Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
Dateline True Crime Weekly. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts.
Hello, welcome back to Maine Justice. It is Tuesday morning, June 17th. I'm Andrew Weissman, and I'm here with my co-host, Mary McCord. Hi, Mary. Good morning, Andrew. How are you today? Last week, I did this thing where I said, hi, Mary, let's get started. That's true, because we had so much. No time to chit-chat. I have in front of me, I was creating this list of the things that we thought we would talk about, and then there were all these things where I was like,
But I also want to talk about, so like this, like, let's just say this is like an all employment act since January 20th, because there's so much and there's so much that's legal. There's so much that's important. We're going to cover, but probably not today because we're waiting for the written decision, but there was an oral decision from Massachusetts that
That was remarkable from a Republican federal judge about racial discrimination and LGBTQ discrimination. There's the renewed travel ban. There's so many things that deserve their own. Yes, their own episode. Right. If not, you know, not just a segment. I know.
It's very tough. Water is going to be in our A, B and C block. Yeah. Well, we will start by continuing what we discussed last week in terms of what's been happening in Los Angeles. The use of Title 10 United States Code Section 12406 to federalize the National Guard and also the Secretary of Defense ordering Marines to deploy there when we recorded last week.
That was being challenged by Governor Newsom in the state of California. The district court there, Judge Breyer, issued a temporary restraining order that has been already appealed. An emergency motion for a stay is now fully briefed. Argument will happen today, just right as we're finishing recording this podcast. Meanwhile, the preliminary injunction is being briefed still in the district court because that was just a temporary restraining order.
And argument on that will be Friday. So a lot to cover there. And Mary, you know what people should listen to? Mary just did this incredible, outstanding job in the last episode in walking through all of the sort of key legal pieces in connection with what's going on in L.A.,
But today there's we have so much more meat because we actually have the decision and we have the papers to talk about. So we'll actually be getting into that. But if you think, wait a second, I didn't take last week's class. Right. Go back and listen to it. You can go get remedial education. Right. Remedial Mary McCord. Military authorities. And then you'll be ready.
Then we will break down the federal charges and talk also about state charges against the shooter who killed a Minnesota lawmaker and killed her husband and shot two others. And the federal complaint is pretty darn chilling. He also went to two other state legislators' homes. I mean, it is quite the read and interesting.
We will talk about that. I also want to spend some time, Andrew, talking about what happened to Senator Padilla last week in California when he was trying to ask a question of Secretary Noem. That's the DHS secretary who was talking about the military deployment there.
And he was seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. And I want to talk about what that means. What's a seizure? What's an arrest? This finally is my core competency, you know, because I teach Fourth Amendment. So this is one where I was like, I know exactly what this is. Let's help people understand that. Because I think sometimes the verbiage around arrests and seizures and the Fourth Amendment gets a little bit muddled.
And then we will try to hit some of these other bazillion things that all deserve attention, even if we're not going to be able to give them the full attention they deserve today. And we will do our best. And that includes the decision you mentioned in the had to do with the termination of NIH grants. And there are much other activity, including last week, there was an argument in Washington
the Manhattan Trump case, but it was a federal argument about removal. We talked about it a little bit. And there was also a denial of en banc review of the verdict in the E. Jean Carroll case. I know this is going to be like taking us back to talking about E. Jean Carroll. We're going to talk about the effort to take the case federal. And we're obviously going to have a fairly somber discussion in the G Block about the murders and the attempted murders
And I agree that it was completely chilling. Just to be clear, Melissa Hartman and her husband, Mark...
were fatally killed. John Hoffman and Yvette were shot. And remarkably, they are alive. They're in the hospital. But as you said, those are the four people who have been sort of the focus. But there were also, it's detailed, there were two other attempts. The story is dramatic. But I just, I'm sure everybody who's listening, it's hard not to have just a
enormous sympathy and prayers for the families and the victims. And it's horrendous. It is. And let's not forget, this was the morning of...
the No Kings protests planned all over the country, including in Minneapolis, on the same day that the president was hosting a military parade here in Washington, D.C., on the 250th anniversary of the army, but also the president's birthday. And that's, you know, has stirred a lot of controversy about that type of a show of force here on the streets of the U.S. We're not celebrating the end of some war or something like that. It was really...
And that's partly why those protests were planned. And protests did go on. And by all accounts, there were large numbers of people in many, many cities, big and small, blue cities and red cities, to use those terms.
which is important and it's important, you know, for Americans to be exercising their First Amendment rights. And I'm glad they weren't cowed by the shooting. But nevertheless, you know, that's nerve wracking to know that there's somebody out there committing acts of violence and the shooter in his vehicle did have
no King's Flyers. So that's why I'm sort of bringing these things up in connection with each other. And the manhunt was still going on during those protests and rallies. So the police understandably said, we advise you not to go until we've captured this person. But people were like, no, this is important. We need to exercise our First Amendment rights. And there was sort of what appears to be or is reported to be a sort of form of hit list. And as you said, he did in between shenanigans
shooting Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman, he then did have these two other attempts before he was able to shoot and kill Melissa Horton and her husband, Mark. I mean, should we just get into this complaint since we've now gone so far into this? I just want to make a point that the victims of this violence, it includes Republicans and Democrats. Let's start with Donald Trump. Himself was the victim, uh,
to what appear to be assassination attempts. You have Stephen Scalise to go back in time a little bit, but you also have Nancy Pelosi's husband brutally attacked. But much more recently, in addition to Donald Trump, you have Governor Shapiro. That's right. You have the two people, this two young people who are coming out of, I believe it was the embassy. The Jewish Museum, just a few blocks from Georgetown Law where I work. Right, exactly. Actually about one block. Yeah.
