My name is Jim Santel, and for the next 40 minutes or so, we are going to be in discovery and exploration of those major issues animating our lives and our livelihoods in the areas of rule of law.
the administration of justice and operation of government.
As always, I am honored.
I am delighted that you're spending some time with me in that exploration and that discovery.
We have a lot of material, a lot of information to cover once again, because the news has been full of issues in those areas.
Let's jump right in.
Tell you a little bit about what we're going to be doing in the next 40 minutes or so.
As always, spending some time, yes, as the Supreme Court begins its new term, a lot of things going on there on Capitol Hill in the last week or so.
So I'll tell you a little bit about one of those oral arguments.
And then as we're doing in this time period, I'm also going to describe for you a couple of the oral arguments coming up in the coming week so that you can be attentive to those and tune into those either live or you can listen to the recording on the Supreme Court website, depending upon your own schedule, depending upon your interest.
A couple of cases, again, coming up in the coming week.
They may not be at the top of the list in terms of the cases on the docket up to this point, but significant nonetheless, we'll do some inventory about numbers as well.
And then toward the end of our broadcast or our podcast this week, going to spend a little bit of time talking about, yes, yet another application before the Supreme Court based upon what the Trump administration wants to do in connection this time with TV advertising.
in the political realm, important as we head into the midterm elections and a few other issues related to the administration of justice going on in America in this past week and coming up in the future as well.
So let us begin by talking as we always do about the United States Supreme Court.
Again, having begun its 2026, 2027 term just last week, first Monday in October.
Let's do that inventory right now.
We know that up to now the Supreme Court
has granted certiorari, as you know, well, that's the Latin.
That's the legal term that says we're going to take these cases, about 29 of them by my count up to this period of time, anticipating the Supreme Court will probably add at least another 30 or so before it decides all of these 60, maybe 65 cases, all of them.
presumably in 2027.
Big ticket items coming up in a number of different areas, including an environmental case which we'll revisit in just a few moments.
All of those likely coming up in the early to mid months of 2027.
A big time again by the Supreme Court as it issues its decisions in the second half of its term.
coming up in 2027.
We know that the Supreme Court was busy just this past week in deciding to hear a number of cases.
It has added on a number of things in addition to those that we mentioned last week, some deportation cases.
case of Roni versus Barb another case involving th former spouses Protection out of North Dakota, the Suprem involving the religious act coming out of the Kentucky
just in this past week, in addition to other matters that it continues to take on and observe.
Again, about 29 cases altogether, and those include, those include the four cases that they decided that they reviewed last week in oral argument, and two more cases that are going to be the subject of a summary discussion.
right now.
Let me tell you cases coming up for oral a listen to those live.
You
The Supreme Court is going to be undertaking a case called Beard, B-E-A-I-R-D versus United States, and on Wednesday, October 14th, Salazar versus Paramount Global.
Let me tell you about the first of those, B-E-A-I-R-D Beard versus United States.
Case concerns, United States Sentencing Commission commentary and the impact, the implications of the comments related to the guidelines that are relevant to the
federal sentencing and our district courts.
Again, we've talked about this on occasion.
The federal courts no longer obliged to follow the sentencing guidelines with absolute precision, but they are guidelines when it comes to courts making decisions about how to sentence individual defendants.
In this case, in this case, whether a certain precedent, a previous case called Stinson back in 1993,
still correctly states the rule for the deference, the observance that the district courts should give to the commentary to the sentencing guidelines.
Yes, I know that's a lot fairly wonky.
Here's how the case comes up before the Supreme Court.
We know that Mr. Beard pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, that of course in violation of federal law.
And during sentencing, the district court applied a penalty enhancement adding to the penalty that he otherwise received
under the offense sentencing guidelines because Beard possessed a large capacity magazine that aggravated the offense conduct and presumably would add more to his sentence.
The text of the guidelines does not define that term large capacity magazine.
But the company official commentary specifies that any magazine capable of holding more than 15 rounds triggers that increased penalty.
