UNBIASED - Biden Admin Working With Social Media Platforms to Censor Content? Here's What Happened at Oral Arguments; Trump Unable to Post $464M Bond; 'Bloodbath' Comments, and More.

Episode Date: March 19, 2024

1. QUICK HITTERS: Trump Tells Appeals Court He's Unable to Secure a Bond (1:50); National Association of Realtors Reaches $418M Settlement with Home Sellers (5:28)2. SUPREME INSIGHTS: Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Re: Public Officials Permissibly Blocking Users on Social Media (9:05); Hears Oral Arguments Re: Biden Administration's Censorship Contacts with Social Media Platforms (12:39); Hears Oral Arguments in NRA Case (30:47); Declines to Hear Appeal from Public Official Removed from Office Via Disqualification Clause (36:19)3. CONTEXT IS KEY: Providing the Context Behind Misleading Headlines (Trump's 'Bloodbath' Comments, Trump's Migrant Comments, and Undocumented Migrants Release from ICE Custody)(37:05)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news! Watch this episode on YouTube.ENTER REFERRAL CONTEST HERE (CHANCE TO WIN $200)! Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance,

call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Tuesday, March 19th, 2024. This episode was recorded last night around 5.30 p.m. Eastern Time. Before I tell you what you can expect in this episode, I just want to give you a little reminder that there is still time to enter the referral contest, which you can win a $200 Visa gift card from me if you submit the most referrals on my website. So go ahead and click that contest link in this episode's description or just go to jordanismylawyer.com slash referrals and you can enter there. The contest ends March 31st at 1159 p.m. Eastern Time, so just be sure to have all

of your referrals in before then. In today's episode, we are switching things up a little bit, and we're actually going to start with a couple of quick hitters. Then we will get into Supreme Insights. This is my Supreme Court segment where I basically tell you what's going on in the Supreme Court, but specifically in this episode, we're going to talk about a Friday decision regarding public officials on social media, and we will spend most of the time talking about oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri,

which was just argued yesterday. We will quickly recap oral arguments in NRA v. Vulo, which is a very similar case, so we'll just spend a brief short time on that case. And then we'll finish today's episode with a segment called Context is Key. And that's basically where I just give you some much needed context behind some recent misleading headlines and leave you more informed than you would be if you just read the headline. If you like what you hear today and you feel more informed after listening, please go ahead and leave me a review on your preferred podcast platform and share this episode with your friends. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. So as I said, we're starting with quick hitters and I only have two for you. two stories I felt I should cover quickly, one being that Donald Trump told an appellate court on Monday that he cannot post the now $464 million bond stemming from the civil fraud case out of New

York because he can't find an insurance company to underwrite it. His lawyers wrote in their filing, quote, the amount of the judgment with interest exceeds $464 million, and very few bonding companies will consider a bond of anything approaching that magnitude. End quote. Trump's attorneys noted that he had approached 30 surety companies through four different brokers and had no luck. Signing an affidavit in support of the filing with the court was one particular insurance broker who actually testified on Trump's behalf during the trial,

and he wrote in that affidavit that securing a bond for the full amount is a, quote, practical impossibility, end quote. Keep in mind also that Trump just posted a $91.6 million bond earlier this month as part of his appeal in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case. So that also has an effect on his ability to secure a bond in this case. But here's the deal. When you appeal a civil judgment and you have to pay that judgment, or maybe I should say the judgment doesn't get put on hold. You have to either post the full amount of the judgment in a court-controlled account or you get a bond to guarantee payment of the full amount. Otherwise, what will happen is the plaintiff that sued you can start to collect on that judgment.

And if you don't have the cash, they can go after your properties, assets, whatever they need to do to recoup that judgment amount. Now, in this case, Trump appealed the judgment and asked for that judgment to be put on hold. The court said no. So then he goes and he tries to get a bond because admittedly, he does not have the cash to post the full amount. But now he can't get a bond either. So he's essentially out of options and he goes back to the court to ask once again for this judgment to be put on hold given the circumstances. If the court says no again, he can continue to appeal until he gets

a yes. Okay, we will pause enforcement of this judgment. But if he exhausts his appeals and all of the courts say no, we're not pausing this enforcement, you have to pay it, Letitia James can start to go after his assets. So basically what that looks like from this point is now that he's asked the appellate court again to put the judgment on hold, the court can either grant his request and put that judgment on hold, deny the request, which he would presumably appeal, or possibly allow him to post a bond for a smaller amount. And Trump's attorneys have said in the past and still to this day

that Trump could post a bond closer to $100 million, but that that $464 million is just not possible. So stay tuned for a ruling on that. It could come as early as Tuesday because his deadline to secure a bond is coming up on the 25th of this month, so that has to get sorted out relatively quickly. The second quick hitter is about the National Association of Realtors Settlement, and this story actually came pretty highly requested.

