Legal challenges continue over President Trump’s troop deployments, and new details emerge about his Department of Justice compensation request. Senior Editor at The Dispatch Sarah Isgur breaks down the latest court actions and what they mean for the administration’s ongoing legal strategy.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
And right now, let's go to the hotline and bring
in senior editor at The Dispatch and host of the
Advisory Opinions podcast, Sarah Isker. You can find all of
our work and a whole lot more at The Dispatch
dot com and you can follow her on x at
Wig Newton's So, Sarah, the court battle over the president's
deployment of the National Guard continues. It's happening on multiple
(00:20):
fronts in both Chicago and Portland. Let's start with the
Chicago case. What's being argued there?
Speaker 2 (00:27):
So, the trial court and a three judge panel at
the Appellate Court both said no to Donald Trump sending
the National Guard to Chicago. This case is now pending
before the Supreme Court. We expect them to have an
answer one way or the other, I would think by
the end of the week, given the kind of urgency
(00:47):
of the question. Now, the legal question is twofold one.
The statute says that if there's a rebellion and the
president is unable to execute federal law, he can federalize
the National Guard. So is that happening? The second question, though,
is who gets to decide whether that's happening. Does a
judge get to review the facts themselves and decide whether
(01:09):
a reasonable person would think that the President is unable
to execute federal law, or do we defer to the
president if he says he's unable to excute federal law.
By God, that's up to him. He's the one executing
federal law. So the Supreme Court really deciding both of those.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
What about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that decision
earlier in the week tied to the deployment in the
National Guard in Portland.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Yeah, so, just as I said, the three judge panel
in Chicago said, no, the facts on the ground are
just not what President Trump says. Nobody could see this
as unable to execute federal law. The Ninth Circuit in Portland,
two to one on that panel said yes, Look, we
defer to the president. It's not up to us to
decide whether we could execute federal law. And his administration's
(01:55):
recitation of the facts is it well within the bounds.
In the case of Portland, when the ice facility was
shut down for several weeks after being vandalized, but it
was back in June, and the lower court had said, look,
that's just a long time ago. Like I don't know
why you'd be nationalizing the Federal Guard now, And the
three judge panel said, yeah, that's up to him. Like,
(02:15):
there's limited resources. You can't have these ice facilities shut
down all the time on and off. In Chicago. The
facts are actually even sort of more stark in a way.
The violence absolutely has been happening in the last several
days and weeks. They've had shootings, they've had coordinated ambushes
where tires have been slashed, cars have been surrounded, they're
(02:36):
having to escort federal employees into the ice facility. So again,
Congress has said, you know, when the president believes that
he's unable to execute federal law, I suspect the Supreme
Court is going to say, you know, there might be
some cases where it's just so unreasonable. This isn't one
(02:56):
of them. We don't need to decide this except to
say this is within the president discretion.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
On the one hand, you have the administration saying we
can't execute federal law in a place like Chicago. But
on the other hand, you also have them touting the
success of some of their operations. Could that come into play.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Yes and no. The administration's argument on that is as
long as we have to divert any of the resources
we would use to execute immigration laws, that itself means
that we're unable to execute the laws. So the fact
that they're touting success but they could have more success
is sort of where they're going with that.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
And in Chicago, and again we're joined by senior editor
at the Dispatching host of the Advisory Opinions podcast, Sarah Isker.
You had a judge a rule that the federal agents
who were involved in these operations they had to wear
body cameras. Is that something that a judge can do?
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Uh, we'll see, right, So this can it's to something
that's Supreme Court has been pretty keen on what are
the actual powers of these judges when it comes to remedies. Right,
It's one thing for a court to say what you've
done is unlawful, but what can they do about it?
And again, all of this has to come from Congress. So,
by the way, if you don't like the powers of
(04:16):
the president to federalize the National Guard, you don't like
the Insurrection Act, go to Congress. Don't complain to the courts,
don't complain even to the president. Really, this is Congress
choosing to give these powers to the president. And when
it comes to the powers of the courts to demand
that the president or his asients do something, that also
is up to Congress. Believe it or not, the Article
(04:39):
three of the Constitution creating the Federal Courts is only
three hundred and sixty nine words. It doesn't say very much.
What it says is Congress can create these courts. Congress
can kind of create its jurisdiction and what its powers are.
So did Congress give the courts the power to order
something like body cameras? Is actually the question we want
to be asking.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
All right, last question for you, switching gears. Here the
idea that President Trump could look to get two hundred
and thirty million dollars in compensation from the Department of
Justice for the Russian investigation and what happened to mar Alago,
the search at mar A Lago in the classified documents case.
