UNBIASED - New Executive Orders: Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag & Ending Cashless Bail. PLUS National Guard Troops to 19 More States and Abrego Garcia's Possible Deportation.

Starting point is 00:00:00 Wendy's most important deal of the day has a fresh lineup. Pick any two breakfast items for $4. New four-piece French toast sticks, bacon or sausage wrap, biscuit or English muffin sandwiches, small hot coffee, and more. Limited time only at participating Wendy's taxes extra. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, August 25th. Let's talk about some news. Quick episode today, just a few stories. to a new report from Fox News, as many as 1,700 National Guard troops will be deployed to 19 states in the coming weeks to assist with immigration enforcement. This news follows an earlier July 25th

Starting point is 00:00:43 memo from the Department of Defense, which updated the duty status of approximately 1,700 troops from Title 10 to Title 32. And we'll talk about what that status change means in just a few minutes. According to a defense official who spoke to News Nation, the 19 states include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. Per the July memo, the DHS requested assistance from National Guard troops to help with things like case management, transportation, logistical support and clerical support for processing individuals at ICE detention facilities. In some related news, and I'm kind of lumping these two together because, well, you'll find out why in a minute. But in some related news, President Trump, in speaking with reporters this past Friday, said Chicago will likely be the next city that his administration targets for a federal crackdown on crime. Specifically, he said, quote, I think Chicago will be next and then will help with.

Starting point is 00:01:58 New York, end quote. So overall, there's this broad discussion happening about the National Guard and what the federal government is allowed to do and not allowed to do when it comes to deploying National Guard troops to other states and cities. What's important to understand is that the legality of sending National Guard troops to other states depends on the legal authority under which the troops are deployed. So what I want to talk about here is first, the different legal authorities for deploying National Guard troops, but then also what the differences are in sending troops in for immigration enforcement versus cracking down on crime. So National Guard deployments are defined in two sections of federal law, Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code. There are a

Starting point is 00:02:46 couple of crucial differences between these two sections of federal law. Under Title 10 status, troops are paid by the federal government, commanded by the president, and served. federal missions that are essentially reporting for federal active duty under the president's command. But a president cannot just send in National Guard troops under Title 10 whenever he wants. It's only permissible when, one, the United States or the particular state that the troops are being deployed to is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation. Two, there's a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the government, or three, the president is unable with the regular forces, military forces, or police forces to execute the laws of the United States.

Starting point is 00:03:39 Those are the only three situations in which Title X deployment is permissible. Under Title X status, the president does not need the state governor's permission for deployment. However, all troops with Title X status are subject to. the Posse Cometatus Act of 1878, which prohibits federal troops from acting as a police force. Troops of Title X status cannot make arrests or detain individuals. They can only assist local and state law enforcement. And we saw National Guard troops be deployed to L.A. when the ICE immigration enforcement actions were happening to assist local law enforcement with containing the protests and riots. but they couldn't actually make arrests or detain individuals.

Starting point is 00:04:28 Under Title 32 status, troops are still paid by the federal government, but they're commanded by the governor of the state to which they are deployed, and they serve the interests of that state. Because they're commanded by the state governor, the governor must either request assistance or give permission for the deployment to occur. troops with Title 32 status also differ from troops of Title 10 status in that they can make arrests and detain individuals, but only if the governor and state law allow it. So those are the legal differences. Per the DOD's July memo, which authorized about 1,700 troops specifically for immigration enforcement,

Starting point is 00:05:13 the troops will transition from Title 10 status to Title 32 status. Remember that under Title 32, the troops are commanded by the state governors and can make arrests and detain individuals so long as state law allows for it and the governor allows for it. All 19 states listed in the DOD memo have Republican governors. Republican governors are obviously much more willing to work with the administration and give permission for deployment, which is required under Title II. Not one Democratic-led state is listed in the immigration enforcement memo. So that's why in this situation, there's really no issue with deploying National Guard troops for immigration enforcement purposes to various states. Now, if a state governor were to object and the federal government sent them in any way,