You guys wanted some clarification on this. So the NAR settled a lawsuit with a group of home sellers on Friday that in part does away with this well-known 5% to 6% commission split and requires the association to pay $418 million in damages. One fact I want to clear up at the outset, because many outlets are incorrectly reporting on this, and I made the mistake too, the 6% commission split was never required in real estate transactions. But what I've learned from many of you is that it was sort of just a standard in the industry, if you will, but it was never a requirement. In fact, what I believe to be true is that what the NAR required was that home sale listing brokers had to provide an offer of compensation to a buyer's agent up front, which typically came out to be about 6%. And that was split between the

seller's broker and the buyer's broker. Then on top of that, the listing agents were to offer the commissions to the buyer's agents on the MLS system specifically so that the buyer's agent would know what the commission was on any given property ahead of time. This setup is what led to multiple lawsuits, not only against the NIR, but also against Keller Williams and Home Services of America, which are two major brokerages in the industry. In a nutshell, the home sellers argued that these rules unfairly propped up agent commissions and at the same time incentivized buyer's agents to avoid showing their clients listings where the seller's agent was offering a lower commission to the buyer's agent. So why did the association decide to settle? That's important. Well, one of the lawsuits went

to trial this past October and the jury ruled in favor of the home sellers and ordered the defendants to pay $1.8 billion. Keep in mind, though, the NAR wasn't the only defendant in the case. The other two brokerages were in this case, too. So that $1.8 billion verdict would have been split proportionally between the parties based on their respective liability. Now, when that verdict came down, the association initially said they were going to appeal it and continue to litigate it. But since then, Keller Williams decided to settle their portion of the suit for $70 million. That

left the association and Home Services of America as the only defendants. And the association obviously came to the realization that it was not in their best interest to continue litigating, so they settled as well. This now means that Home Services of America is the only defendant left. So we'll see if they settle too. They very well could, but it's not required. Keep in mind, though, this settlement still has to be approved by the judge before it can take effect. And I don't see why it wouldn't be approved. So assuming that it is, it will take effect in mid-July and it will essentially, it will change a couple of things, but it'll settle all of the cases against the association brought by the home sellers. Claims brought by home buyers will still have to play out,

but the settlement will settle the claims from home sellers. So that's what you should know about the NIR settlement. Let's move on to Supreme Insights. Supreme Insights, as I said, I'm just going to cover some things that have happened in the Supreme Court over the last few days. On Friday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that public officials can block users on social media in certain circumstances. And just so we're all on the same page, if you want the full background on the two cases that posed this question, go ahead and listen to my October 31st episode. So my Halloween episode, I went over the background of both cases, but for this episode, I'm just going to stick to

the decision and keep it fairly short and to the point because the next story in the Supreme Insights segment is a lengthy one, so I want to keep this one a little shorter. Essentially, the question for the court in Lindke v. Freed was, can public officials block users on social media or does doing so violate the Constitution? And the particular law at issue here is section 1983 of the U.S. Code, which basically says that if a state actor, so someone acting on behalf of the government, deprives you, any United States citizen, of any privileges or rights under the Constitution, you can sue them under Section 1983. But the question is, how do you determine when a public official is acting as a

state actor? Because sure, one might allege that a government employee blocking you on social media is depriving you of a constitutional right, but how do you distinguish between that employee's private acts as a private individual in society and state action? And the court answered that question and here is what the unanimous court said. The court said that a public official only engages in state action if that official possessed actual authority to speak on the state's behalf on a particular matter and purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social media posts. In other words, for social media activity to constitute state action and therefore give rise to a citizen suing that state actor under Section 1983, an official must not