And so the amount of both political violence of people who are actually elected officials and then essentially bystanders to it, whether they're related. Obviously, you know, we know about Judge Salas's son, where somebody was trying to harm Judge Salas and in the course actually went to their home, which is what happened here, going to their home. And there, Judge Salas's son was killed. And she speaks about that very...
If anyone wants to hear her, she has spoken with Nicole Wallace about that in ways that it's very, very hard to listen and not cry. At least I find that it's very, very moving. Yes. I met her at a conference on threats to judges that I was speaking at last fall. I met her and her husband. They're absolutely lovely. And talk about taking one of the probably the worst thing that has ever happened to them
in their lives and using it to speak out about political violence. She's been really a remarkable example of doing that. So should we just talk for a second about what is alleged? And here we have somebody who
wore a mask that, again, these are all allegations. I want to make sure everyone understands that this all has to be proved in court. But the FBI affidavit sets out that the alleged perpetrator had a sort of mask on that sort of made him look bald and covered his face.
Yeah, and let's just pause for a second there because we're not just talking about like a Halloween mask. We're talking about one of these hyper-realistic silicone masks that fits close to the face so that it's not immediately obvious a person has on a mask.
And we will put a link to this affidavit in the show notes. There are photographs in the affidavit. There must have been some cameras like that people have, you know how people have cameras at their front door. But one of the things he did is he had a, he dressed as a police officer. He had his car set up like as a police car. With sirens, lights, et cetera. He had a flashlight. He said, I have a warrant. He said it's the police. And he had a flashlight that he flashed in their face.
So they wouldn't get a good look at him. But one of the first things he said is, do you have any firearms? And I think it was with Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman, they said, we do, but they're locked up.
And then they realize at some point and they say, you're wearing a mask. You're not the police. He said, this is a robbery. They try to shut the door and he shoots through the door and he manages to shoot. It's just unbelievable. They're alive. John Hoffman, nine times and Yvette Hoffman, eight times. The daughter, who's home, calls the police.
2 a.m., 2.06 a.m., right. The police arrive, and there's just a sense of really interesting police work. Yes. Because not only are they there and trying to get them help, but they then go to what they have identified as nearby elected officials. And that's how they know about these other attempts, because—
One of them, they have the perpetrator ringing on the doorbell and the person's not home. And in another... Again, you know, photographs in the affidavit of him at this other elected official's home. And the other, he's in a car as the police go by. And essentially, he gets warded off because he sees the police going to the home to check on it. So they don't realize that he's the bad guy. And so he then moves on.
And so when the police finally get to the home of Melissa and Mark, they actually are there while he is shooting them. That's right. And runs off. And this is what's so tragic for just moments. And let's just be clear for people. Police on their own, after they learned about the shooting of Senator Hoffman and his wife, said, we better go do wellness checks on other elected officials in the area. So they were just being proactive and going to their houses, right? Right.
When they get to Representative Hortman's home, they see this black Ford Explorer parked outside the home that looks like a squad car. It's got police style lights. They're on. They're flashing. The license plate says police. Now it's a fake license plate, but it says that they see him dressed in dark colors standing near the front door facing the house. Then it says, and I'm just going to read it.
Moments after their arrival on scene, Bolter fired several gunshots into the house as he moved forward, entering the Hortman's home. Imagine your law enforcement, you're getting there. You're seeing that in dash cam footage from the scene. Moments after Bolter fired those shots as he moved into the house, a second set of gunshots can be heard.
At the same time, several flashes appear in the entryway windows. And then it's at that time, officers are moving forward to the home's front doorway. They see Mr. Hortman lying on the floor. They approach the fallen Mr. Hortman, who had been struck by multiple gunshots. And then they also find Representative Hortman suffering from multiple gunshots. Meanwhile, Bolter flees. And there is some gunfire exchange.
He leaves his car there and flees. And this reads like such great works. And, you know, it's going to relate to like state law enforcement. This is what they do. But it was so smart. They didn't know about this list. They didn't know what this was. But it is the idea that there was targeting of four elected officials. And presumably that's part of the motive.
And then people who were standing by who were spouses of them and their other victims, such as, you know, the daughter who called the police. It is so terrifying because of the string of violence in this country.
that is so unacceptable without sort of a outcry on all sides. And, you know, and you really got a sense of just how tight knit the Minnesota community is. Should we talk for a moment about what's been charged? We should, but I just want to complete the picture with the good police work after that, right? Because this is when they find in that vehicle, they find
Five firearms, semi-automatic assault-style rifles, a large amount of ammunition, a medical kit, and these notebooks, right? Several notebooks of handwritten notes, names of more than 45 Minnesota state and federal public officials.
many of them with addresses. There's a list in these notebooks of different search engines, which you can use to find people's addresses, right? They then, you know, use GPS in the SUV to see the trip history of this car. And that's when they realize all the places that he's gone to. They ultimately find discarded a Beretta, a nine millimeter semi-automatic handgun, three magazines just a few blocks away, the mask, flashlights,
flashlight discarded a few blocks away. They then do additional investigation, right? Talk actually with Mr. Bolter's wife, who's cooperative, use cell phone location data, talk to his roommate because he also sometimes shared an apartment in Minneapolis due to work there. And all of this, they're able to piece together this effort that took some time, right? The ordering of this specialized mask
the ordering of all these other materials, putting this all together, all this research to find out where people lived,
That's why I think ultimately one of the charges that has been announced is a federal stalking charge. And it's interesting because I think people might be thinking, how does stalking apply here? But it's under federal law when with the intent to kill, you use the mail, interactive computer services, electronic communication services, etc.
etc. to engage in a course of conduct that places a person in reasonable fear of death or seriously bodily injury to that person, that is a federal crime of stalking. Right. And then there's sort of related firearms offenses related to that stalking. Including killing somebody while committing stalking. Yeah, exactly. That's sort of the federal charges in connection with a complaint, not an indictment yet, but that's right. Obviously will be.