(05:19):
I wanted to get your thoughts on that.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
I mean, this is unprecedented. I know, we say that
a lot, and that's getting prod of old to say
we have complained. I have complained about what's called sue
and settle, where a friendly organization sue the federal government.
But it's the federal government, you know, and of their
party who agrees with them, and so then the federal
(05:41):
government quote unquote settles with them rather than go to court.
And so they get this windfall of money or a
policy and joins that they didn't like but didn't want
to actually bother to repeal. This is a version of that,
but turned up like to a thousand. It's the President
of the United States, who can controls the Department of
(06:02):
Justice saying that he wants two hundred and fifty million
dollars from the Department of Justice, who is the adversarial
party here, who can actually argue that he doesn't deserve
any money, or that two hundred and fifty million dollars
is an absurd amount of money? How is this going
to work? So, yeah, it's bad.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
If you had regular show who was perhaps wronged by
a federal investigation, would they be able to get that
kind of compensation?
Speaker 2 (06:35):
You'd be able to sue the Department of Justice and
they would tie you up in litigation for years. Now,
I will tell you. Do you remember Peter Struck and
Lisa Page, who were conducting an extra marital affair during
the Russia investigation while they were assigned to it, and
they were doing that on their work phone. The lover
I was at thej at the time. Just for disclosure,
(06:57):
they sued the department, arguing that the department had violated
their privacy under the Privacy Act. Now, the Privacy Act
requires someone to intentionally violate someone's privacy. They didn't have
any evidence of that, but the Biden administration Department of
Justice gave them each a million dollars as a settlement.
So we have seen these types of sort of politically
(07:20):
convenient settlements in the past or politically friendly settlements in
the past. But again, one million is different than two
hundred and fifty million, And you know, two former FBI
employees is different than the President of the United States,
where again there's no adversarial process, not just a friendly
perhaps adversarial process.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Yeah, I think it's two hundred and thirty million. He's
not asking for that extra twenty million, twenty.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Million here million there. Suddenly we're talking.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
About real money, right, taxpayer dollars. Sarah is Ker, senior
editor at The Dispassion, host of the Advisory Opinions podcast.
You can find her work in a whole lot more
at the Dispatch dot com. Sarah always appreciate time and insight.
Thanks so much, Thank you. The Ryan Gorman Show five
to nine every weekday morning on news radio WFLA.
And right now, let's go to the hotline and bring
in senior editor at The Dispatch and host of the
Advisory Opinions podcast, Sarah Isker. You can find all of
our work and a whole lot more at The Dispatch
dot com and you can follow her on x at
Wig Newton's So, Sarah, the court battle over the president's
deployment of the National Guard continues. It's happening on multiple
(00:20):
fronts in both Chicago and Portland. Let's start with the
Chicago case. What's being argued there?
Speaker 2 (00:27):
So, the trial court and a three judge panel at
the Appellate Court both said no to Donald Trump sending
the National Guard to Chicago. This case is now pending
before the Supreme Court. We expect them to have an
answer one way or the other, I would think by
the end of the week, given the kind of urgency
(00:47):
of the question. Now, the legal question is twofold one.
The statute says that if there's a rebellion and the
president is unable to execute federal law, he can federalize
the National Guard. So is that happening? The second question, though,
is who gets to decide whether that's happening. Does a
judge get to review the facts themselves and decide whether
(01:09):
a reasonable person would think that the President is unable
to execute federal law, or do we defer to the
president if he says he's unable to excute federal law.
By God, that's up to him. He's the one executing
federal law. So the Supreme Court really deciding both of those.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
What about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that decision
earlier in the week tied to the deployment in the
National Guard in Portland.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Yeah, so, just as I said, the three judge panel
in Chicago said, no, the facts on the ground are
just not what President Trump says. Nobody could see this
as unable to execute federal law. The Ninth Circuit in Portland,
two to one on that panel said yes, Look, we
defer to the president. It's not up to us to
decide whether we could execute federal law. And his administration's
(01:55):
recitation of the facts is it well within the bounds.
In the case of Portland, when the ice facility was
shut down for several weeks after being vandalized, but it
was back in June, and the lower court had said, look,
that's just a long time ago. Like I don't know
why you'd be nationalizing the Federal Guard now, And the
three judge panel said, yeah, that's up to him. Like,
(02:15):
there's limited resources. You can't have these ice facilities shut
down all the time on and off. In Chicago. The
facts are actually even sort of more stark in a way.