only have state authority, but also purport to use it in their posts. Now, the court did note that each situation is going to be different, and this is a very fact-specific undertaking, but the court did seek to clarify its ruling a little bit. So the court said, quote, a post that expressly invokes state authority to make an announcement not available elsewhere is official, while a post that merely repeats or shares otherwise available information is more likely personal. Lest any official lose the right to speak about public affairs in his personal capacity, the plaintiff must show that the official purports to exercise state authority in specific posts. The nature of the social media technology matters to this analysis. For example,

because Facebook's blocking tool operates on a page-wide basis, a court would have to consider whether the petitioner had engaged in state action with respect to any post on which the respondent wished to comment, end quote. So that is what the court said about that. They essentially set forth a standard in determining state action when it comes to blocking users on social media. Now on to Murthy v. Missouri. This is where we're going to spend the bulk of our time. In 2021, the states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with five private individuals, brought this case against the Biden administration, alleging that the government had coerced social media platforms into restricting certain types of speech which the government didn't agree with. So mainly speech dealing with the pandemic and vaccines, but also content about the election, the Biden family, and Biden's political policies.

And to clarify the parties involved, we have Vivek Murthy is the Surgeon General of the United States. He's the petitioner in this case. And then the respondents consist of the state of Missouri, the state of Louisiana, and the five individual private citizens. That is why this case, and then the respondents consist of the state of Missouri, the state of Louisiana, and the five individual private citizens. That is why this case is called Murthy v. Missouri. Procedurally speaking, the appellate court below issued an injunction which basically prohibited the federal government from having contact with social media platforms when it came to content moderation. From there, Murthy went ahead and petitioned the Supreme Court to hear this case and asked the Supreme Court to put that order on hold in the meantime. And the Supreme Court did.

They put the order on hold and they set this case for oral arguments. Those arguments were heard yesterday. So there are a couple of questions for the court. And this is a pretty big case. We have a few notable cases each term. This is one of them. But the couple of questions that the court has to answer is, one, whether the respondents have legal standing to even challenge the government's

actions. And two, whether the government's challenged actions transform a platform's content moderation decisions into state action attributable to the government and violate the First Amendment. The government answers both of these questions in the negative. The states answer these questions in the affirmative. The government, because remember, again, social media platforms, they can censor speech. It's when the government gets involved that there's a problem. So is the government getting involved so much so to where now the private entities, the social media platforms, are becoming state actors? And the government's arguments really boil down to two things. One, that the respondents don't have standing because

they can't show an injury that's traceable to the government. So remember, to bring a lawsuit, you have to be able to show that you suffered some sort of harm or you're going to suffer some sort of harm in the future that was caused by or is traceable to the person you're suing. So here the government says respondents can't show this. Even the private individuals who say their social media accounts were suspended or restricted, they can't prove standing because they can't show that the suspensions or restrictions are traceable to the actions of the government. Because to them, it was the actions of the government because to them it was the actions of the social media platforms, not the government. The second part of the government's argument is that the conversations that it had with the platforms about content moderation do not rise to the level of

transforming the platform's decisions to state action, which can be attributable to the government. The government argues that the government officials are free to inform, persuade, and criticize, which can prompt private entities to act, but it doesn't transform those entities into state actors. And the government also draws a big distinction between persuasion and coercion. It argues that what it's doing is persuasion. It's not coercion. And that the court should find that the government's action only crosses over into coercion if there were actual threats of government action if the social media platforms didn't act. But because that hasn't happened here,

the court should rule in favor of the government. The government argued first. And when it came to the issue of standing, there were some questions from the justices about the traceability element. How traceable does something have to be in order to attribute it to the government in this case? However, I don't really see standing holding up this case because more than a few of the justices seem to agree that standing does exist here and that the injury was in fact traceable to the government. But that's

not to say it's not going to be an issue. It just doesn't seem that way based on oral arguments. On top of that, Justice Alito pointed out the fact that the two courts below found that standing exists. And when that happens, the Supreme Court will rarely reverse that finding of fact. One of the justices, it was either Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Gorsuch, I don't know for sure, but mentioned the constant pestering, regular meetings, demanding of answers, suggesting of rules, and suggesting of partnerships by the Biden administration to these platforms. And he said, quote, I thought, wow, I can't imagine the federal government taking that approach to the print media. If you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be? Would you do that to the New York Times or the Wall