There are also state charges that right now are second degree, but they clearly, when this goes to indictment, will be first degree. And it goes to very much what you're saying, Mary, which is this idea of premeditated. Yes.
So there will be substantial charges at both the state and federal level. The proof seems overwhelming, including the fact that you will have eyewitnesses who are victims. I've seen cases like this where someone who has been shot but not killed is testified. And there was a case, a famous one in New York, where the person represented themselves and the victim was literally said, Mary, yes, I remember seeing you shoot me. Right.
Wow. So here, the proof seems overwhelming. There has been a lot of spin on the far right suggesting that this person is somehow a Democrat or the Democrats are responsible for it.
And all of that is false disinformation. We don't yet know the motive. Obviously, there's evidence from which one can infer motive. It's not required as long as it was intentional or premeditated, but in terms of the charges so far. But this idea of trying to
blame and immediately view this through a political lens, it is so detrimental. That's one of the reasons I wanted to start with the fact that political violence has been something that's affected all sorts of people, political people, not political people, and it needs to be seen that way. I mean, I know I'm stating the obvious, but this
This is one where that's the first thing out of the box was to blame this on the Democrats. And if I just, you know, I'd be saying the same thing if someone said blaming it on the Republicans. I mean, this is one where the talk of violence is just not
helpful. I mean, we have talked about this. Many people have talked about this kind of language is going to lead to this. But also think about all of the ways that there's disincentives to being a public official, disincentives to being an election worker, to doing anything out of principle where you put yourself in the limelight is a
These are things we want people to do. Even if you disagree with them, you think politically, you know, there's taking a view that you disagree with. As long as they're acting in good faith, that's what the country's for. And it's just crazy that that is not, this is the kind of discussion, Mary, that I had in fifth grade, not now. Well, and one sort of hopeful thing here is the entire congressional delegation, Republicans and Democrats,
all jointly put out a statement denouncing this, right? They at least did not make it into some sort of attack on the opposing party. This is wrong. It doesn't matter what party you are. Political violence is not acceptable in the United States.
So, Mary, should we take a break? Because it doesn't relate directly. But the idea of, as you mentioned, political violence as a deterrent to speaking, to protesting, and the idea of people getting arrested, deported, summarily arrested, as we saw, and I'm using that term sort of advisedly, with the sitting senator of California is thrown to the ground and
And he is seized, in my view, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. But admittedly, we don't know all the facts. But let's take a break and then talk about the legal issues and some factual things that have happened in connection with the events in L.A. That sounds good. ♪
Introducing The Weeknight on MSNBC. Join hosts Alicia Menendez, Michael Steele, and Simone Sanders-Townsend for a spirited conversation challenging each other and our leaders about the biggest issues of the day. It's about knowing what you are for, who you are for. That's what politics is about, it's engagement. We are going to dive deeper into the legal side of today's breaking news. The Weeknight, Monday through Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC.
Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter. Each morning, you'll get analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite shows. I do think it's worth being very clear-eyed, very realistic about what's going on here. Previews of our podcasts and documentaries, plus written perspectives from the newsmakers themselves.
all sent directly to your inbox each morning. Get the best of MSNBC all in one place. Sign up for MSNBC Daily at msnbc.com. Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, Why Is This Happening? Progressive grassroots group Indivisible's
co-founder and co-executive director Leah Greenberg. If there's anything we know about successful movements to defeat autocracies around the world, successful movements to take down dictatorships, it's that they build broad coalitions and the coalition may not be united by anything other than their opposition to what is currently happening. And that is OK. That's this week on Why Is This Happening? Search for Why Is This Happening wherever you're listening right now and follow.
Mary, let's talk about Judge Breyer because he wrote a decision. And I thought one way to talk about it is why he thinks he has to rule, why he has jurisdiction and why this is not sort of like, oh, judges, you have to stay out of this. And then what he said about is this or is this not a rebellion and the
second ground, which was, was federal law enforcement unable to do its job? Those were sort of, as people remember from last week, those are prerequisites that one or the other would need. And then he deals with the sort of procedural issue about why the governor was asked to do anything. So I thought one of the nicer parts of the decision was when he talked about what the court's role is here. Because just to be clear, this administration's view is butt out. You have no role
whatsoever. That is what they are saying. That's right. You have no role. They said even if the president gave no reasons at all, the government, at least at argument, said the court couldn't review that. It's just non-reviewable. One of the things that Breyer said is, and I'm just going to read one sentence, which is he said the federal courts, quote, have
no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. Meaning they're duty bound to say what the law is. And so we're going to turn to sort of what is a rebellion and what does the statute mean? Remember, this is a congressional statute with words in it and limitations in it.