The violence absolutely has been happening in the last several
days and weeks. They've had shootings, they've had coordinated ambushes
where tires have been slashed, cars have been surrounded, they're
(02:36):
having to escort federal employees into the ice facility. So again,
Congress has said, you know, when the president believes that
he's unable to execute federal law, I suspect the Supreme
Court is going to say, you know, there might be
some cases where it's just so unreasonable. This isn't one
(02:56):
of them. We don't need to decide this except to
say this is within the president discretion.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
On the one hand, you have the administration saying we
can't execute federal law in a place like Chicago. But
on the other hand, you also have them touting the
success of some of their operations. Could that come into play.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Yes and no. The administration's argument on that is as
long as we have to divert any of the resources
we would use to execute immigration laws, that itself means
that we're unable to execute the laws. So the fact
that they're touting success but they could have more success
is sort of where they're going with that.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
And in Chicago, and again we're joined by senior editor
at the Dispatching host of the Advisory Opinions podcast, Sarah Isker.
You had a judge a rule that the federal agents
who were involved in these operations they had to wear
body cameras. Is that something that a judge can do?
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Uh, we'll see, right, So this can it's to something
that's Supreme Court has been pretty keen on what are
the actual powers of these judges when it comes to remedies. Right,
It's one thing for a court to say what you've
done is unlawful, but what can they do about it?
And again, all of this has to come from Congress. So,
by the way, if you don't like the powers of
(04:16):
the president to federalize the National Guard, you don't like
the Insurrection Act, go to Congress. Don't complain to the courts,
don't complain even to the president. Really, this is Congress
choosing to give these powers to the president. And when
it comes to the powers of the courts to demand
that the president or his asients do something, that also
is up to Congress. Believe it or not, the Article
(04:39):
three of the Constitution creating the Federal Courts is only
three hundred and sixty nine words. It doesn't say very much.
What it says is Congress can create these courts. Congress
can kind of create its jurisdiction and what its powers are.
So did Congress give the courts the power to order
something like body cameras? Is actually the question we want
to be asking.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
All right, last question for you, switching gears. Here the
idea that President Trump could look to get two hundred
and thirty million dollars in compensation from the Department of
Justice for the Russian investigation and what happened to mar Alago,
the search at mar A Lago in the classified documents case.
(05:19):
I wanted to get your thoughts on that.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
I mean, this is unprecedented. I know, we say that
a lot, and that's getting prod of old to say
we have complained. I have complained about what's called sue
and settle, where a friendly organization sue the federal government.
But it's the federal government, you know, and of their
party who agrees with them, and so then the federal
(05:41):
government quote unquote settles with them rather than go to court.
And so they get this windfall of money or a
policy and joins that they didn't like but didn't want
to actually bother to repeal. This is a version of that,
but turned up like to a thousand. It's the President
of the United States, who can controls the Department of
(06:02):
Justice saying that he wants two hundred and fifty million
dollars from the Department of Justice, who is the adversarial
party here, who can actually argue that he doesn't deserve
any money, or that two hundred and fifty million dollars
is an absurd amount of money? How is this going
to work? So, yeah, it's bad.
Speaker 1 (06:20):
If you had regular show who was perhaps wronged by
a federal investigation, would they be able to get that
kind of compensation?
Speaker 2 (06:35):
You'd be able to sue the Department of Justice and
they would tie you up in litigation for years. Now,
I will tell you. Do you remember Peter Struck and
Lisa Page, who were conducting an extra marital affair during
the Russia investigation while they were assigned to it, and
they were doing that on their work phone. The lover
I was at thej at the time. Just for disclosure,
(06:57):
they sued the department, arguing that the department had violated
their privacy under the Privacy Act. Now, the Privacy Act
requires someone to intentionally violate someone's privacy. They didn't have
any evidence of that, but the Biden administration Department of
Justice gave them each a million dollars as a settlement.
So we have seen these types of sort of politically
(07:20):
convenient settlements in the past or politically friendly settlements in
the past. But again, one million is different than two
hundred and fifty million, And you know, two former FBI
employees is different than the President of the United States,
where again there's no adversarial process, not just a friendly
perhaps adversarial process.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
Yeah, I think it's two hundred and thirty million. He's
not asking for that extra twenty million, twenty.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Million here million there. Suddenly we're talking.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
About real money, right, taxpayer dollars. Sarah is Ker, senior
editor at The Dispassion, host of the Advisory Opinions podcast.
You can find her work in a whole lot more
at the Dispatch dot com. Sarah always appreciate time and insight.
Thanks so much, Thank you. The Ryan Gorman Show five
to nine every weekday morning on news radio WFLA.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.