Street Journal or any other newspaper? And the justice then followed that up in regards to the suggestion of partnerships and regular meetings and asked, do you think the print media regards themselves as being on the same team as the federal government or partners with the federal government. And the attorney for Murthy responded by saying, potentially in the context of an effort to get Americans vaccinated during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. But he went on to say, quote, I think the idea of emails back and forth between the White House and the print media isn't unusual at all, end quote. And he cited to a press conference where Karine Jean-Pierre was asked about this case in particular, and she responded that of course the White House talks to the social media platforms just as the White House talks to all of you,

referring to the media outlets in the press room. So that was the attorney kind of saying it's no surprise that the White House sort of is in talks with media outlets, just as they are with social media platforms. The attorney also acknowledged the intensity and anger in some of the messages that the Biden administration sent to these platforms. And the attorney acknowledged that it was unusual, but said that the anger comes in when the government feels that the platforms weren't being transparent about the scope of the problem when it came to the pandemic because people were dying. Justice Alito made somewhat of a joke about it and he said, quote, well, I don't know if our public officer is in here, but if she could just make a note to reach out to platforms and the media whenever they say something bad about us and curse them out and let them know we'll edit whatever it is that they want to put out before it goes out to the public, that would be great. And that got a nice little laugh out of everyone. But Justice Alito also

inquired into the persuasion versus coercion idea. Basically, he asked, you know, at what point does this type of action or speech become coercion? Is telling the platforms that they're killing people coercion? Because that was a remark that President Biden had made during the pandemic. Alito also asked about Section 230, because Section 230 is what gives social media platforms immunity for content posted on their platforms. But if platforms are afraid of the government because of its influence over potential Section 230 reform, is that coercion? Because that was sort of hinted at in the communications as well between the Biden administration and the platforms. And the main argument from the government is that their speech isn't coercive and therefore it's not violating the

constitution. Their speech isn't merely persuasive. But where is that line? And Justice Thomas sort of asked this alongside Justice Alito and the attorney for the government responded that if there's something being said that can be reasonably understood as a threat, then that's a First Amendment problem. But the attorney said that's not what's happening here. He said what's happening here is the government is persuading a private entity to censor certain types of speech, just like following the October 7th attack in Israel, the government called on some private universities to restrict hate speech on campus. And he said it's the same idea. Just in this case, the government is persuading social media platforms to censor certain types of speech that are harmful. And, you know, the government is

explaining the harm that it's doing. Whereas with October 7th, it was doing the same thing just with hate speech. So he was sort of trying to compare both situations and say it was doing the same thing just with hate speech so he was sort of trying to compare both situations and say it was permissible then and it's permissible now when it came time for the respondent's attorney to present their side the argument focused on the incessant pressure enough pressure to the point where these platforms were actually reversing course on their own policies, and that, the attorney said, is enough to constitute state action. So he cited, too, an internal email from Facebook to former UK Deputy Prime Minister,

where Facebook wrote, quote, The reason Facebook did that is because we were under pressure from the administration. We shouldn't have done it. End quote. The attorney cited to the government's argument that the government has the right to persuade, but the attorney said, sure, the government may have the right to persuade, but the government doesn't have the right to persuade platforms to violate Americans' constitutional rights. He said that's an entirely

different story. Justice Thomas was the first to ask a question to the respondent's attorney and asked if coercion was the only way that the respondents could make a case or if mere coordination between platforms and the government is enough. And of course, the attorney said coordination is enough to constitute a First Amendment violation. We don't need coercion to win here. But however, the attorney for the respondent is a self-admitted free speech purist. So he said any involvement by the government, no matter how small, is a violation of the Constitution. And that idea actually got him in a little bit of trouble later on in arguments,

which I'll get into in a little bit, but he said that you, you know, when it comes to this, you have to look at the goal of the government, which in this case is to suppress speech. And in making that argument, he cited to a case called Bantam Books. Now Bantam Books played a big role in oral arguments. Bantam Books is a 1963 case in which the state legislature of Rhode Island created a special commission to review books that could potentially corrupt the youth. And if a book was found to, you know, potentially corrupt the youth, that commission was to investigate and recommend the prosecution of any violations. So what this commission would do is it would notify distributors that any given book was reviewed by the commission and, you know,

the majority of the commission had deemed the book inappropriate and just sort of put the distributor on notice that selling the book would constitute a violation of this law and potentially open them up to prosecution. Well, a group of book publishers sued, arguing that these practices were unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court agreed. The Supreme Court held that this sort of informal censorship, indirect censorship, violates the 14th Amendment. And in reaching that decision, the court asked, did the government set out to deliberately suppress speech? If yes, it's a constitutional violation. So in this case, the attorney for the respondents argued that just like the court in Bantam Books answered that question in the affirmative, the court has to answer the

question in the affirmative in this case too, because that's exactly what's happening here. The attorney said it doesn't matter the method that the government is using to suppress speech, the Constitution doesn't care about that. It's whether the government is suppressing speech. Justice Jackson fought a little bit with the respondent's attorney over the test for determining First Amendment violations. And after going back and forth a little bit, Jackson said, quote, we have a test. So, you know, court precedent says we have a test. And in certain situations, the government can actually require that speech be suppressed if there's a compelling government interest, right? End quote. And the attorney for the respondents agreed with

this because it's true. That is the test under the First Amendment. But he brought it back to the top line question in Bantam Books. Is the government trying to suppress speech? And in this case, he says yes. Justice Sotomayor said this argument seems quite expansive. Justice Kagan introduced the hypothetical of a platform hosting terrorist speech. She asked, could the government not tell a platform to take terrorist speech down? To which the attorney responded that the government could, of course, tell a platform to take it down because terrorist speech and criminal speech isn't a protected form of speech under the Constitution. And Kagan said, well, I guess what I'm trying to say here is there's a bunch of different forms of speech out there that can cause harm. And I don't see why we should implement this sort of blanket rule that

says the government can't step in and say, hey, here's some information that maybe you might not know, and here's the harm that this content is doing, and we think that you should take this content down. And the attorney responded by saying, if those were the facts of this case, this would be a much different case. He said, there's nothing that prohibits the government from going to these platforms and saying, hey, you know, we're seeing a lot of false information out there and here are the facts that we know to be true. We encourage you to share this truthful information alongside the false and misleading speech

that's out there. But he says in this case, we're seeing such pressure from the government that these platforms are actually reversing course on their own policies and practices. And that's where this becomes a constitutional violation. The government isn't just merely saying, hey, here's some information that could benefit you. Take it into consideration. Justice Kagan really tore into the attorney at one point, causing the attorney to apologize to the court. Justice Kagan said, essentially said, and I'm summarizing here, basically said, your brief is terrible,

you misrepresented facts, and I have a big problem with it. And the attorney was like, I'm so sorry. It was a bit of a contentious moment there. Justice Barrett asked for clarification on the legal standard that this court should look to because she said she's feeling a little bit confused in the argument. She said the attorney for the respondents was a little bit all over the place. The attorney again apologized and said, look, the top line rule is that the government can't do indirectly what it's constitutionally prohibited from doing directly. He said coercion and encouragement are indirect actions that achieve the same results which the government is prohibited from taking directly under the constitution. And this triggered Justice Barrett

to ask, are you talking about just plain vanilla encouragement or does it have to be some sort of substantial encouragement? And the attorney answered that he thinks any form of encouragement is improper. So this goes back to what I was saying earlier about him being this free speech purist. Admittedly, he said it multiple times at the oral argument. So he said any form of encouragement is improper, but substantial encouragement, absolutely. So then Justice Jackson chimes in and says, I think the reason you're running into all of these obstacles is because you're not acknowledging that there are times in which the government has to intervene, encourage, and potentially even coerce, depending on the circumstances. And whether the government has a compelling interest

in doing so plays a role in this, which, you know, that's our First Amendment standard. Like, the attorney wasn't acknowledging that. And Justice Jackson was like, this is where you're running into trouble. So overall, the attorney representing the states and private individuals had a much harder time in arguments. His mistake, I would say, was not focusing on the coercion element of the argument and instead implying that the government just can't intervene at all. The just platforms at all in any capacity to remove any type of content. That just doesn't seem like a realistic holding. So if I were to make a couple of predictions based on what I heard, I would say one, Justice Sotomayor and Kagan at least, maybe some others will take issue with standing. But again, I don't think that's going to be a big

issue here. Two, I think the ruling will go against the government. It'll be close, but I think it will go against the government only as applies to coercion. I don't think the court will issue a blanket ruling as the respondents wanted. I think the court will say something along the lines of, you know, coercion by the federal government for social media platforms to censor speech is a violation of the First Amendment. And here is the coercion standard. So enough about that. Let's quickly, and I mean quickly, recap the arguments in NRA versus Vulo, because this is a very similar case to what we just talked about. The case of NRA versus Vulo was the second set of oral arguments that the court heard on Monday. And it's another First Amendment case.

And again, pretty similar. So quick history of the case. In 2017, New York's Department of Financial Services, which oversees banks and insurance companies in the state of New York, launched an investigation into insurance programs endorsed by the NRA to provide coverage for injuries caused by firearms. And in 2018, following the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting, the head of New York's Department of Financial Services, Maria Vulo, issued a press statement as well as a guidance letter where she called on banks and insurance companies doing business in the state of New York

to consider the risks of doing business with the NRA and urged the banks and insurance companies to join other companies that had cut ties with the NRA. Following that, several insurance companies stopped doing business with the NRA and some banks even withdrew their bids for the NRA's business. Vulo then also fined three different insurers more than $13 million for offering an NRA-endorsed product called CarryGuard, which essentially provided liability coverage for policyholders who caused injuries from gunfire. And Vulo's office found CarryGuard, this liability protection, to be in violation of New York's insurance law and issued these fines as a result. And at that point, insurers agreed that they were

going to stop selling NRA-endorsed products that the state of New York considered to be illegal. So after all of this, what did the NRA do? It sued. And specifically, it sued for unlawful retaliation. And similar to the Biden administration's social media case, the courts in the case of Vulo looked at whether the guidance letter and the press statement were coercive. And the district court said yes, that when these things are taken together, the statements could be interpreted as a threat.

But on appeal, the court said no, that the NRA had failed to plausibly allege that Vulo crossed the line between attempts to convince and attempts to coerce. So the NRA then takes this to the Supreme Court. Now, what's interesting is that the United States, so the Biden administration, filed a brief in this case on behalf of neither party. But what it said is, and I'm just going to sum it up, is that the NRA had plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation, but said that some of the NRA's broader, more far-reaching and expansive arguments would improperly condemn legitimate government activity. And obviously that's because they, you know, they have a vested interest in this decision. So they don't want the court to accept some of the NRA's blanket arguments, just like in Murthy v. Missouri. They don't want the court to accept some of

Missouri's blanket arguments. But the reason it's interesting is that the administration acknowledged some potential First Amendment violations against the NRA, and when do we ever see the Biden administration and the NRA seeing eye to eye? So this Biden brief was actually brought up by Justice Kavanaugh, which I'll touch on in a second. But some of the initial concerns by the justices were very similar and almost mirrored the questions and concerns that they posed in Murthy versus missouri just an hour before specifically when the justices were trying to distinguish between sort of acceptable government advocacy and unconstitutional persuasion and pressure justice alito asked how do you define when it goes too far and as we know

that was a that was one of the main themes of mur v. Missouri. Justice Kavanaugh, as I said, brought up the brief from the Biden administration, and he said to the attorney for Vulo, he said, quote, it's a bit jarring, I guess for me, that the Solicitor General is on the other side of you on this case, end quote. And obviously implying, like I said, the Biden administration and the NRA are hardly ever on each other's side, so that was concerning for Kavanaugh. One of Vulo's arguments was that the state wasn't going after the NRA per se, but was rather focused on an illegal insurance product, that carry guard product that I had mentioned earlier. Justices Thomas and Sotomayor, who, you know, as we know, two justices who rarely agree, both questioned why then, if that were true, that Vulo was going after other NRA-endorsed products as well.

Sotomayor said, quote, What she was seeking, referring to Vulo, was a ban even on potentially lawful items, end quote. So overall, in this case, it seemed the justices felt that this was a much more obvious case of coercion than Murthy v. Missouri, but we should have a decision in both of these cases by the end of June, and I would imagine they are released at the same time just because the issue is so similar. A couple of other things that happened at the Supreme Court before we move on to context is key. The court declined to hear an appeal from a former New Mexico County Commissioner who was removed from office because of his role in January 6th. So he was actually the first and I believe the only official that was removed from office because of that disqualification clause that we've talked about so much. But based on what we know

from the Supreme Court's recent decision, because he was a state official and not a federal official, the state was well within their powers to use that clause as a basis for his removal. So because of that, the court said, we're not going to get involved in this one. We're not going to hear this case. We just gave you some great guidance, you know, to consider. So do it that way you will. Finally, context is key. Context is key is a segment where I provide you with the context that the mainstream media does not. Maybe there's a storyline that's been subject to the game of telephone and not all facts

are there anymore. So here I am. It's no surprise to anyone that I am a big believer in reading past the headlines. It's very important and I'm going to illustrate why throughout this segment. There are two recent events in particular. Each falls on either side of the political spectrum, and depending on which outlet you read, if you didn't read past the headline, you wouldn't have walked away with the right message. So the first storyline stems

from Trump's rally in Ohio this past weekend. The second storyline stems from a 19-year-old's release from ICE custody who was accused of killing a police officer during his arrest. To illustrate the variance between the headlines, we are specifically going to look at the headlines of NBC, ABC, The New York Post, and Fox News. Obviously, NBC and ABC lean left, The New York Post and Fox News lean right. So we're going to see some differences in the headlines. The first of two headlines, as I said, stems from Trump's recent rally in Dayton, Ohio, where he spoke about various topics, but the two topics that made it into the news cycle were his comments about the negative impacts to the auto industry that will take shape if he is not elected. Specifically, he used the phrase bloodbath. And then the second sort of topic that made it into the news cycle was his remarks about the current immigration situation. So first we'll run through the headlines and the

differences, and then I'll provide the context that you need. NBC writes, quote, Trump says there will be a bloodbath if he loses the election. End quote. ABC, which has since updated their headline, originally wrote, quote, Trump says there will be bloodbath if he loses 2024 election, ramps up anti-migrant rhetoric. End quote. ABC then updated their headline to read, Trump, while addressing the auto industry, says there will be a bloodbath if he loses 2024 election, ramps up anti-migrant rhetoric, end quote. So now let's compare those headlines to the headlines of the right-leaning outlets. The New York Post writes, quote, Trump warns of bloodbath in auto industry if he loses, says violent migrants are not people but animals, end quote. Fox News writes, quote,

Biden campaign slams Trump over political violence for warning of bloodbath when discussing auto industry, end quote. Note the differences. The outlets leaning to the right and ABC's updated headline provides additional context as to how these words and phrases were used. Without the added context of how bloodbath specifically was used, if you had only read those left-leaning headlines, the headlines send a much darker and misleading storyline, as if Trump were insinuating some sort of, you know, massacre was going to take place if he wasn't elected.

And that's likely why ABC made the right decision in updating their headline. But you can see how there's, you know, two different storylines here based on which headlines you read. So here's the context. The first clip you'll hear is Trump speaking about the auto industry where he made his bloodbath comment. The second clip is Trump's remarks about migrants. You know, Mexico has taken over a period of 30 years, 34% of the automobile manufacturing business in our country, think of it, went to Mexico. China now is building a couple of massive plants where they're going to build the cars in Mexico and think, they think, that they're going to sell those cars into the United States

with no tax at the border. Mexico and think they think that they're going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let me tell you something to China. If you're listening, President Xi and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal. Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you're building in Mexico right now and you think you're going to get that you're going to not hire Americans and you're going to sell the cars to us? No, we're going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line. And you're not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole.

That's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That'll be the least of it. But they're not going to sell those cars. Unbelievable when I see it, when I see it going. But I got to know all these people. They're very smart, very streetwise. And I would do the same thing if I had prisons that were teeming with MS-13 and all sorts of people that they've got to take care of for the next 50 years. Right. Young people, they're in jail for years. And if you call them people, I don't know if you call them people.

In some cases, they're not people, in my opinion. But I'm not allowed to say that because the radical left says that's a terrible thing to say. They say you have to vote against him because did you hear what he said about humanity? I've seen the humanity and these humanity. These are bad. These are animals. OK, and we have to stop it we can't have another lakin we have so many people we have so many people being hurt so badly and

being killed they're sending their prisoners to see us they're sending and they're bringing them right to the border and they're dropping them off and we're allowing them to come in. And these are tougher than anybody we've got in the country. These are hardened criminals. And we've got hundreds of thousands of them. And we're not going to take it. We're just not going to take it. We're destroying. They are destroying our country.

I'm telling you. Now, whether you like what Trump said at the rally or not, at least you have the proper context to form an accurate opinion. I always say this. I don't care what side of the aisle you're on. I don't care what your opinion is. What I do care about, though, is that your opinions are based on the right information. And that is what I'm here for. So now, let's flip the switch. The second storyline

is about a 19-year-old named Virgilio Aguilar Mendez, who was arrested in May of last year after being accused of contributing to the death of a police officer during his arrest. The New York Post writes, quote, Guatemalan illegal migrant accused in police sergeant's death is released, end quote. Fox News, same exact headline. Guatemalan illegal migrant accused in death of sheriff's officer during arrest, end quote. Along similar lines, ABC writes, quote, Guatemalan migrant accused of police officer's death released after case dismissed, end quote. Note the differences. The outlets that lean right specifically use the word illegal, whereas the outlets on the

left don't. In fact, NBC even describes Mendez as a Guatemalan farm worker rather than using the term migrant at all. Both left-leaning outlets, more importantly though, gave far more context than either of the right-leaning outlets. If you only read the headlines from the right-leaning outlets, you would have no idea why Mendez was released. No idea what, you know, that the case was dismissed or that the charges were dropped. You'd have no clue. So here's the added context that you should know.

Mendez, as I said, was arrested in May of last year after he resisted arrest and a police officer died. Basically, after scuffling on the ground for a few minutes, the arresting officer walked away once Mendez was handcuffed and sitting on the ground. And a few minutes later, the arresting officer collapsed on the curb and died of a heart attack. Now, Mendez was initially charged with murder, but the charge was later reduced to aggravated manslaughter once the autopsy report came back. Because what the autopsy showed is that the police officer died, the cause of death was natural, and said that the death was caused by an irregular heartbeat due to hypertensive cardiovascular disease and atherosclerosis, which is a hardening of the arteries. So following that, Mendez had his

charge reduced, and he was placed in ICE custody shortly after his arrest, and he remained there until Friday, so just shy of a year while this case was playing out. There's a couple of things at play here. One, Mendez's attorney had argued that Mendez was the victim of police brutality. And two, there were concerns raised to the judge about Mendez's inability to comprehend or speak English, which could contribute to his intellectual capacity for purposes of prosecution. So a couple of weeks ago, the judge actually ruled that Mendez was incompetent to face prosecution based on that expert testimony about his lack of English and his cultural background. But following that, the prosecutor dropped the charges completely. So what the prosecutor says is that the charges were dropped because of that ruling from the

judge that found him incompetent to face prosecution. Whereas the defense attorneys say that the prosecutor knew this wasn't a good case. One, you know, based in part on the body cam footage that came out, but also based on the fact that the sheriff had made some misleading statements when Mendez was originally arrested, and it wouldn't be a good look if the prosecution decided to pursue this case. Specifically, that misleading statement that the defense attorney is referring to, last May when all of this went down, the sheriff said the arrest was by the book and that Mendez had been trespassing. But as it would turn out, Mendez was never arrested for trespassing, and the body cam footage does not necessarily support the idea

that this was a by-the-book arrest. Regardless, though, regardless of which story is true and accurate, the charges were dropped and Mendez was released. Now listen, it's not that any of those headlines stemming from either storyline, the Trump rally and the release. It's not that they're untrue. None of the headlines I just read contain lies, no. But they're lacking context in some situations. And in some cases, depending on who's writing them, the headlines deceive and they send a different message than what they should. So always read beyond the headline, especially if you're reading, let's say a right-leaning outlets report

on a left-leaning issue and vice versa, a left-leaning outlets report on a right-leaning issue. That's when it becomes most important. But on that note, I hope you have a great rest of your week. The Supreme Court, as I said, is set to release more decisions today. So should there be anything worth mentioning, I'll be sure to include that on Friday's episode.

And of course, if there's anything that happens, you know, throughout the week, including Supreme Court decisions, feel free to message me on Instagram. You can always email me, jordan at jordanismylawyer.com. And let me know what you want to hear about in Friday's episode. And also, Friday is the good news segment. So if you have some good news you want to share, or you heard of a really positive, happy story, definitely send that my way as well. And maybe it'll be featured on Friday's episode. So have a great week and I will talk to you on Friday.