And the court is the one that gets to say, has one branch or the other violated that and usurped the role of the other? It is just, we are not living in a dictatorship. We are not living in a land where there's only one branch. And it was fascinating.
very welcoming to see Judge Breyer say that. Yeah. And, you know, I think he was really aided. And I think we foreshadowed this last week in our episode by the fact that even though, you know, there is such a thing as a political question doctrine where courts will refrain from even taking jurisdiction and ruling on issues where they are totally committed to the discretion of one branch and when there's no real standards for assessing them. But he says that's not the case here. And we've
You know, we just had the Supreme Court and the lower courts that have followed the Supreme Court when the Supreme Court said in response to a very similar argument by the government, the government argued with respect to the Alien Enemies Act that courts have no role in deciding whether there has been an invasion or predatory incursion by a foreign nation. That's a political question. They should have no role. The Supreme Court disagreed, said although judicial review under the Alien Enemies Act is limited, they're
can be judicial review on questions of the interpretation and constitutionality of the act. Interpretation of the act. What Judge Breyer then says is like, since then, several judges have interpreted what invasion or predatory incursion means, and many have now found
It doesn't mean what Trend de Ragua has done in the United States. And so that's what Judge Breyer relies on to say, I can interpret what Congress meant when it said rebellion. And he does. And he does. And he says there are four factors that he comes up for what is a rebellion. By the way, I think this is such a great thing for listeners because in many ways, this is sort of what the law does. It's articulating here things that are and gives reasons for it in citations, but
but something that I think may feel intuitively right to listeners as to what a rebellion is. Now, the government took the view that anytime anyone resists law enforcement, that's what Congress meant. That's a rebellion. And the court said, no, that is not a rebellion. There are four factors that the judge says he looks at. It must be violent. It must be organized.
It must be open and avowed. And it must be against the government as a whole. That's right. And he said, I find it particularly deplorable that the government would look to protected First Amendment activity
as some sort of evidence of a rebellion. And the people who are peacefully protesting obviously are not engaged in a rebellion. So we're only talking about the handful of people who are not peacefully protesting. But applying those four factors, he said, that ain't a rebellion. That
That's right. And, you know, he did look back. So this particular statute that the president relied on, 12406, is from 1903. So he looked back at a bunch of dictionary definitions of 1903. And he said the first definitions are always about violence and organization. Violence is required, but not enough.
And the government had kind of done, you know how when you look at something in the dictionary, you sometimes have a first definition and a second and a third. And that third one is kind of like rebellion against authority. And the government cited that. And I'm not saying that as a direct quote, but basically I read it and it was like, that's kind of like when your kid like eats a cookie before dinner after you've said don't eat any cookies before dinner and they're rebelling against you. And I don't think
that's what Congress meant. You don't, Mary? I don't. And so I thought, you know, he drew upon those dictionary definitions to come up with what you just said. And then as you indicate, I think this is so important. He was particularly concerned that what he said is the court is troubled by the implication inherent in defendants argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment can justify a finding of rebellion.
The U.S. reports, meaning the books full of all of the cases decided in the United States, are chock full of language explaining the importance of individuals' right to speak out against the government, even when doing so is uncomfortable, even when doing so is provocative, even when doing so causes inconvenience. Now, this is not to say that you could not have a protest become so pervasively violent and open-minded
and avowed uprising against the whole of government, say, for example, what happened on January 6th, 2021, that it couldn't be a rebellion against the authority of the United States. But what we're seeing in L.A., at least according to both the government
And the state of California is, yes, there are incidents of violence, but they're sporadic and individual, not organized and largely peaceful. It doesn't meet the standard. It doesn't meet the standard. Doesn't meet the standard. So one thing I thought of, Mary, when I was thinking about this case and I was thinking about your background in national security and my background in national security, is there's a very famous Supreme Court case called Keith.
K-E-I-T-H. And it dealt with domestic violence. And one of the things that was said in that case was you have to be particularly careful about what a government does in connection with alleged sort of domestic violence and in the domestic sphere, because there are all sorts of other reasons that can creep in and
And whether the law enforcement operation is going to be done for political reasons is of real concern. And it basically said, you know, when you're operating in a foreign context, it may be more justified, but you have to be particularly wary. It's
To me, it was this decision reminded me so much of Keith. It reminded me of what Justice Jackson said in Youngstown, our favorite concurrence. But I really thought of you in terms of the Keith decision and that sort of admonition. But Mary, what did he say about the second thing? Because rebellion and sort of the danger of rebellion, he rejects. And then he moves on to this idea of whether they meet this other standard, which is that federal law enforcement is sort of unbiased
of unable to do its job because this sort of reminded me a lot of our prior discussion about state law enforcement in Minnesota and just what a really remarkable job state law enforcement can and they do do every day in this country. I want to go there and I'm going to answer your question. But when you just said what you said about the Keith case, it made me think of
something we just have to mention. So the Keith case, so people know, was not about military being deployed or anything like that. It was about surveillance, right, for purposes of trying to detect and prevent domestic extremist violence. But the court's kind of like, you don't get to just surveil people sort of outside the Fourth Amendment just because it's about domestic violence and raise all these concerns you just indicated about, you know, misuse of authorities for political purposes. And I will note
that on June the 12th, on the day that Senator Padilla was seized trying to ask Secretary Noem a question at a press conference, she said that...
that the operation in L.A., including the military, will continue until they have, quote, liberated Los Angeles from the leadership of the democratically elected governor and mayor. Is that what Section 12406 is about when you're federalizing the National Guard and then also deploying Marines?
supposedly to protect federal property and federal functions against a rebellion sounds very different than liberating Los Angeles from its democratically elected leadership. Perfect example of once again, we saw this in the Alien Enemies Act litigation, the dualism, the dichotomy between what is being said in court by lawyers and
and what is being said by senior officials. I remember Judge Boasberg pointing that out, saying, I am very aware of this split-
And that is what you were saying is inconsistent with what senior people up to and including Donald Trump. But OK, we are digressing to our big picture. Yes, that's right. Let's go to this. Let's go to the small picture. Totally. I love it. I love it. To your point, law enforcement out there doing their job, arresting people. And so what the court is saying that even if the defendants, meaning the U.S. government is correct, that maybe they would have been able to do more ICE raids if there hadn't been any protests. That's right.