Starting point is 00:06:03 that's when you would have an issue. We saw that happen in California when the administration sent in the National Guard to assist law enforcement in L.A. during the ICE protests and riots. Governor Newsom objected to the administration sending in the troops under Title 10. The administration did so anyway and the state of California sued. So that brings us to the next part of this story, which is the administration saying Chicago is next for National Guard deployment. Notably, as of now, there haven't been any reports of concrete steps being taken to actually deploy troops to Chicago. This is just something Trump said on Friday when he was answering questions about the National Guard deployment in D.C. Since his remarks on Friday, though, the mayor of Chicago has

Starting point is 00:06:45 responded saying that Chicago does not need a quote-unquote military occupation and that such action by the federal government would be uncalled for. Illinois's governor has said that he has not received any request for National Guard deployment in Chicago as of now and called the move a manufactured crisis and authoritarian power grab. So here are a couple of situations where deployment to Chicago for purposes of cracking down on crime would be lawful and a few situations where it would be unlawful. If Illinois's governor requests National Guard troops or approves the deployment of National Guard troops, it would be okay. If Illinois's governor does not request troops and or objects to the deployment of troops, troops could not be deployed to Chicago under Title 32,

Starting point is 00:07:32 meaning troops could not be deployed to Chicago to actually make arrest or detain criminals. Now, if the president wanted to deploy troops to Chicago under Title X to simply assist law enforcement in Chicago with cracking down on crime, the only way that he could lawfully do that is if, again, one, the United States or Illinois is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation, two, there's a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the government, or three, the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. If the administration were to deploy National Guard troops without the governor's request or approval and instead argue lawful authority under Title 10, we'd likely see a legal challenge like the one we're seeing in California. Now, the other option the president has outside of Title 10 and Title 32 is to invoke the Insurrection Act. But that's a whole other conversation. So that's what you need to know about National Guard troops and whether the federal government can actually send them into these other cities and states. Let's switch gears a little bit

Starting point is 00:08:41 and talk about what's going on with Kilmar Abrago Garcia, a name we were talking about a lot for a while, but we haven't talked about in a minute. Abrago Garcia is in the news again because he was recently released from custody per a judge's order, but he has since been detained again, and the administration is now saying he's being processed for deportation, possibly to Uganda. So let's talk about this. To catch everyone up to speed, Kilmer Abrago Garcia is the man who is mistakenly deported. to El Salvador back in March. He was initially arrested by ICE and he was soon after deported to El Salvador over his alleged ties to the MS-13 gang. However, as we've talked about, his deportation violated a 2019 withholding of removal order that prevented him from being sent

Starting point is 00:09:24 to El Salvador specifically. As a result, a federal court ordered the administration to facilitate and effectuate his return to the United States after some back and forth over how that ruling should be carried out and the Supreme Court eventually weighing in on it, Abrago Garcia was ultimately returned to the states in June. However, behind the scenes, the federal government was working to secure an indictment against Abrago Garcia for charges related to human smuggling. Because the administration knew that if they could get an indictment, Abrago Garcia could be arrested again once he returned to the states and then ultimately deported again. So that's what happened. Abrago was indicted on two criminal charges, conspiracy to transport aliens and unlawful transportation

Starting point is 00:10:13 of undocumented aliens. He was returned to the states to face his new indictment. He pled not guilty to the charges. And he was just released from custody on Friday pending trial. Notably, the government did try to offer Brago Garcia a plea deal earlier this week. He would have pled guilty to the two federal charges and would have been deported to come. Costa Rica after serving any court-imposed sentence, but he turned that down. So upon his release on Friday, he was placed under electronic monitoring and stayed with his brother in Maryland. However, shortly thereafter, he was notified that he may be deported to Uganda. The notice to Abrago-Garcia's attorney reads in part, quote, let this email service notice that DHS may remove

Starting point is 00:10:58 your client, Kilmar Armando Abrago-Garcia, to Uganda no earlier than 72 hours from now absent weekends. end quote. In a subsequent email, Abrago Garcia was instructed to report to the ICE's enforcement and removal operations office in Baltimore on Monday today for a check-in. So this morning, Abrago Garcia reports to the ICE office in Baltimore and he's taken into custody. His lawyer then went ahead and filed a lawsuit almost immediately asking a federal judge to order his release and slow down his removal process so that he can have a chance to, challenge his potentially imminent deportation to Uganda on the basis that he has a reasonable fear of facing torture or persecution in Uganda. It'll be up to the judge to decide what to do here, but I will say this. Armando Garcia cannot be sent back to El Salvador, but he can be deported to a third country like Uganda as long as he's provided adequate warning of his potential

Starting point is 00:12:00 removal. The same judge that will be overseeing Abrago Garcia's latest lawsuit, the lawsuit that was filed this morning, issued a ruling last month that said, officials must give Abrago Garcia and his lawyers a heads up of removal plans at least 72 business hours before they intend to carry out a deportation to a third country. That doesn't mean that he will definitively be deported so long as he's given 72 hours notice. The judge will have to take a look at the facts at the case and decide whether his deportation is permissible. She scheduled an initial court proceeding for 2 p.m. Eastern time today. So we should know more, you know, once that happens, I won't have a chance to cover it by the time this episode is out, but we should know more by the end of the day on Monday.

Starting point is 00:12:48 Let's take a quick break here. When we come back, we'll talk about three new executive orders and more. You've probably seen a million ads for hair growth products and doubted them because honestly I did the same thing until I decided to take a chance on Nutraful because I had been seeing so much about it on social media. I first started noticing hair shedding in May 2023. It was the first time it had ever happened. Thankfully, it only lasted a couple of months, but it was still scary because my hair has always been almost like my security blanket. But fast forward to a year later, and it happened again. So at that point, I decided I should probably do something about it, not just to grow more hair, but also to prevent more shedding down the road. And that's when I finally tried Neutrival.

Starting point is 00:13:27 Since taking it, I've definitely noticed less shedding. I feel like my hair is even slightly thicker. It gives me peace of mind knowing that I don't have to worry so much about shedding in the future because I'm being proactive about it. Nutrafol is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand trusted by over 1.5 million people. You can feel great about what you're putting into your body since Nutraful hair growth supplements are backed by peer reviewed studies and NSF contents certified, the gold standard in third-party

Starting point is 00:13:54 certification for supplements. See Thicker, stronger, faster-growing hair with less shedding in just three to six months with Nutraful. For a limited time, Nutraful is offering my listeners $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to Nutraful.com and enter the promo code unbiased. Find out why Nutraful is the best-selling hairgrowth supplement brand at Nutraful.com, spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L dot com promo code unbiased. That's Nutraful.com promo code unbiased. Ontario, the weight is over. The gold standard of online casinos has arrived. Golden Nugget Online Casino is live.

Starting point is 00:14:32 Bringing Vegas-style excitement and a world-class gaming experience right to your fingertips. Whether you're a seasoned player or just starting, signing up is fast and simple. And in just a few clicks, you can have access to our exclusive library of the best slots and top-tier table games. Make the most of your downtime with unbeatable promotions and jackpots that can turn any mundane moment into a Golden Opportunity at Golden Nugget Online Casino. Take a spin on the slots, challenge yourself at the tables, or join a live dealer game to feel the thrill of real-time action, all from the comfort of your own devices. Why settle for less when you can go for the gold at Golden Nugget Online Casino. Gambling problem call Connects Ontario 1866531-260. 19 and over, physically

Starting point is 00:15:18 present in Ontario. Eligibility restrictions apply. See Golden Nuggett Casino.com for details. Please play responsibly. Welcome back. The president signed three executive orders today, so let's talk about them, starting with the order titled, Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag. Remember, executive orders are directives for the federal government. Typically, each executive order will have a purpose and then various directives to carry out that purpose. In this case, the core purpose is to restore respect and sanctity to the American flag, describing any desecration to be offensive, provocative, and a statement of contempt, hostility, and violence against the nation. To carry out that stated purpose, the order directs the Attorney General to prosecute

Starting point is 00:16:04 those who incite violence or otherwise violate existing laws while burning the flag. That language is important, and I'll elaborate as to why in a minute. But the order also says the Attorney General is to prioritize enforcement to the fullest extent possible under the law and to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution and may pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the First Amendment exceptions. The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security are to deny, prohibit, terminate, or revoke visas, residence permits, naturalization proceedings, and other immigration benefits, or seek removal from the United States whenever

Starting point is 00:16:45 there has been a determination that foreign nationals have burned the American flag. flag. Now, of course, we have to talk about a Supreme Court case called Texas v. Johnson. In Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled five to four that flag burning is protected speech under the First Amendment. It established that symbolic acts of protests are a form of expressive conduct protected by law, even when they are offensive to some people. The court said, quote, if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds it offensive or disagreeable. End quote. In the aftermath of Johnson, Congress went ahead and passed a law banning flag desecration,

Starting point is 00:17:30 but that law was struck down by the Supreme Court in a case called Eichmann. The court reaffirmed that flag burning is protected speech that cannot be banned by the federal government. Now, the president takes the position in his executive order that burning an American flag in cites violence and is an action that amounts to fighting words. Now, that language ties back to First Amendment exceptions, right? So the order cites to Texas v. Johnson and says, quote, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's ruling on First Amendment protections, the court has never held that American flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to fighting words is constitution.

Starting point is 00:18:17 protected. So just to quickly explain what those terms mean, fighting words comes from a Supreme Court case back in the 40s, and it refers to direct face-to-face insults that are so personal and inflammatory that they're likely to cause an immediate fight. It's a really narrow exception to the First Amendment, and courts almost never uphold it today. Insightment refers to speech that is intended and likely to cause people to commit lawless action right away. like, you know, an example would be urging a crowd to riot on the spot. Most offensive or provocative protests, including flag burning, don't usually meet these standards because the exceptions are drawn so narrowly.

Starting point is 00:19:02 Now, that's why the executive order takes a second approach. Instead of relying solely on those rarely used exceptions, it directs the DOJ to prosecute flag desecration when it also violates existing content neutral laws. things like arson, disorderly conduct, vandalism. So if the government prosecutes flag burning under neutral laws, meaning laws that are not aimed at suppressing a certain type of message, like a general ban on open fires, destruction of someone else's property, etc., etc., that's permissible.

Starting point is 00:19:36 In fact, Johnson itself, the Supreme Court case Johnson, acknowledged that neutral laws are valid as long as they aren't a disguised content-based restriction. So if someone burns an American flag while also committing arson, they can be charged with arson. But if the DOJ were to prosecute someone only for burning a flag without any other violation, that would directly conflict with Johnson. Another thing worth mentioning here is that the executive order is essentially challenging Johnson head on, right? By allowing the DOJ to pursue litigation to quote unquote reexamine First Amendment boundaries, it's essentially asking the DOJ to try to narrow the precedent or get the Supreme Court to overturn their prior ruling

Starting point is 00:20:23 in Johnson. So long story short, under current law, the DOJ cannot prosecute someone solely for burning a flag as political protest. This executive order does not overturn existing precedent. Instead, this order is attempting to test the boundaries and set up future court cases that could potentially chip away at or even potentially overturn that existing. precedent. Okay, the second executive order we are going to talk about today is titled Taking Steps to End Cash Bail to Protect Americans. The stated purpose of this order is to keep Americans safe by keeping individuals incarcerated who pose a clear ongoing risk to society. Consistent with that purpose, the order directs the Attorney General to submit to the president

Starting point is 00:21:09 within 30 days, a list of states and local jurisdictions that have, in the Attorney General's opinion, substantially eliminated cash bail as a potential condition of pretrial release from custody for crimes that pose a clear threat to public safety or order. These crimes include offenses involving violent, sexual, or indecent acts, or burglary, looting, or vandalism. Then, the head of each executive department and agency, in coordination with the director of the Office of Management and Budget, is to identify federal funds. currently given to cashless bail jurisdictions that can possibly be suspended or terminated as appropriate and consistent with applicable law. So a few things to talk about here.

Starting point is 00:21:58 First, bail laws are typically state matters. Each state and D.C. sets its own pre-trial detention and bail rules. Because of that, this order doesn't and cannot directly change those laws. instead what this order does is it threatens to cut federal funding from jurisdictions that maintain these cashless bail policies. Here's the catch, though. So only Congress controls federal spending. Presidents can direct how agencies administer the funds that Congress has already appropriated, but the executive branch cannot unilaterally withhold or cancel appropriated funds unless Congress gave them that authority. With that said, we have seen courts, lately with some of the administration's other funding fights, show more willingness to uphold

Starting point is 00:22:48 cuts, especially when the cuts are tied to public safety or law enforcement programs. So if this executive order is challenged as an overstep on, you know, congressional authority as a coercive condition on funding, which is not allowed, or something else, it's hard to say how a court would rule. What's also interesting is that cashless bail exists largely because of lawsuits and court rulings that said money bail can violate equal protection and due process if it keeps poor defendants jailed while wealthy defendants go free. So this executive order really puts cashless bail at the intersection of two big debates, whether the federal government can pressure states through federal funding and whether money bail itself is constitutional in the

Starting point is 00:23:40 first place. Now, alongside this nationwide order, the president also signed a separate DC-specific executive order. That one takes things a bit further. Instead of relying on funding threats, it directs federal agencies to hold arrestees in federal custody and pursue federal charges whenever possible, essentially bypassing DC's cashless bail system altogether. It also instructs the Attorney General to review D.C. police policies and press the mayor to make changes under the city's Home Rule Act. And if D.C. doesn't comply, the order says that the administration can leverage federal services and funding to push for reforms. Legally, though, this order raises a different set of questions. Unlike the states, Congress retains ultimate authority over D.C. under the

Starting point is 00:24:33 Home Rule Act of 1973. That means the federal government does have the power. to step in on local matters in ways that it couldn't in the states. So the administration stepping in in this way isn't unlawful, but it's certainly controversial. Supporters argue the order is fully within the federal government's rights since Congress gave itself final say over D.C. policy, you know, in that home rule act. But critics argue the order expands executive authority by sidestepping the usual balance that Congress intended when it granted DC partial self-governance under home rules. So we'll have to see how those two orders play out. They could potentially be challenged. Time will tell. Now for a few quick hitters, fires are

Starting point is 00:25:18 currently burning in California and Oregon. The picket fire in Napa County, California started on Thursday. It's burned nearly 7,000 acres and it is still growing. According to Cal Fire, the fire is only 13 percent contained. Governor Newsom said the state has deployed more than 1,200 firefighters, 140 engines, 34 bulldozers, and aerial resources. Meanwhile, in central Oregon, the flat fire has burned about 22,000 acres with zero containment. And for the third time this week, American fighter jets were sent to respond to a Russian aircraft near Alaska on Sunday. Norred said it tracked a type of Russian aircraft used for surveillance in the Alaskan air

Starting point is 00:26:00 defense identification zone, which is actually over international water. waters, not U.S. territory. Although NORAD said the Russian activity was not seen as a threat, it did dispatch two F-16 fighter jets, two KC-135 tankers, and an E3-century aircraft to keep an eye on it. And President Trump said today he wants to rename the Department of Defense, the Department of War. From the Oval Office, Trump said in part, quote, it used to be called the Department of War. It had a stronger sound. Secretary of Defense Heggseth replied, it's coming soon, sir. So a little history for you. Under President Washington, Congress created the U.S. War Department to oversee the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. In 1949, the National Security Act renamed the Department

Starting point is 00:26:46 of Defense. Time for some critical thinking. Let's revisit the flag order. We'll start with a general question. In your opinion, should the First Amendment continue to protect burning the American flag as a type of symbolic expression, or should the government have more authority to restrict it in the interest of national unity and respect for the flag? And why? Why do you feel the way that you do? Why is your answer what it is? For supporters of this executive order, if the government is allowed to punish flag burning because it's offensive, where should the line be drawn on other offensive political speech. Could this open the door to restricting other forms of protests? So imagine the situation in which you spoke out, you know, in protest against an

Starting point is 00:27:40 administration you didn't like, but we're not allowed to do that. How would you feel about it then? For opponents of the order, is there a middle ground where the government could regulate the time, place or manner of flag burning. For example, by applying general fire safety rules or restricting protests in certain high security areas without directly targeting the message that's being expressed. That's what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. I do have a new newsletter going out tomorrow per usual every Tuesday and Friday covers quick hitters in politics, pop culture, business, health and international news. You can always subscribe by clicking the sign up link in the episode show notes.

Starting point is 00:28:26 Have a fantastic next couple of days and I will talk to you again on Thursday.

UNBIASED - New Executive Orders: Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag & Ending Cashless Bail. PLUS National Guard Troops to 19 More States and Abrego Garcia's Possible Deportation.

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.