You get more of a sentence if indeed you were involved with a large capacity magazine.
So Beard possessed a magazine that held 17 rounds.
So under the commentary would be subject to the large amount.
He argued, however, the district court aired by relying on the commentary to define a term.
that's missing from the actual guidelines themselves, the mathematical computations.
And this particular challenge, again, focuses on the deference that that court and that any court should give.
to the supplemental commentary, not in the mathematical guidelines, but a part of this commentary that accompanies those guidelines, when that commentary expands the scope of sentencing enhancements beyond the written text of the guidelines.
It's a lot, I know.
It's important not only for this particular firearms case, and again, firearms folks on all sides of the aisle are looking to this matter, as are everybody.
who might be looking to determine what the sentencing guidelines and the commentary mean.
Again, that issue coming up for review and for oral argument on the morning of Tuesday, October 13th, Beard, B-A-R-R-D, you can tune into the Supreme Court to hear that live or hear it in its recorded status afterwards.
That's Tuesday, October 13th of this coming week and then a Wednesday.
October 14th, the case called Salazar versus Paramount Global.
It's only one of two cases Supreme Court having oral argument on.
This case, again, a completely different realm in the civil arena concerning the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The video privacy protection act.
The question here is whether the phrase goods or services from a videotape service provider as used in that law, the definition of consumer.
refers to all of a videotape service provider's goods or services are only, only to its audiovisual goods or services.
Again, the kind of wonky thing that, yes, lawyers love to talk about, but also applies to accessibility and to the implications of video privacy in America.
This case, again, coming out of the Sixth Circuit comes about this way.
Mr. Salazar, Michael Salazar, subscribe to an online newsletter.
from 247sports.com in 2022.
It's a website.
It's owned by Paramount Global, thus the partial name of the case, that covers college sports recruiting.
And while logged into his Facebook account, Salazar watched videos on the 247sports.com website.
Paramount had installed Facebook's tracking pixel on that website.
And that effectively collected and transmitted to Facebook information about Salazar's video viewing activity, including the video content name, its URL, and Salazar's Facebook ID.
All that information gathered together and basically provided in that forum.
The disclosure allegedly occurred without Salazar's consent or his knowledge, and that's the rub.
That's the point.
In September of 2022, Salazar filed a class action lawsuit.
against Paramount Global in the United States District Court for Tennessee, he claims that violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act, sometimes called the VPPA, and he said that the District Court had improperly, when it gets to the Supreme Court, denied Paramount's motion.
I'm sorry, the District Court did deny Paramount's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, but granted.
granted, and that's why Salazar is now before the Supreme Court, granted the motion dismissed for failure to state a claim.
And the district court finding that Salazar was not a consumer, a consumer under the law because his newsletter subscription did not qualify as subscribing to audio visual goods or services.
Again, a lot going on there to set this all up.
U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirm the dismissal of the case.
Mr. Salazar wants this opportunity to be heard, feels once again that he was agreed by virtue of this combination of the Paramount Global Arrangement and his 247sports.com website.
And so seeking, seeking the Supreme Court review on this issue of who a consumer is and specifically.
whether goods or services from this videotape service provider should get a sufficient and adequate review by any court before making a determination.
Again, he's reviewing asking the court to review the dismissal of that case.
Salazar versus Paramount Global, that coming up on Wednesday having to do, of course, with all kinds of things in our modern world.
It is significant that after those two cases, those oral arguments coming up for review this coming week,
The Supreme Court, not going out of business, but not having more oral arguments until November.
And so the first cases, again, two this week, the four that we talked about last week, those six will have been argued and accessible for review, but nothing further until November as the Supreme Court takes up new cases.
And yes, here on Amicus Law Review, the broadcast of broadcast, we'll tell you all about those cases coming up for review in November.
And that's going to be a part of our routine syllabus.
Let us talk, however, about what the Supreme Court did in this past week.
We mentioned last week that there are four cases.
We talked about this case involving Department of Air Force versus Guam.
We talked about the case involving Anderson versus Intel Corporation Investment Policy, Johnson versus the United States.