That's sort of not the standard for federalizing the National Guard. And there's not any indication here that local and state law enforcement weren't. I shouldn't say it that way, that they weren't doing their jobs because they're I don't think anybody was disputing that, even the defendants. But there's not a reason here to say that the federal government cannot execute the laws because.
They are still executing the laws. They are still making ICE arrests. The local law enforcement is making arrests of people who are committing acts of violence or attempting to commit acts of violence against federal law enforcement who are
trying to execute federal law. So we don't have a problem where there is an inability to... Unable, unable, exactly. Unable. That's what the statute's about. You can't do it. That's just not where we're at here. And then finally, he said, by the way, the procedural requirement that this goes through the governor, well, that's like
That's sort of a no-brainer. I mean, obviously it didn't go through the governor. But he does make one thing clear because he says, I don't have to get to the question about whether the statute requires the consent of the governor. Because as a matter of procedure, you know, that statute does require the orders to be issued through the governor. And it's not enough
to send an order to the adjutant general that says at the top of the memo, through the governor. That's not what this could have meant. So he's like, I don't have to get to that question about consent because the U.S. government's big on can't possibly be consent, yada, yada. And I will say the federal government, particularly now in the briefing to the Ninth Circuit, is trying to root 12406 in Insurrection Act history where there is a provision that does not require consent
the consent of the governor. That is what was used back in the civil rights era, which we talked about last week, where the governors were refusing essentially to prevent the type of violence that was occurring and standing in the way of the execution of federal law. And those are times where the Insurrection Act was invoked
over the objection of the governor. But that's because the Insurrection Act allows that. There's nothing. Yes. And that history doesn't map on to the history of 12406, which was enacted many, many years, 100 years later than the earliest Insurrection Act, has a different pedigree and has never, let's not forget, never been used in history before by itself like this in the situation of civil rights
unrest, you know, domestic disturbances. Postal workers. Yes, postal workers is the only time. When postal workers are on strike. Guess what, Mary? That's not law enforcement activity. That's right. That's right. So, Mary, I know there's an administrative stay and that's something there's now an argument in the Ninth Circuit. That's yeah. So this is like to be continued.
So do you want to talk about the preliminary injunction, the P.I.?
Insurrection Act is something Congress gave to the president. And 12406 doesn't have those same types of... It's so funny. I read it as like a confession. To me, pointing out that a different statute does something differently only to me made it clear that this statute wasn't doing it. Yeah, no. It was just like...
I'm not sure that's helping you. It's interesting, isn't it? So now we are, meanwhile, so we'll find out if the Ninth Circuit, which
at least temporarily stayed things administratively. Now they'll actually be hearing argument is should we stay Judge Breyer's order? Because we should be clear, Judge Breyer ordered that the National Guard be put back under the California Attorney General's authority. That was actually more than California had even asked for. California had asked for an injunction against engaging in domestic law enforcement activities. And Judge Breyer went further than that. He also said, though, I'm not going to make any orders right now with respect to
to the Marines and whether they're violating Posse Comitatus Act or even whether the Federalized National Guard is violating Posse Comitatus Act because I don't have enough facts. This is last Thursday. I don't have enough facts to support that. That is really a key piece of the preliminary injunction motion. It then stayed that order of Judge Breyer. It's now going to decide, do we keep that stay in place while we handle the substantive appeal? Can we even handle the substantive appeal of a TRO?
Meanwhile, the preliminary injunction is proceeding, being briefed in an expedited manner this week with argument Friday. And the big issue there that's different from before is new facts that California says show that the National Guard and the Marines are engaging in domestic law enforcement. And they talk about things like go
going along, not just sort of guarding federal property on federal property, but going off federal property, going on ICE raids. There's at least one indication of a Marine making a temporary detention of somebody, a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Let's just be clear. And then turning that person over to the Los Angeles Police Department. And what kind
California is arguing is this being a violation of Posse Comitatus Act that should support a preliminary injunction, not just a temporary restraining order, but a preliminary injunction, is that what is happening meets the tests that other courts have laid out for domestic law enforcement, that the use of the military is regulatory, prescriptive, and compulsory. In other words, they're doing things
that people have to comply with. The military involvement pervades civilian law enforcement activities, meaning they're there kind of with civilian law enforcement and their presence pervades that civilian law enforcement and that their involvement is direct and active.
And so last week I talked about oftentimes this kind of being limited to search, seizure, arrest, detention. And that's just kind of because those are the things that are so sort of core civilian law enforcement activities.
But what I just read, those statements, those are what courts have said can be so pervasive that it's civilian law enforcement. So I think we're going to find out whether it's a little bit more than just the actual arrests and actual detention, actual search and actual seizure. I have a question for you. Is a way to think about this that if the court were to accept factually that this is what's going on, that they're they're doing more.
than what the government initially said. So one way to think about this is with respect to the National Guard, it's yet another reason that Judge Breyer's right. In other words, it's both legally, you add it to all of the things that he's already said, plus there's now more because factually they're doing something that's impermissible. With respect to the Marines, it seems to me that it's actually, because obviously he hasn't ruled on that at all, but the Marines...
who are federalized to begin with. They're always. They're U.S. Armed Forces. Right. But there's a posse compatis act where they can only do certain things in that role. So that could be just an independent, separate ground for finding what...
