Judges, Justice, and the Rule of Law

So we've got this balance, if you will, of the Supreme Court giving the presidency, not just this president, but future presidents as well, a great deal more authority, and that's a huge, huge change in the way that government operates based upon this authority being given to the White House, but also in some important ways did push back on some of that.

We'll talk about more of those things in both directions in this broadcast, in this podcast.

and also in the future.

It is fair to say that along the way, as the president has indicated, that some of his own appointees disappointed him.

and he did some name-calling along the way.

He identified Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, again, the three nominees and appointees to the Supreme Court during the course of his term.

They often supplied some crucial votes to reject some of these presidential initiatives and some of the president's executive orders, and they joined some coalitions of the so-called liberal side of the court that included sometimes the chief justice and others on the court.

Trump has over the years criticized some of these members of the Supreme Court, including his own nominees.

and describe them from time to time as being disloyal.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, among others, has been a particular target of some of that criticism along with others with whom the president has been disappointed.

Amy Coney Barrett wrote that majority opinion, a five to four decision among others, a decisive vote that allowed some mailed in ballots to be counted after election day.

We'll talk about that down the road as well.

She also joined Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion sustaining birthright citizenship on constitutional grounds again.

That was an initiative that the president very much wanted to overturn and tried to do that during the course of his recent term in office.

After Justices Barrett and Gorsuch voted to reject the tariffs initiative, his work in that area, the president called them fools and lap dogs and embarrassment to their families.

And so one of the other big takeaways is that this president has identified these members of the

Supreme Court and others certainly including the three so-called liberals as being contrary to his interests and certainly they have been when it comes to making decisions with the president has not.

concurred.

Some other big trends we pull away from this Supreme Court.

Gun rights, the Supreme Court has issued two major second amendment cases and then also LGBTQIA protections, the waning of those during the course of this term.

With respect to the first of those, these second amendment issues, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot disarm, cannot disarm a gun owner who has an occasional

The use of marijuana described the fact that, yes, indeed others who might be habitual drug users.

can be prohibited from using and possessing weapons.

But in this particular case said, nope, you can't prohibit this particular marijuana user from holding a weapon.

And also said the state of Hawaii and presumably others as well cannot, cannot require people carrying guns to have explicit permission from the owners of private properties that is otherwise open to the public.

So think about gas stations and shopping malls, things like that.

Significantly though, in that case, does not prevent the property owners, the private property owners from posting on their doors, on their windows prohibitions about the carrying of weapons into those private but public invited properties, but simply that the people carrying those guns do not have to solicit the explicit permission

of those owners before entering those properties.

So two major gun cases also significant to note that the Supreme Court has also already indicated that it is as a part of its inhabiting and already stocking the coming docket of the 2026-2027 docket has already indicated it's going to weigh the constitutionality of some laws protecting AR-15 rifles, automatic rifles in America.

a huge case coming up in the guns area again next term.

We'll talk about all that in a future podcast as well.

In cases on gay and transgender rights.

The Supreme Court has, in this past term, handed what are called conservatives in America when it comes to those issues some big wins.

They ruled that Colorado's ban, like bans, including that in Wisconsin and other places around the country, on so-called conversion therapy, which again is a disregarded and disassociated from the medical community, attempt to change a minor's gender identity or sexual orientation.

through therapies largely discredited in the medical community.

They said that Colorado's ban on that through a particular statute violated a First Amendment right of a particular person there practicing in this area to engage in free speech.

It became a First Amendment case, but also, again, an LGBTQIA matter.

And they also said that states are free to bar transgender females from competing in girls

and women's school sports.

Another big LGBT case did not compel that, but said that legislatures can, in their discretion, if they choose to do so, can pass legislation that bars transgender female athletes from competing in girls and women's sports.

big cases in the areas of guns and also LGBT protections of this past term.

And finally, just generally an observation about the Chief Justice.

Based upon my review of the Supreme Court cases, including how the particular justice is voted in concurrences, in its sense, in majority opinions, minority opinions, it appears that Chief Justice Roberts, once again,

shows that he is in some version of control of the court when it comes to the ways in which the Supreme Court is deciding these major cases.