Let's go back to what is going to be probably one of the major cases.
or maybe not of this Supreme Court term called Suncore Energy versus Commissioners of Boulder County.
That case, that case an important matter because of its environmental implications and under what laws state or federal laws can an entity like Boulder County, a municipality, a local entity for example sue to gain a judgment.
with respect to climate change and environmental issues.
Well, again, that case, the very first case that the Supreme Court argued just this past week.
And in fact, as the Supreme Court has gone forward on that particular argument, some interesting developments coming out of its decision-making process.
And so let's talk about Salazar.
And I'm sorry, let's talk about SunCorp in particular, and the reason why it is significant to revisit it in the wake of what the Supreme Court did.
Again, the case is SunCorp Energy versus County Commissioners of Boulder County, as we talked last week, giving a new setup to this.
We know that ExxonMobil, the biggest energy company in the country, and Suncor, a company based in Canada, those two operate oil refineries in the state of Colorado.
And the question is whether or not the laws that apply to those companies need to be federal laws or state law.
Boulder says, this is like the public health damage that's unleashed or happens by tobacco or opioids.
And in those cases, states have sued companies for causing in the past those kinds of damages, tobacco damage, opioid drug-related damages.
And some come as a result of states and municipalities suing under those theories.
A lawyer for Exxon and Suncor this past week said that it's an unprecedented effort, that is this effort by Boulder County to seek remedies under state laws
It's an unprecedented effort to use state law to regulate global conduct.
And the energy companies, again, mobile and the Suncor Canadian company, both said that the lawsuit is preempted, is overtaken by federal law.
Can't use state law, they said, have to use federal law, if anything.
Their best argument probably is that federal laws have historically governed interstate pollution.
and they made that argument this past Monday.
But the open question is whether or not that rule applies to carbon dioxide emissions, which is what the Boulder case is all about.
We're talking here on Amicus, a law review about these particular cases here on the broadcast stations of civic media because it's important to understand what's going on in our Supreme Court.
A long time ago, as this case was initially being presented, an awful lot of people said that this would be a fairly clear win for corporations, which again, big oil certainly is one of those.
It is often the notion that the Supreme Court tends to rely and side in favor of corporate America.
But some interesting developments happened in anticipation of and during this particular.
or a argument before it happened, just as Sam Alito, who doesn't often recuse himself, recused himself from this case.
He didn't say why.
He didn't say why he did it.
Presumably, he's got some interest.
One would suggest in the companies themselves, but we don't know.
And the impact of that, of course, is it takes out one likely vote for the companies and creates the possibility here of a four to four split.
If that happens, as we know, if there's a four to four split in the Supreme Court's resolution of a case like this, what happens is that the lower court decision stands.
And that happened, again, in anticipation of the oral argument and Justice Samolito not participating in the ultimate resolution of this case.
Something even more interesting happening during the course of the oral argument that, again, tended to shift.
our natural inclination to believe that maybe the Supreme Court would decide in favor of ExxonMobil, decide in favor of Suncor and say, yes, the companies win.
Only federal law applies and Boulder, you're out of luck when it comes to your attempt to implicate and focus on state law in your lawsuit.
At Orla argument was the Chief Justice.
You know him.
He's John Roberts.
He has some very interesting questions suggesting that he has doubts.
about whether Boulder's suit is in fact preempted or overtaken by these broad principles of federal law, suggesting that Boulder might be right that they can go ahead and sue in their litigation and presumably get some recovery based upon an implication and invocation of state law.
Justice Elena Kagan also weighed in in that side of things, perhaps not a surprise given her
general view on these kinds of things, she pressed the point.
She was asking for the source of this preemption doctrine.
That is that the federal law, when it comes to environmental issues, including these carbon dioxide emissions, federal law applies and that state law does not.
She says, where is the text for that?
Where's the support for that?
And it seems like the answer to that would suggest that, again, she may be citing in favor of Boulder.
So this is one of those cases where the oral argument did not provide clear direction.