What the Marines are doing is improper. Is that a way to think about this? Well, that's right, because the use of 12406 in the presidential memorandum was solely with respect to federalizing the National Guard. The authority for having the Marines engaged in this protective mission of protecting federal function and federal property, according to the government, is just inherent authority.
presidential authority. But that inherent presidential authority doesn't mean they can do assuming it exists at all. And that's something that, you know, hasn't really been decided. The big question then is, would that inherent presidential authority extend to
to domestic law enforcement. Right now, the government says they're not engaging in that. They're only engaging in protective functions. They have a factual argument. Right. So that's where we have this factual argument, right? Like, are they or aren't they? And what does that mean for the Marines deployment and the National Guard deployment? So much more. And by next Tuesday, when we record, we may know what, well, we'll know something more than we know today. That's right.
So, Mary, let's take a quick break and let's come back to Senator Padilla because I wanted to talk about something, which is when people say whether somebody was seized or
and somebody was arrested. And this is going to be like, welcome. Welcome to my criminal procedure class. But there was like this whole issue of like, was he arrested? Was he seized? I think even the senator says, well, I wasn't arrested. And I think he's using that in the colloquial sense. So come on back, everybody. And we're going to explain what the colloquial views are and what the law actually is. Yep.
MSNBC's Jen Psaki, host of The Briefing. We've never experienced a moment like this in our country. And it leaves us all with a choice. Are we going to speak out or are we going to be pressured into silence? I've worked for presidents. I've faced the tough questions from the press and even threats from the Kremlin. And if there's one thing I've learned,
is that you can't cower to bullies. You don't need to be hopeless. We have our voices, and I will continue using mine. The Briefing with Jen Psaki, Tuesday through Friday at 9 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC.
Andrew, let's have a little Fourth Amendment lesson here. Okay. Let me just tee this up by reading the Fourth Amendment, right? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue upon probable cause. The word arrest is nowhere in the Fourth Amendment. Exactly. So the question in the Fourth Amendment is, what is a seizure?
Like, how do you define it? And so the courts have to define it because, as you said, the Constitution says you can't have an unreasonable search and seizure. But then the courts have to decide what is a search and what is a seizure. And as the courts say with respect to a seizure, it is would a reasonable person feel free to leave? And a classic example of a seizure, the sort of platonic ideal is
is when you are actually arrested and handcuffed and sort of taken off the street and booked. That is sort of the platonic ideal of a seizure because it's a full-on arrest. But if you were doing like sets and subsets, you know, a seizure can be a lot more than just an arrest. Like the police can hold you. They can tell you, stand where you are, you're not free to go. But
As soon as you're sort of physically touched, that usually is like a big sign that the courts look at. You look at the number of people, you look at the tone of voice, you look at whether guns are drawn.
In Senator Padilla's case, he is not just physically touched. He is pushed, shoved and thrown to the ground and handcuffed. Yeah. So that, just to be clear, is a seizure. And the fourth amendment now says lots and lots of exceptions.
But the general rule that you sort of alluded to is where's the probable cause of the crime? And it has to be reasonable, right? So for a full-on arrest, that means probable cause. For what people know as a Terry stop, right? A brief encounter to ask a question. Yeah, this wasn't a Terry stop. Yeah, you don't throw people to the ground and handcuff them for a Terry stop. That's a brief encounter. Can I ask you for some identification? Those kind of things.
still requires reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. Arrest, probable cause that a crime's been committed. And I just want to do a little detour into the common law because
You mentioned physical force. So in 2021, the Supreme Court decided a case called Torres v. Madrid. This was argued by my colleague at ICAP, our Supreme Court director, Kelsey Corcoran. In fact, this is when we first met because she was not with ICAP at the time, but I mooted her on that case. She won that case. Police attempted to approach the car of a woman who was stopped in a parking lot in the early morning because they thought she might be somebody that had a rest warrant for. She was not. They did not identify themselves.
She thought they were trying to carjack her. She sped away in her car. They shot her multiple times, hit her twice in the back as she is fleeing. Had to abandon the car, had to be, you know, flown to the hospital, right? Because she was shot twice.
But the police did not apprehend her in the moment. So the question then for the Supreme Court is, was that a seizure? Because she's still moving. Because she got away. And the general view of an arrest was that if somebody has a show of authority and says, will the police stop in order for it to be a seizure, you have to have complied. If you just keep walking. Well, that's it before Torres Fila Dirt. Exactly. Exactly.
And actually, even after, because that's a show of authority case. Right. If there's no touch. And what by the way, this is we're really getting to. Yeah. Yeah. You're right. So if you walk away and you've never been touched. But one of the things the Supreme Court looks back on and says at common law, it was this application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain. That was an arrest, no matter whether the arrestee escaped.
And here there was a physical force shooting somebody in the back. Right. And they said it didn't matter whether it's like a person's hand versus a projectile, like a bullet, obviously. That's right.
