the right has a lot of power right now, but we, you know, and unfortunately, you know, what you say about the Supreme Court, we can win it back though.
Right, absolutely.
It's about advocacy.
It's about supporting all those things in our government that are, in fact, upholding the rule of law.
We've talked a lot about the safeguards and the guardrails out there.
There are lots of them.
Grand juries are out there.
There are individual people inside government institutions who are continuing to push back on some of these things.
And the big one, of course, is the kinds of things you're talking about, Greg.
the public response to all of this so very important.
And Greg, I'm looking forward to chatting with you down the road as well, but I appreciate the call in to the broadcast this weekend as well.
We'll do more of this.
I'd also note along the way that Gene has also called in a routine listener and also expressed similar appreciation for the program and the things that we do here on Civic Media.
Greg, Gene and everyone else appreciate so much what you have said about the mission and purpose of our broadcast.
And that leads me to a significant announcement here at the end of this broadcast of Amicus Allar Review.
And that is that this is going to be, and this has been, this will be the final live broadcast of the broadcast of Amicus Allar Review.
And so we're no longer going to be taking live callers.
However, my association, my affiliation with civic media continues.
It is highly likely that at some point in the near future,
We're going to be returning in a stream yard type capacity, some digital platform so that the purpose and the function that Greg and Gene and others have talked about here on civic media will continue.
The content remains the same.
I'm not going anywhere.
We're going to be changing rather the format by which all of this information is conveyed.
And hopefully, hopefully that will be announced fairly soon.
You need to stay close to civic media.
Follow what the civic media leadership here is going to be.
doing and I'd like to say in that connection also a great thanks not only to my great producers like Aaron and Max and Greg and others but also the leadership not only here in Madison but throughout the state of civic media for giving me this great opportunity for these live live broadcasts that Greg and Gene and others have talked about this morning callers like Mark and many others over the course of the last four years or so who've been a part of this important mission it will continue I'm not going anywhere the notion
of doing this kind of education, focusing upon the operation of government, the rule of law, the administration of justice, that continues to be the mission.
The notion, the description of this is amicus allara view, that's going to remain a part of this.
What you do need to do to continue to follow me and follow the mission that together we're promoting here is to keep in touch with civic media about all this.
And I'd like to take the opportunity also to say that there are some other opportunities, even in the coming weeks.
for you to hear from me and engage in these kinds of issues.
I want to talk about something that Blue Sky Waukesha is doing, beginning this coming Monday.
We've done this for the past several years, a whole series of civics courses.
They're taking place at the Waukesha Unitarian Church in Waukesha County.
We begin on June 15th and June 25th with some focus on civil liberties and civil rights, the Bill of Rights, what it means today.
We're going to spend some time
I'm talking about the role of attorneys on July 9th, the ways in which state governments involve all of us in their work on July 20th.
On August 6th, the role and responsibilities of media.
And on the 13th of August, the future of congressional representation, a whole six element series of classes through Blue Sky Waukesha, they can go on the line and find out more of those there in Waukesha, those beginning fairly soon.
No charge for that.
This is a nonprofit.
It is an a part of a political.
non-partisan group that is sponsoring these civics classes, you can be a part of that routinely.
I should tell you as well that I am going to be doing some presentations on the Supreme Court, also open to the public, no registration required, Thursday, July 23rd, and then again Thursday, July 30th, at the Wauwatosa Public Library.
A couple of hours each night talking about the Supreme Court cases of this past term, very much invited those of you who are in the area, or if you're not, come down, spend some time with me.
in person there at the Wauwatosa Library.
That coming up, it has been a great privilege to speak to many other continuing learning institutions like OSHA at UWM, like LIRWC and Waukesha.
Great numbers of senior residential facilities at Clement Manor and St.
Camillus and St.
Johns.
All sorts of other locations, speaking opportunities around the community.
And I will continue to do that in the times ahead.
Once again, this is an important mission.
I believe it.
I believe the fact that you are tuning in every Saturday and every Sunday to hear these reports and the assessments of what's going on.
I believe that you believe that too.
That mission will go on, not just here, but for all of us in America.
I would note finally this, that on the front of the Department of Justice building are these words.
It says, before justice can exist in the conduct and the conscience of government, it must first reside in the hearts and the souls of its citizens.
for justice can exist in the conduct and the conscience of a government must first reside in the hearts and souls of its citizens.
That's you.
That's all of you.
It has been my great honor, my great privilege to be a part of this live broadcast.
I look forward to continuing this on a digital platform with all of you and involving you in the important work of being citizens in this great nation, residents of this great nation.
Have a good weekend, everybody.