Again, you've got four attorneys, four justices rather, they are attorneys, but four justices who may in fact be deciding in favor of the state, if in fact we add John Roberts to what likely are the other three again, Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Katanji Brown Jackson.
We don't know.
and we don't know exactly what the result of this should be or even how it should turn out.
Reasonable people can disagree on this issue about federal preemption of state laws, bolder obviously trying to carve out its opportunity to sue under the state law and saying federal law is not the exclusive remedy when it comes to these kinds of things.
We know that during the course of this argument,
the attorney for the Canada Organization Suncore and ExxonMobil both argued that preemption does apply and that only the federal government, given the nature of pollution and these particular carbon dioxide emissions, only the federal government should be responsible for
its laws applying here.
But we know that just because the law might be something doesn't mean that it is something.
And it's far from clear that the Constitution or any currently enacted federal statutes mean that state law can't be used, that Boulder cannot use its laws to impose liability on energy producers.
So lots of things to think about here.
Justice Roberts, as I indicated, comes out.
He confronts the attorney for
the companies with a number of scenarios in which states can impose liability for harms that occur inside a state, even if the initial action occurs outside the states.
He uses, for example, the instance of someone throwing a rock from state A and hitting someone inside state B. Again, obviously, you need to do that right at the border between two states, and it is just for illustrative purposes.
But it underscores the notion that maybe there should be applicability of both state and federal laws.
Justice Kavanaugh also argued that the court's presidents may crystal clear that interstate air and water pollutions, he says, are matter of federal law.
So he seemingly goes in the opposite direction.
But after reading all of this again, analyzing some of the law here, the justice is not entirely clear as a unified group about what exactly is happening here.
You've got the very strong possibility, again, assuming that Justice Kavanaugh joins the other three on four votes for that side of the case, you may have Justice, the Chief Justice, joining the other three in creating a four-member result on the other side.
And in that instance, once again, the lower court decision stands.
So interesting coming out of that, a major decision
Ultimately, in an environmental case, not so much on the substance of whether or not those companies will be held liable, but what law applies.
The companies, again, maintaining its own, the federal law that should apply, preemption applies, bolder, and presumably others saying, no, states can also apply their own laws and an important issue, not only for jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court makes these decisions, but also for environmental cases generally.
So that case, once again,
Suncore energy versus commissioners of Boulder County.
All of that, all of that again, a part of the Supreme Court's review of cases on its docket.
The Supreme Court, as I indicated, just under 30 of those right now, it does add routinely to more cases.
My guess is that in the coming week alone, the Supreme Court will probably add even more cases.
Again, what it does is it reviews many of these petitions that come to it and makes decisions.
We will continue to monitor all of that here on Amicus Law Review, which is, as you know, a component of the broadcast and the podcast of civic media.
as a part of our focus on the rule of law, the administration of justice, often focusing on the United States Supreme Court.
Let us talk about something else that the Supreme Court did, apart from its review of these important cases on its docket, adding more cases for review, and beginning to suggest along the way, at least how some of the justices might decide.
We get back as we always do, once again,
to the court's shadow docket, the emergency application docket, this again is apart from those so far 29 or 30 cases, apart from the 60 so-called merits cases that we talk about when we think about oral arguments and the briefing and these major decisions that tend to come out in the spring and the summer of the following year.
We've got another of these cases and it devolves in part from
a decision the Supreme Court made in its previous term.
You recall this case, it had to do with whether or not political parties, political parties can contribute directly to individual campaigns, individual candidates up to the time of the Supreme Court decision of last summer.
There was a prohibition.
on political parties doing that.
There had to be a break between political parties and campaigns, and there could only be contributions through political action committees from political parties.
The question was whether or not that is constitutional, whether or not that was a violation of the First Amendment to the Supreme Court.
You will recall, as we reported here on Amicus, a law review, said no, that is a violation of First Amendment, and political parties can contribute directly, changing dramatically.
the ways in which monies are entered into our political system, the campaigns, and changing even as we go into the midterms.