That's right. And so I bring that up to talk a little bit about what a seizure is and also this idea that at common law, arrest was defined, I'd say, more like the way we just think of a seizure today. Whereas in present times and common law, and we're talking about that, we're talking about we're going back into ancient history even before the founding of
back to England and kind of what was the law that wasn't written down in a code. That's what common law is. It's just what was known and that's what the law was. Many, many cases. Many, many cases through case law, not through a written code. Now, as you said, Andrew, when we think of arrest, we think of it as sort of
arrest and charge with a crime as the first step toward a booking, right? And then an indictment or a criminal complaint and then a trial, et cetera, et cetera. Exactly. And that's why when Senator Pendi, I think, said, you know, I wasn't arrested, what he meant is like that is a totally understandable thing if you're not in the criminal law, you're not in the criminal defense law or criminal prosecutor. It's like I wasn't arrested. I wasn't charged. I wasn't booked and taped. But
You and I would say, as people who teach law at law school or do a podcast that's deep in the weeds like we do on Maine Justice, is that actually not only was a seizure, which is really all you need to have this, but it was an arrest where we would say you actually needed probable cause arrest.
or an exception. Now, we don't know the justifications yet. I want to make sure that we'd have to hear from ICE and whoever was doing this, but this is a seizure. When you throw somebody to the ground and you handcuff them, that is an arrest for the purposes of
The Fourth Amendment. And to be clear, this doesn't depend on whether it was a senator or not a senator. Not at all. Right. Or identifying himself. There's a sort of like Christine Edwards saying, well, I wish he had identified himself. I'm sorry. There's no exception to the Fourth Amendment that says it doesn't apply. But by the way, I think you did identify yourself. I'm Senator Padilla. I'm Senator Padilla. And like, that's pretty obvious on the tape.
Mary, should we turn to New York? Because there are lots of things in my hometown. There is the E. Jean Carroll case where what happened there was in connection with the first judgment in time that she got for about $5 million. The Second Circuit had affirmed that, but Donald Trump
had asked for that to be heard by the entire Second Circuit. And this sort of obviously is a precursor to then going to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court doesn't have to take it, obviously. And the Second Circuit said, we are not going to hear this, what's called en banc. And by the way, I'm sorry to even have to explain that because everyone, of course, knows that now because you've been listening to us. So you all know this, our lingo.
So they said no. There were two dissents and they were both, I'm just going to say it, they were dissents by judges who were appointed by Donald Trump. And they did seem to laugh
lag issues. I viewed it as sort of flagging issues for the Supreme Court for the assert opinion to say, look, we disagree. But I'm not saying that pejoratively, like they may in very good faith think these are real issues and the Supreme Court might be interested in it. But it was very much about proof that they say that Donald Trump couldn't put into evidence going to actual malice. They didn't seem to me to be particularly concerned.
interesting because I didn't think they had the factual predicate for it. Like, you know, Donald Trump didn't offer to testify to it. He didn't testify at all in this trial. And so things that would go to his state of mind, usually you have to testify to that. You can't just sort of say, I want to put it on. And so it seemed a little weak to me, but I sort of read it as
These are of interest. One thing I did note was I read the briefs on this and the issue that was flagged in the dissent. I didn't see it in Donald Trump's papers. Well, interesting. Yeah. I did not read all of his papers this time, so I can't.
But, you know, sometimes judges reach out and do that. And that's, I think, why you have this idea that maybe this was a signal for something that Donald Trump's lawyers might want to put in a cert petition, right? And frequently when a court denies en banc,
meaning, again, as you already explained, denies having the whole entire court rehear the case. When there are judges who issue dissents, that is something that the attorneys think about when they decide whether they should try to get the Supreme Court interested in the case and petition. They will oftentimes look at those dissents and say, OK, well, we've got at least a few judges that think there's something here. You know, let's go seek higher review. Now, it remains to be seen whether Trump's attorneys
will do that or not, and certainly remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court would be interested. But I think your instinct there is probably on point. And just to be clear, I'm not saying that pejoratively. I mean, there's no reason that they don't think that this is a good faith issue. I do think there are answers to it. Where this leaves us is that the $5 billion judgment in terms of the Second Circuit, they're done.
They've like they have ruled in her favor. There's no more review in the Second Circuit. So the next step would be to go to the Supreme Court, which may or may not hear it. One week from today on the 24th, there will be the separate appeal on the second E. Jean Carroll judgment. That one, if you remember, was for eighty three million dollars.
And there's going to be a separate appeal there, and that's going to be heard for the first time in the Second Circuit a week from today. So that's sort of E.G. Carroll news. But then, Mary, you listen to the effort by Donald Trump, the renewed effort, I should say the renewed, renewed effort to have his criminal case, the Manhattan criminal case where he was convicted, released.
And sentenced on 34 felony counts, he wants to have that removed to federal court. It was denied at the district court level, but it was then argued also in the Second Circuit. What did you make of that?
Right. So it was an interesting argument because the judges were very active. They had a lot of questions, both for Donald Trump's lawyers and a lot of questions for the district attorney lawyers. Remember, this was a district attorney of Manhattan who prosecuted this case. And what they seemed honestly most interested in is this notion is
can you actually still seek removal of a case after the case is basically finished? And there's so much about the statute that allows removal of a case. Remember, removal, federal officer removal, is when there is a federal defense that the person who's being prosecuted says, I should have a federal court rule on my federal defense. And here we had things like
immunity, right, as a defense. And there's a few problems with that, which the court did get into in asking Mr. Trump's lawyers questions about that, which are that Donald Trump had SART removal earlier in the case, which had been denied. And that was all before the Supreme Court ruled on presidential immunity. But Donald Trump did not then come in like
the day after or the week after the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision and say, okay, now I need to remove because now the Supreme Court has told me I have this defense and I need to remove this prosecution to federal court to determine my defense. He waited. He waited a long time. He slept on his rights. He slept on his rights. And so there was a lot of this type of discussion about is this even something right now
that we can or should be deciding that the statute applies to. And what Donald Trump was arguing is that, yes, there are time restraints within the statute for when you can seek removal, but there is a good cause exception to that. That good cause exception allows us to seek it even sort of after the case is through.
through a trial, which of course was the case with the Manhattan prosecution. And so this question we've been talking about, sleeping on your rights, kind of went to, is there good cause or is there not? So like I said, an active bench, all three judges asking lots of questions of both sides. And so we'll see what they end up doing there. It's kind of a crazy notion, though, that you can wait till after trial and say, it
Excuse me. This should have all been in federal court. Yeah. Quick note on a different topic, which was just filed yesterday. The ABA, the American Bar Association, has filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., your home turf, Mary. Mm-hmm.