It is notable that he voted in majority more often than any of his colleagues in this past term, and he wrote the majority in nearly all, nearly every single one of the majority cases this term, including most recently that big decision blocking the president's birthright citizenship order,

And also that previous order in which the president had attempted to impose these sweeping tariffs, Supreme Court saying, nope, that is unconstitutional, only the Congress can do that.

In those cases, not only the Chief Justice leading the way in terms of articulating what that particular standard would be in each of those cases and how they should be resolved, but also apparently able to assemble some ideologically diverse coalitions with yes and conservative.

but also some liberal justices on the Supreme Court.

And that included, as I just indicated, some of those who are also a part of the president's nominee group from his first term in office.

So those are some big trends that I pull from the Supreme Court in its present.

Continuing term, note that the next term, the 2026-2027 term, does not begin for a number of months yet.

October 1 is when it will begin to hear new cases, including presumably that guns cases and many others.

It will also be the subject of the Supreme Court's decisions, including oral arguments and brief writing, brief solicitation, including amicus briefs that may be filed by parties who want to provide

information to the court that may not otherwise be available to it.

All of that coming up again in the coming term of the United States Supreme Court.

They are not going out of business.

We will hear more from them during the course of the summer months and early fall months.

But their major decisions of this past term are now concluded.

And again, just about 60 decisions, much available for you to review, both online and in other venues.

Go to your library and check those out as well.

You can go onto the Supreme Court website and pull down excerpts of and the complete opinions.

And some of them are very lengthy.

in all of these areas, you can also still hear the oral arguments virtually for all of these cases that the Chief Justice has posted on the Supreme Court website.

You can hear.

the Supreme Court justices engaging questions back and forth with the litigants and their attorneys who are petitioning for various forms of relief orally in front of the Supreme Court.

All that's available to you in addition to again on a weekly basis being a part of our process here as a part of our amicus mission to provide you with information and background and perspective that helps you to understand not only the Supreme Court but the world in which we live.

So let's get back to

To two of those major decisions of just this past term, those having to do with the capacity of the president to fire people in so-called agencies that are independent, so-called independent agencies as created by the United States Congress.

We have talked a lot about this.

There are two cases that seemingly go in different directions, as Amy Coney Barrett has very appropriately indicated, but we should also note

that all of these cases again subject to further consideration down the road.

This is Amicus, a lot of you on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

As always, my producer Max and I are delighted and we are honored that you have chosen to spend some time in discussion and exploration with us of some of those major events in the areas of rule of law administration, the operation of government and the delivery of justice in America and beyond.

My name is Jim Santel.

I am your host.

for this reincarnated and restyled version of our program.

Again, Amicus, a lot of you, you may recall well that a couple of weeks ago we concluded our sessions, our live broadcasts on the broadcast stations of Civic Media, and we are now returning to Civic Media.

Continuing this wonderful affiliation to provide you with information, perspective, understanding, and other information that may be helpful to you in understanding some of the major civics and government news events.

of our week.

This is a podcast format which means that you can access it as you would like during the course of your days and weeks and weekends and I'm delighted as always again to be affiliated with Civic Media in bringing this to you.

Well it means that we will not be having call-in listener comments and questions.

Those are always very much welcome through Civic Media and we can respond to those in future podcasts as well.

Our format will be just that.

And we're going to be a little bit more abbreviated than we normally are, which is about a 40 or 42 minute podcast session.

Looking forward to that, but also as always, bringing you the same content, the same substance, the same insight into all of these various issues.

We are going to be posting at least one, if not more of these podcasts every single week.

And also, also as a part of our newly expanded and reincarnated version,

of amicus, a law review, also providing you with some more limited, several minute.

two minute, three minute, four minute, five minute sessions as the news of the days and our weeks so dictate.

And so once again, delighted to be back with you through Civic Media and coming back into your homes, your businesses, talking about all of these important issues.

Let's go back and reaffirm where we get our name, which is Amicus, a lot of you.

We have spoken about this on routine occasions in the past.

And so many of you, if not all of you, certainly those of you who've been with us,

During the live broadcast, recall that an amicus is a friend.

a friend, an individual, an organization that is not a party to a legal case, but who is permitted by a court, by a tribunal of some court, to assist that court, that decider of facts, that render of judgments, to offer some information, some expertise, some insights and perspective that is a bearing on the issues in the case.

And so the phrase, while it's legal and it's Latin in nature, the origin itself goes way back to 1605 or 16...

the early trappings of what we think about as our Anglo-American legal system.

We take our name in this podcast, this broadcast from exactly that.

Attempting for the community to be your friend, not in terms of the way that you may be friends with your neighbor or others in your community, but friends provide that information and insight perspective that can help you form your own opinions and perspectives.

and also ask more questions about what is going on specifically once again in the areas of rule of law, administration of justice, and the operation of government.

It is significant that way back at the start of this concept of amicus in the law, Lord Justice of Appeal, a fellow named Cyril Salmon, said in a case called Allen versus Sir Alfred McElpine and Sons, he said, I've always understood that the role of an amicus is to help the court.

help the community, help the people by expounding the law impartially, or if one of the parties was unrepresented by advancing the legal arguments on his behalf.

That once again, on behalf of Cyril Salmon and his commission, at the time that this concept was first a part of our system, that is also what we are adopting here at Civil Media as a part of our service and your support, our education, and specifically our continuing engagement with you.

Thus it is that our

broadcast, our podcast continues as amicus and a law review and also continuing with our commission to bring you these important issues in the area of law and government and the administration of justice.

Our content remains the same, our format somewhat different and even enabling us as I indicated to do more things, more things responsive to what happens during the course of any particular week.

We so look forward to your continuation.

of the relationship between you, your family, your friends, your colleagues, and civic media as we continue to go down this important route and this important mission on your behalf of providing amicus information, friend of the court, friend of the community as a part of our mission.

We know that just this past week, the United States Supreme Court concluded its very important, significant,

term of the 2025-2026.

term of its review of cases and most recently its administration of the law by issuing a number of opinions almost 60 altogether.

And in this newly constituted format we're going to begin by announcing a series of podcasts in which we're going to examine some of the major cases that were in fact issued decided by the Supreme Court in recent weeks and recent months.

You know from our previous

is live broadcast, so we covered some of those.

Those included the major decision having to do with tariffs in America and also the voting rights ad case, but there have been many others.

Why?

Because the Supreme Court now has issued no less than 59 or 60 cases.

We're not going to be able to address all of those, but beginning with this podcast in particular, we're going to be reviewing about 18 of them in the next several podcasts.

over the month of July and perhaps into August as well, that really do affect our lives and our livelihoods here in the United States of America and specifically here in the state of Wisconsin.

We're also, as I said, going to be responding to any breaking and current rule of law events of the days of our weeks.

And those will not only be a part of our podcast, but also these special smaller inserts into the civic media broadcast of the week.

And so let's begin by talking a bit.

about some big takeaways from this past term of the United States Supreme Court and then we'll talk about a couple of cases, much related.

Then have also been the subject of a lot of anticipation in recent weeks.

We know, among other things, about some of the big trends that come out of these major 60 cases or so.

The court undeniably has further expanded presidential power, executive authority, and it has done so in a series of cases that go back

two terms and continue into this term.

The justices were willing to put some limits on the presidential authority, including this particular president.

But the court's six-member majority, basically Republican nominees, both recent and past, basically delivered a long sought-after series of wins for the legal movement that would view a greater authority vested in the presidency.

The court expanded executive power by allowing this president and future presidents as well

the capacity, the power to fire leaders of independent agencies for any reason or no reason at all.

And we're going to talk more about that in just a few moments or so.

That major decision along with a companion decision that was issued just this past week overturned, yes, a 90-year precedent that allowed Congress to protect those kinds of regulators from at will removal and so to insulate these independent agencies from political pressure.

ahead of the midterm elections, the majority of the Supreme Court also significantly narrowed, as I indicated, the Voting Rights Act.

That is no small thing.

We're going to be talking more about that in future podcasts as well.

It does make some members of our political community throughout the nation, gives them the capacity, makes them able to withdraw rather congressional maps and dismantle some majority black districts.

We have seen that around the country in several states, even to this date.

And a pair of decisions decided once again on a six to three

down the partisan divide vote.

The court also allowed the president and any future presidents to move forward on plans to expel hundreds of thousands of migrants from this country and to turn away others who are seeking asylum at our southern Mexican border.

Now, in the midst of all of those kinds of things, many, many cases, including those top level things the Supreme Court decided,

The justices also, from my perspective, picked some key moments to push back on some of this president's signature policies.

We know as well, based upon the headlines, that an ideological diverse portion of the justices of the Supreme Court invalidated, said these things are wrong.

The president's sweeping terrorist policy, a huge decision with which the president, of course, did not concur.

And also, with respect to international commerce, a huge decision affecting our economy and the economy of the world.

In the final weeks of this term, they also, that is a majority of the Supreme Court, also rejected the president's attempt to end birthright citizenship.

for babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents, effectively rejecting what the president had said on his first day in office way back in January of last year.

And the court also blocked this president from immediately firing a commissioner of the Federal Reserve.

Her name is Lisa Cook.

We'll talk about that more in just a few moments.

My name is Jim Santel.

This is Amica Salaro Viewware, spending most of our broadcast this weekend talking all about federal district court judges.

And yes, the 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 on 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 Madam Butterfly.

going to 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 APRA Company, suing for 17 million

dollars 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 of the Washington DC area there in Washington DC.

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 fourth 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

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

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 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 filed, 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

Humphries 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 Humphries executor.

And it appears that the Supreme Court is going to overturn Humphries executor, a 90-year president, and say that, no, president has the authority, in this case, to terminate people like Rebecca Slaughter

for without without cause and based upon political views the supreme court also determining 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 other are these others appear to be and

And saying that the administration does not, does not have the capacity, apparently, apparently, to fire the Lisa Cooks of the world because you don't like who they are or 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,

established organizations meant to be independent of the administration?

Can the administration go in 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 in Calais 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

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 allora view and the importance of what we do and the mission going forward when our broadcast continues.

We're going to add on a special aspect of it for those of you who want some history and want some additional insight into this particular precedent that the Supreme Court overruled in the slaughter case.

Let's talk about Humphrey's executor, where that comes from as a part of our continuing effort, Amicus.

provides you with, in this case, history, some legal history, now also overruled by the United States Supreme Court.

The court again overruling a 90-year precedent in a case called Humphrey's Executive versus United States.

How does this come about?

Well, it turns out that a fellow named William Humphrey had been one of five commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission since his appointment in 1925 by President Calvin Coolidge.

That appointment was re-upped by, in 1931, by President Herbert Hoover.

And as an outspoken and fairly controversial commissioner, Humphrey, William Humphrey, was much in the public eye.

And he had opposed most of the commission's antitrust enforcement actions.

and frequently engaged in some personal and political attacks in public speeches against those who opposed his views.

He criticized the FTC's old policy of litigation against American companies, and he contended, among other things, that that had made the commission an instrument of oppression and disturbance and injury instead of

a help to business.

So that's his background.

When FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, becomes president, of course, he puts together the New Deal.

And many of the policies, practices, initiatives of that New Deal run right up against what William Humphrey believes.

as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.

And so Roosevelt and Humphrey develop a strong dislike, a political dislike, but also an economic dislike for each other very soon.

Humphrey is viewed by the president, FDR, as being an obstacle to the implementation of his New Deal agenda.

And in his first months in office, he writes to Humphrey, that is Roosevelt does, and asks him to resign.

He says, you will, I know, realize that I do not feel that your mind and my mind go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission.

And frankly, I think it is best for the people of this country that I should have a full confidence.

That's a diplomatic way, FDR is saying, I think you should go.

Humphrey does not accept that.

They go back and forth.

More letters are written.

And ultimately, FDR fires him.

Just as the current president fired Lisa Slaughter again 90 years later.

And what happens in the interim is that Humphrey continues to show up for work.

He shows up for five more months, even though he's not getting paid.

And the president and the FTC itself takes the position that he's no longer a commissioner.

He continues to show up.

And within five months, however, he dies.

He is 71 years old and purportedly he died of a stroke at the age of 71.

And upon his dismissal,

Previous to that, five months earlier, the FTC, as I indicated, had stopped paying him because of the firing of him by FDR.

He had a salary about $10,000 per year.

That's about $250,000 in today's money.

And even though, again, he continued to come to work, he was not getting paid that.

So when Humphrey's estate is being adjudicated, his executor, thus the name of the case, seeks from the federal government.

The amount of money that Humphrey would have gotten had he remained in that position and gotten paid for the five months between his supposed termination and his death.

And he files a lawsuit in the court of acclaims of the United States court system.

And he claims that Humphrey's firing had been unlawful and the government therefore owed the estate the five months of back pay for the period before between his firing and his death.

and comes up to the Supreme Court, ultimately, and the Supreme Court ultimately decides in favor of the estate and Humphrey's executor.

May 27th, 1935, the Supreme Court issues a unanimous decision, nine to zero, in favor of Humphrey's estate, and in an opinion written by Justice George Sutherland, the court ruled that it was not a violation of the Constitution

for the Federal Trade Commission to be empowered, be created by the Congress and limiting the powers of the president to remove commissioners like Humphrey and presumably like Slotter as well.

And describing the only circumstances for removal as being inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.

The court gives four main reasons for its ruling again, unanimous decision over 90 years ago.

now, said that the Congress had created the FTC in 1914, intending it to be a federal government agency, independent, nonpartisan, describes its mission as being one that should not be influenced by politics in any way, and supposed to be not in control of the president.

and instead to be the operational force to decide all these issues related to trade and others.

The court goes on to say in its opinion the commission is to be nonpartisan and it must from the very nature of its duties act with entire impartiality is charged with the enforcement of no policy except the policy of the law.

The court also went on to say that Congress had intended the FTC

to be experts in the area.

business, industry, exercise, train judgment by a body of experts, and again, suggesting that that independence should be upheld inside the Federal Trade Commission.

Other reasons that the function and duties of the FTC were neither political nor executive, but predominantly sort of judicial and even quasi-legislative.

And it's on that basis, in part, that the Supreme Court in this most recent case involving Rebecca Slaughter

overturns that decision and says now 90 years later.

Much of what the FTC does is executive in nature.

Therefore, the agency should be reviewed and subject to termination, its individual members by the presidency.

That's the history of all of this.

That is no longer good law.

Again, Humphrey's executor expressly overruled.

A new president in place will see how it goes for the future, not only of the Federal Trade Commission, where plainly the president can remove individuals who are in leadership

but also other agencies.

How far does that go and what does that mean as this important decision is implemented in the days, weeks and months ahead?

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.

A major expansion of the presidential authority, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the president to fire independent government regulators, despite federal laws were meant to protect their jobs.

The justices at the same time carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve, preventing the president from immediately removing one governor, her name is Lisa Cook, as you well know, from the powerful central bank.

The courts six to three ruling to broadly allow these firings

undeniably an incarnation of the unitary executive theory, the so-called liberal three justices dissenting, representing a huge change in the way the government works, a shift in power from Congress to the president, and could drastically change the federal government structure by giving the president more control over these independent agencies.

The case involved a former FTC commissioner, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.

She was a Democratic member of the commission.

And the president fired her simply because he did not align with her agenda.

She did not align with his, despite a law that says that the president can remove commissioners only for efficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.

The decision, however, has implications for many agencies, not just the FTC, including agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

The National Labor Relations Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Postal Service, and it ends nearly 90 years of precedent that protected those jobs.

And so a huge consequence for the government and the way in which the president, not just this president, but future presidents as well, can have oversight and can, almost with impunity, fire members of these previously independent agencies, not based upon.

on cause but based upon political disagreement.

In a separate decision, however, the court voted by a five to four vote to block the president, at least for now.

From ousting Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve, the ruling sort of on a narrow procedural question, majority nonetheless saying that the uniquely independent nature of the central bank, the Federal Reserve, necessitated that result.

We saw a lot of that in the oral argument itself.

A former of Fed top agency heads and officials, others who know this well, who engage in this kind of work with the Federal Reserve, had warned that the Supreme Court, again in amicus briefs, that allowing this president, any president, to remove this particular board member while litigation is pending about her future would spur some economic turmoil but undermine the long-standing autonomy of the central bank.

And unlike other regulators, the president had accepted that a president can only fire Federal Reserve board governors for cause.

He had accused Lisa Cook, you may recall, of engaging in mortgage fraud and said that he could dismiss her on those grounds.

The justices, however, unlike this case involving Kelly Slaughter, are very different kind of a situation.

found that she had not been given the opportunity, that is, Lisa Cook, to refute those allegations.

And so we've got a process problem, the litigation as to that goes on, the Chief Justice writing there that the majority opinions in both cases, rejecting what he described as the administration's half-hearted contention.

That Lisa Cook had received a fair or due process.

procedure here when the president simply noted on his truth social posting that he was removing her from that position.

The chief justice is saying, that will not do.

At a minimum, he said, Cook was entitled to some explanation of the evidence that issue, some avenue for response.

Now, Lisa Cook herself said the president's move to fire her was, according to her, an attempt to remove me from an unmanufactured pretext

because I refused to bow to political pressure and continue to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people.

The court's ruling again in her favor was limited.

The justices plainly allowing her to remain on the job, unlike Kelly Slaughter, who is gone.

She is no longer with the FTC.

She can continue, Ms.

Cook can, to contest removal as long as, again, these charges are somehow the product, the focus of some resolution, assessing as the courts the validity and the sufficiency of those charges.

Huge decisions.

when it comes to the relationship between the presidency and these independent agencies.

And again, the court making a distinction between these two seemingly incongruent decisions by distinguishing what are called the unique role of the Federal Reserve and other types of federal agencies.

In those other cases, including the slaughter case involving the FTC, majority is saying that the president needed the flexibility.

the ability, the capacity to remove officials whose views did not align with those of the administrations.

In the FTC case, as we've talked about before, the justices did in fact set aside this 90-year precedent in case that had prevented presidents from going way back to FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, from the moving independent agency regulators without cause and solely over policy disagreements.

The justices, the least majority of them on the Supreme Court, had long doubted the

continued validity of what's called, again, this Humphrey's executor case, the case also involving the FTC.

In that case, again, over 90 years ago, the Supreme Court had said that Franklin Delano Roosevelt could not remove a member of the FTC again as a violation of what Congress had done to establish the FTC as an independent agency.

In Slaughter's case, also involving the FTC,

The long-standing purpose in part of all of this, again, a part of this unitary executive theory, was to overturn Humphrey's executor.

The chief justice said basically that to the extent that the ruling in Humphrey's executor was still in place, none of that, none of that existed anymore.

And for that reason, specifically overruling that 90-year precedent in this modern era.

The majority said that the modern FTC again had accumulated over time some powers that the Constitution reserved for the president under about 80 different statutes, including the enforcement of rules against private parties and the collection of billions of dollars in civil penalties, all kinds of things that have happened since the time of Humphrey's executor.

The commission that Ms.

Slaughter was appointed to unquestionably exercises, the Supreme Court said, executive

power and then according to the chief justice therefore must now must now be controlled by the chief executive that according to the chief justice and again implicating all sorts of other agencies as well making it unclear for example what happens with employment protections for civil servants out there judges on courts that are inside the executive branches

Needless to say, on that case, the slaughter case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, vigorous, strong dissents, Justice Sotomayor writing on behalf of the other two on her behalf, articulating this very, very strong dissent.

She read a portion of it from the bench, which is not unprecedented.

It happens with greater frequency.

But emphasizing the extent to which this changes American government, she said in

In her dissent that independent agencies including the FDC will now be transformed in ways that those who created them never could have expected and actively sought to avoid

fundamentally recalibrating, this is Sonia Sotomayor speaking, the balance of power in this country in this process.

Again, she's joined by the other two, Elena Kagan and Katanji Brown Jackson.

As a result of that court's decision, she said, this president, any president down the road, will have far greater power to do all kinds of things, including influencing independent agencies intended to be independent.

They are charged

playing with many, many things in the operation of government, overseeing what can only be described as vast areas of American life, including things like the safety of workplaces and consumer products that you have in your home.

Just as Sotomayor went on to say, it is a power, however.

that neither the people nor the Congress nor the Constitution be stowed upon the presidency.

She writes that in about 50 pages of dissent.

She says, in granting the president this unbridled authority, the court upends its precedent.

She's talking again about Humphrey's executor, misconstrues our own history, she says, and sheds any pretense of judicial modesty.

That's all a part of the dissent.

The plaintiff, the petition in that case, Ms.

Slaughter said independent agencies like the FTC.

created to be watchdogs, as they were, of potential corporations without interference by the president.

Slaughter says this in response to an unfavorable ruling directed to her.

She says, today's ruling makes it possible for presidents to fire watchdogs who won't put politics over principle and replace them, she said, with lap dogs.

It's a recipe for corruption.

Working families will pay the price.

And again, as I indicated, this was

not completely surprising, not only based upon the oral argument, but also suggesting that the Supreme Court long anticipating doing just this with respect to the FTC and other agencies as well.

It is significant that in the course of her agreement or her dissent with respect to the other case involving

that Amy Coney Barrett noted the inconsistency between these cases.

She said that the case there, the Cook case, the Federal Reserve case, in that case, she said the decision to safeguard the Fed's independence was in serious tension.

with the courts ruling on the other agencies.

And indeed, that will be the future here, determining all these other agencies on which side do these fall.

Is this Federal Reserve carve out independent of all the other agencies only for the Federal Reserve?

Are there things that the other agencies can identify that have so much integrity and so much importance with respect to the operation of those other agencies that they fall more in the line of the cook case?

as opposed to the slaughter case.

Amy Coney Barrett identifying the problem going forward.

even as she descents in the case in which the Supreme Court refuses to grant authority to the president, finding that he has the authority to fire Lisa Cook presently.

Why is all of that important?

Because it does effectively change government.

It changes the ways in which executive authority can be exercised, not just by this president, by others down the road, and plainly invites future litigation.

In future podcasts, we're going to explore

that even more.

We'll get back Tom Free's executor and the amazing history that is now overturned in that case and also talk about the history yet to be created in this particular area and in others.

In our next podcast, again, we're going to visit some other

15, 16 other cases, including in our next podcast, these major decisions issued by the Supreme Court when it comes to guns in America will talk about why those are important and why the promise of the Supreme Court to take on yet another gun case in its coming docket is equally important.

All of that is coming up on our newly reincarnated, our newly reconstituted, Amicus, a law review.

I thank you so much for participating in and

exploring with me what the Supreme Court has done and in these coming weeks doing more of that and as always responding to the important news of our days in the areas of civics and government and the operation of the rule of law in America.

I thank you once again and look forward to being with you again every single week going forward here on the stations and the auspices and the platforms of civic media.

Thank you everybody.

you

This is Amica Salario.

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 Zombers the producer today, your TA.

Absolutely.

Greg, thank you so much for those very kind words.

Appreciate that.

I'm honored and delighted to do this.

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.

Absolutely.

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, 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 Jean 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.

months 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.

before justice can exist in the conduct and the conscience of a government and 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, residence of this great nation.

Have a good weekend, everybody.

you