Well, there's something that's happening in the wake of that decision, and it has to do with rulemaking under that law and under the way in which monies do now flow from political parties into campaigns.
The Trump administration, let's get to the headline here just this past week,
filing an emergency application, yes, once again, the shadow docket to the Supreme Court asking the justices to intervene in a fight, in this fight over whether political parties are entitled now to the same low-cost TV ad rates as candidates in the midterms.
So this is kind of a derivation of what we talked about previously, this other Supreme Court case.
This dispute that is before,
Again, now, presumably, before the Supreme Court, upon the application, it hasn't determined yet exactly what's going to happen here.
But the dispute concerns this fairly obscure but critical part of these rules surrounding political advertising.
And who can qualify for low-cost ad rates?
If you get low-cost rates, your money goes further.
So it's a big deal.
Democrats, as we talked about in connection with that previous lawsuit,
have had an advantage in that area in recent years based upon where most of their money comes from.
Lower dollar amount donors and Republicans therefore have not benefited from lower cost ads.
Hotly contested elections coming up again right now.
These campaigns are underway and presumably down the road Democrats and Republicans have been fighting about the issue in the courts and it has to do again with whether rulemaking
gives one particular party an advantage as opposed to another.
Democrats, once again, benefit from the old rules, which limited low rights to candidates because, once again, they tended to raise more money than their party's committees.
The exact opposite is tended to be true for Republicans.
What happened this past week?
Well, Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused a lower court ruling.
that would have required the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, we know all about that, to wrap up its review of this new rule to expand who can qualify for the lower ad rights, that's unpack that.
So what happens is the Federal Communications Commission now determining exactly what the rule is going to be on these lower rights and whether or not they're accessible to the parties themselves.
And in particular, the matter comes about
As a group of Democratic candidates are looking for, again, some decision-making, Republicans looking for this decision-making as well.
What has happened here, again, going back a little bit to this, under the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act, setting out regulations for how TV stations can interact with political candidates during election sessions, broadcasters are required.
In the weeks before an election, and here we are right now to give political candidates low rates to buy TV ad time, a key rate to reach voters as you well know, Republicans again, long claim that political entities should also have access to those lower rates.
And the tangled battle over the issue began way back in March when the FCC first announced that broadcasters would be required for the first time to extend low cost ad rates.
to political parties engaged in coordinated expenditures with candidates.
Again, that's a lot, as well as joint fundraising committees.
And so four Democratic candidates in key battleground states, we know them.
They're in a lot of the news right now.
Senator John Ossoff in Georgia, former Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio, former Governor Roy Cooper in North Carolina, Representative Kristen McDonald Ribbit of Michigan,
objected to this new rule and they sued.
In August, fairly recently, a three-judge panel from the Fourth Circuit sided with the Democratic candidates.
Basically, the Republican groups then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Again, as a part of this overall tussle about which law applies, which rule applies,
and whether or not political parties should receive the lower ad rights as the court litigation continues.
The FCC, and here's the rub, here's the significant point, has yet to wrap up its review of the new policy.
So they're there, they're determining whether or not the new rule should apply, and the candidates accuse the agency of purposely stalling in formalizing this new ad scheme, potentially in an effort to forestall any court rulings against it.
before the November vote.
And again, a three-judge panel in the Fourth Circuit agreed and ordered the FCC to finalize its rules in an expedited manner.
The majority there, a judge named Robert King, wrote that a federal agency was dragging its feet, the FCC doing that.
The court accorded a substantial amount of grace for its gamesmanship.
must end, that's one of the judges on the Fourth Circuit said, anxious to get this rule out there.
Harvey Wilkinson, who we've talked about before, went in the opposite direction and wrote in his view that the Supreme Court had already weighed in in this previous case, allowing political parties and joint fundraising committees to benefit from the low-cost ad rates.
And he said, litigants far and wide,
must be eager to purchase the majority's new board game, make the Supreme Court say it twice, he said, adding that once is enough for me.
And so you've got a contest here, a contest about whether the FCC, and this brings us through all of this back and forth, it is not easy to follow, I acknowledge that.
whether the FCC now should be compelled to issue a rule on this and break it out of the dragging its feet, the majority out of the Fourth Circuit said has happening here, and whether or not the Supreme Court, Supreme Court should weigh in on all of this.
The Chief Justice, again, in this case involving whether or not there should be lower advertising rates for all parties coming out of the FCC rules, the Chief Justice,
temporarily paused that Fourth Circuit case, directing that the FCC act now, make your decision now, the Fourth Circuit said, the Chief Justice saying, well, well, put a hold on this for now, that would have required the Federal Communications Commission to wrap up its review of this new rule to expand who can qualify for the lower ad rights.
And he's asking the challengers, and once again, they're the Democratic candidates, to respond to the Trump administration's request
this weekend to determine who is going to benefit from all of this fundraising.
What do you need to know in the end?
After all of that back and forth, in and out of the Supreme Court, in and out of the Forest Circuit, judges and justices on all sides of this, the FCC still dealing with rulemaking here.
What do you need to know?
What you need to know is that the Supreme Court may well now intervene.
in a decision that will ultimately dictate whether and how these rules about lower advertising rates, how much advertising you see on television, how that will all play out.
The Supreme Court appears at least to be willing to dip its toe into this decision-making and make some determinations about whether and indeed whether the rules should apply across the board.
What are the rules?
And maybe, maybe taking this away from the FCC, maybe compelling some more immediate action or maybe not, depending upon how they respond to the federal, the FCC's directive, the Fourth Circuit directive to the FCC telling them to decide this case.
Again, lots of things to follow there.
It's a bouncing ball all over the place.
The court for now has paused the lower court ruling.
while it considers this latest move in this months-long effort, the months-long effort over who is entitled to low rights for political ads.
Money we know figures largely in all of this, and it is important to note that as we go into the midterms and beyond, as we look forward to 2028, money will presumably continue to be an important part of what happens here, just as Robert's for now.
holding an imminent deadline for the FCC to rule on the Democrats TV ad rate challenge.
That brings you up to date on what the Supreme Court has been doing in America.
Let's do some other news and other relevant things in the areas of rule of law, administration, and justice, and the function of government.
Many of these things we have talked about before directly and indirectly.
And it is important for us from time to time here on Amicus Law Review to revisit exactly what is happening.
We know that the Justice Department just this past week re-entered, if you will, at least the public progress in the cases involving Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Celia Flores.
You may recall that they are the former Venezuelan leader, Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
They were plucked up out of their country.
when the United States again charged them, accused them of various violations of our federal law, recall, well, we were actually on the air.
And at the time that the Trump administration sent our military into Venezuela and incurred into their space.
and seized Nicholas Maduro and Celia Flores, brought them back to the United States to face justice.
They have been in the United States in federal custody ever since then, facing prior criminal charges ever since that time.
A lot of international issues related to that action, but we know that again, there's jurisdiction now presumably established over those two.
So why is this back in the news?
Well, the Justice Department just this past week,
announced new charges, new charges against the ousted Venezuelan leader, again Nicholas Maduro, his wife Celia Flores, accusing them of torturing detainees, including American citizens, to throttle the opposition and to cling to power.
Again, you recall that there was this extraordinary raid and that brought them to this country.
They're already facing these very sweeping narco-terrorism charges,
drug trafficking charges in Manhattan.
That's where they are to this time.
They're scheduled to go to trial in June of 2027.
Many legal matters to be still resolved, including jurisdictional issues and a lot of issues related to the involvement of Maduro's cocaine trade trafficking.
Now we've got these new charges that could in fact have an impact.
We're going to continue obviously to monitor all of this
We're talking about this because it's important to understand here on Amicus Law Review, a broadcast, a podcast of civic media, not only what has happened in the past, but also what's happening in the future.
And so these new allegations, again, brought against Maduro and Flores, they strike a very different kind of accord in this particular piece of criminal prosecution.
The allegations are that the couple violently repressed their own citizens to smother dissent, to repress voices, popular voices there in Venezuela, and to undermine the democracy that previously was there.
The torture, according to prosecutors, included electric shock, rape, prolonged isolation, starvation, and that all in a new indictment.
Again, according to the U.S.
Attorney in the Southern District of New York, the lawyer for the Maduro and the Flores defendants in this case said that President Maduro denies the charges in this new indictment, looks forward to his day in court.
The 30-page indictment specifically says that from 1999 through 2025,
the couple and certain other identified high-level Venezuelan officials inflicted severe physical and mental pain to punish members of the political opposition, to silence dissent, and to protect their authority.
One official, again, according to these new charges, ordered the murder of opponents of the Maduro regime, no small thing.
The allocations are that the official oversaw torture
personally threatened to murder a prisoner's child.
All of that isn't in the indictment.
Another senior Venezuelan officer who reportedly directed, reported directly to Mr. Maduro developed torture methods that he presented for Maduro's approval and led an agency responsible for torturing the scores of victims all according to this.
this new indictment.
A third official, according to that same charging document, participated in the torture of civilians and military members, including United States citizens, who were believed to pose a threat to the Maduro rule.
All of that, according to these new allegations.
Again, all of this going to be plainly the subject of more proceedings there in the Manhattan federal court.
Arguably, arguably going to change the
the timing of the June 20 27 trial with these new charges being added on.
We'll see what the federal district court judge does there.
But again, the big takeaway here at Nicholas Maduro charged with ordering the torture of not only his own people, but Americans in Venezuelan prisons and inflicting some severe physical and mental pain on Venezuela.
Why Venezuelans to
Muffle the dissent there in that country protect his own authority that according to new Charges in that case and then and then we have something in another area that we have also talked about It is grizzly it is another eighth amendment matter and we have talked about the death penalty at some length in the past here on amicus a law review You know from your own review of news in the public domain of just this past week
that a person named Krista Pike was subject to the death penalty in Nashville, Tennessee.
And she was subject to capital punishment there.
We know as a result of the proceedings of those cases that Ms.
Pike was facing, was facing the death penalty there in Nashville just this past week.
We know as well.
as she was injected with what was supposed to be lethal drugs just this past week to execute her as a part of the final portion of the criminal prosecution there.
And we know as well that in the wake of that, she did not die.
And instead, six days after being shot full of these drugs were meant to kill her.
Krista Pike, again, taken to a medical facility.
when she was not killed as a result of that.
She woke up in a Nashville hospital.
She was shackled to a bed.
She's in a room where she knew no one.
And the lawyers for her have been told to expect life support to end because her brain was not functioning after the attempt in late September to execute her for what did she do?
She killed classmates decades before, but now she is awake.
And she's in a swirl of what one lawyer called a mix of anger and confusion.
Her condition, which was disclosed again this past week after a court hearing, remains severe.
She has a blood clot in one arm.
She has pneumonia.
She's not eaten.
She was unable to swallow.
When her lawyers last saw her, she could move her arms and her hands, but plainly is under some considerable distress.
As a result, there's a judicial hearing in this matter.
She is the first person to survive injection drugs that were supposed to be legal.
A lawyer with the office of the state's attorney general, total judge on Wednesday, who's reviewing all of this, that he could not say whether Tennessee would try to end her life again.
A spokesman for the governor there who paused the executions when independent investigation is underway has not responded to questions about what would happen next.
But the matter again continues to be the subject of judicial review.
Why?
Because as we have said before, not only does it raise Eighth Amendment protections about the very nature of the death penalty, but even the imposition, the way in which it is imposed, can be an Eighth Amendment violation.
It is a stunning development in this matter coming out of Nashville.
Again, an attempt to execute her unsuccessful.
And now back in the courts, we will see what happens as this matter continues, not only as a significant issue under the Eighth Amendment, but the rule of law generally.
We'll continue to monitor that and other matters related to the rule of law, including the Supreme Court, the administration of justice, the operation of government in future additions, installments of this amicus law review on the broadcast and podcast stations of civic media.