And they are basically saying, you know, we've had these four cases with law firms saying that these executive orders are unconstitutional. Three of the judges have actually completely agreed. One has temporarily agreed and is deciding right now whether to permanently agree. Remember I said this thing about
Isn't there a way to do some sort of class action? This isn't quite a class action, but what they're saying is we represent, we're an organization. We have lots and lots of members. We want a decision that declares that all of these executive orders that could be done like these four. So essentially it's like looking in the future that we want a declaration that all of this is improper and null and void because they're kind of all similar.
They carve out and describe the different provisions. And they're basically saying, we have to figure out a mechanism so that none of this sort of chilling effect can go forward. So it's inventive, but it is very much based on what might happen in the future. That's usually, by the way, not how lawsuits work. Lawsuits usually work on...
Someone's done something. Injured right now. Now, they're saying we are injured already, right? And I should say the APA is doing this on behalf of member law firms and lawyers, right? And there's no question that the blacklisting and the capitulation by other law firms that didn't want to be blacklisted has had just a dramatic effect on law firms and law practice, dramatically chilling effect that is still continues to permeate the field.
But it will be interesting to see. I can already foreshadow, but I won't do it right here, all the arguments the government will make, including that there's just no standing here, right? This is not something where these firms can challenge this at this point when there's been no action taken toward them. But they want, as you said, they want to declare security.
that each provision that were in those other blacklisting orders about security clearance termination, government contract provision, the declaring federal buildings and employee access, you know, limiting their access and all of these things. They want all of those to be declared unconstitutional. So we'll be watching this closely. I'm not even sure who it's assigned to at this point.
point. We don't think we know yet what Judge has said. Yeah. And then last thing, before we say goodbye, you mentioned this right at the top. And we have not seen the transcript yet. And this ruling was based on a hearing. And so we don't have a written opinion and we don't have the transcript yet. But as you indicated, there was a very, very strong ruling by Judge William Young in Massachusetts, a jurist who's been on the bench since 1985.
in a case brought by a number of states as well as a number of organizations who receive NIH grants, that's National Institutes of Health, on all kinds of research relating to the health of Americans, right? And many of those grants had been terminated under Donald Trump's different directives to end DEI measures, to end, you know, anything that is about gender equality.
I think it was racial minorities and LGBTQ plus were the sort of key issues. Oh, that's what he used. But I'm talking about Trump's original like executive orders and executive actions were directing federal agencies to end EI measures or anything that would support sort of gender affirming care, anything other than we have two genders, right? Male and female.
And so that resulted in the termination of a number of grants. Oh, here's the words Trump had used, gender ideology extremism. That's the quote that he had used. Mary, can I tie this to something we had talked about with Judge Breyer? Because Judge Breyer talked about the duty of a judge and that this is something that is what the court has to do. They have a responsibility. And
This is one where the reports are that Judge Young said, it is my duty to call it out. And very much in the same language. This is a judge who was appointed by Ronald Reagan. He said that he found what was going on was appalling. He said it was palpably clear. And what the record has reported is I've never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable. I've sat on this bench now for 40 years.
I've never seen governmental racial discrimination like this. He goes on to say, to your point about his obligation, I'm hesitant to draw this conclusion, but I have an unflinching obligation to draw it, that this represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community. That's what this is. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.
On that basis, he said the termination of different research grants based on racial discrimination, discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community, that's in violation of law and those grants must be restored.
And there is so much important research in these areas. Healthcare research has to be very dependent on the communities that are impacted by different health issues. Everybody knows that, right? Anybody with family members or friends that know that different people, different races, different genders, et cetera, are impacted differently by health issues. Some are more susceptible to certain issues and some are not. Can I just say on that score, I think I've mentioned this before, but the largest long-term
health study of women was canceled by Doge and only because of really good reporting by NPR, at least I'm relating a cause and effect, was it restored. It caused shockwaves in the medical community. But this idea of, you know, it's basically it's like, you know, make America great again for, you know, white men and this idea of difference not being valued.
But I think a really good place to end is this idea of unflinching obligation. Yes, that's what our courts are doing right now. And I see it in the courts. When you think about the state law enforcement in Minnesota putting their life on the line, it was their unflinching obligation to the public. And you're seeing it in the courts and you're seeing it with people really standing up. That's right. So, Mary, once again, I mean, this is like...
We're like racing through so many topics, but it's such a pleasure to talk to you about it, even when the topics are really difficult. Yeah. And we do appreciate we are getting lots of questions from people. We're trying to address them as we go along and really appreciate the listeners who are writing in with their questions and their comments.
So thank you all for listening. And remember to subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts to get this show and other MSNBC Originals ad-free. You'll also get subscriber-only bonus content. This podcast is produced by Vicki Virgolina and Max Jacobs. Our intern is Colette Holcomb.
Bob Mallory is our audio engineer. Bryson Barnes is the head of audio production. And Aisha Turner is the executive producer for MSNBC Audio. Search for Maine Justice wherever you get your podcasts and follow the series. ♪
Dateline True Crime Weekly. Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts.