UNBIASED - Protesters in Speaker McCarthy's Office Arrested, X Sues CA Over Content Moderation Law, New Mexico Gov. Suspends Right to Carry, NYC Mayor on Migrant Crisis, and More.

Episode Date: September 12, 2023

1. Protesters Arrested for Unlawfully Entering Speaker McCarthy's Office (2:12)2. CA Assembly Bill 957: Courts May Consider Whether Parents Affirm Their Child's Gender in Future Child Custody Proceedings (5:20)3. X Sues California Over Content Moderation Law (11:07)4. Mayor Eric Adams Says Migrant Crisis Will Destroy NYC (20:20)5. New Mexico Governor Temporarily Suspends Open and Concealed Carry (26:55)6. Judge Denies Mark Meadows' Request to Move Case; Meadows Appeals (32:59)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Subscribe to Jordan's weekly free newsletter featuring hot topics in the news, trending lawsuits, and more.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 Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased

news and legal analysis. Enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. Happy Tuesday. I am so glad you're here with me. I have six stories today. All of them are relatively the same length. I don't really have any stories that are short enough to fit into the notable mentions. So we're just going to knock out six stories. The first is going to be about the seven activists that were arrested at the Capitol who protested in Speaker McCarthy's office on Monday. The second story is going to be about the seven activists that were arrested at the Capitol who protested in Speaker McCarthy's office on Monday. The second story is going to be about California's Assembly Bill 957, which I did cover in a social media post. So if you saw that, this will just be basically a recap, but I'm also going to add some more information in there. And then the third story is going to

be about X, formerly known as Twitter, suing California's attorney general over California's Assembly Bill 587, which is a content moderation law. The fourth story will be talking about New York City's mayor, Eric Adams, and what he has to say about this migrant crisis. The fifth story will be about New Mexico's governor temporarily suspending the right to carry. And the sixth and final story will be about Mark Meadows' case. He had asked a judge to move his case to federal court. The judge denied it. He has now appealed it and is asking for an emergency stay. So we'll talk about what all of that means. Before we get into the stories, let me just leave you with the reminders that I leave you every episode, which is one, please don't forget to review my show. It really helps support me. You can do it on whichever platform you listen. It takes about two seconds. It's very easy to do. And finally, yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. Seven activists were arrested by Capitol Police on Monday for

protesting in Speaker McCarthy's office. These seven activists were from two different groups. One group is called Housing Works. The other group is called Health Gap. And basically, they entered Speaker McCarthy's office Monday morning, sat on the floor, linked their arms together, and began chanting, Pass PEPFAR Now McCarthy. After about 10 to 15 minutes, Capitol Police gave them a warning to stop. They didn't. So police then went ahead and tied their wrists with zip ties and escorted them out of the building. These seven individuals were charged with unlawful entry. So what is PEPFAR? What does this mean? PEPFAR is otherwise known as the United

States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. It is set to expire on September 30th, and these groups are asking for this reauthorization of PEPFAR. Specifically, they want a clean five-year reauthorization. PEPFAR is this effort to not only combat the spread of HIV AIDS, but also provide medication to those that are infected. So what's the controversy? Why are these protesters showing up? Why now? Why McCarthy's office? Let's answer all of those. The controversy is that House Republicans are hesitant to reauthorize the program because they are of the belief that much of the budget is actually allocated towards abortion providers and PEPFAR indirectly assists abortion providers. Democrats disagree with this contention, but that's what

the controversy is. Now, the reason this is happening now is because Congress has to pass its annual budget before the new fiscal year, which begins on October 1st. That is, of course, to avoid a potential government shutdown. And that means that over the next fiscal year, which begins on October 1st. That is, of course, to avoid a potential government shutdown. And that means that over the next few weeks, Congress has a lot on its agenda. And that includes what to do about PEPFAR. Will PEPFAR be reauthorized? As far as why this happened in McCarthy's office specifically, yes, of course, he is Speaker of the House. But according to Alison Bancroft, who is Health Gap's Associate Director for Policy and Advocacy, she said that McCarthy is a strategic target. She told Politico, quote, when it comes to both the domestic cuts to

HIV funding and the failure thus far to reauthorize PEPFAR in its current form, we're seeing that the issues are coming from the Republican caucus, so we need leadership. He needs to get his caucus in order, end quote. He is obviously referring to Speaker McCarthy, so that's why they chose him. Now, if PEPFAR isn't reauthorized, it doesn't shut the program down completely. But what supporters say is that failing to reauthorize PEPFAR would destabilize its work treating and preventing HIV around the globe, and it would also erode the country's geopolitical standing in the global south. So that is what happened with the protesters on Capitol Hill. Let's move on to California's Assembly Bill 957. California Assembly Bill 957 adds affirmation of a child's gender identity to the list of

factors that are considered by a court in a child custody proceeding. This assembly bill passed the assembly last week and headed to the governor's desk. So now Governor Newsom will be in charge of whether this becomes a law or not. So I wanted to talk about what this law says, because I think there's some misinformation out there just as far as like, how far does this law go? So let's just clarify some things. Whenever you're in a child custody proceeding, no matter what the state, whether it's California, Florida, Idaho, whatever it is. What the court will look at is the best interest of a child. Which parent should have what share of custody, depending on what's in the best interest of the child. And there's many

factors that are used to determine this. So typically, a court can look at things like the child's ties to their school or to their home, wherever they're currently living. Is there any history of abuse? And if so, from which parent? What is the mental and physical health of the parents? Is there one parent more fit to take care of a child? Is there a willingness between parents to foster a close relationship between each parent and the child? Things like that. Just kind of obvious things you would think of that are in the best interest of a child. Well, in California specifically, the primary factor that the court looks to in determining what's in the best interest of the child is the health, safety, and welfare of the

child. Now, obviously, this can be very broad, right? Health, safety, and welfare, there's a lot of things that go into that. So what this bill says is that if this becomes a law, now when two parents go to court over, you know, they're in the midst of a child custody proceeding, when the court looks at the health, safety, and welfare of the child as its primary factor in determining what's in the best interest of that child, the court has to consider whether the parents affirm the child's gender identity or expression. Now, what's difficult is that this bill doesn't define gender affirmation. So what it does say is that affirmation includes a range of actions and will be unique for the child, but in every case must promote the child's overall health and well-being. But gender

affirmation isn't defined. So this could look very different depending on various situations. So if this does become a law, it's really going to be a matter of, you know, a case by case basis. It's going to depend on the judge that's hearing the case, what the judge thinks is affirmation and what's not. So how would this work in practice? Let's say two parents, they get divorced. Their child was born a female, but now identifies as a male. And let's say one of the parents doesn't want to call their child he, him, but wants to still refer to the child as she, her, as the child was born. That, in and of itself, could be seen as disapproval and not affirming the child's gender and could lead to that parent losing custody. Now, it's important to also note that this affirmation of a child's gender identity or expression is one element within this factor of the health, safety, and welfare of a child. So there's many other things

that go into this analysis. Just because a parent doesn't necessarily agree or affirm a child's gender identity or expression may not automatically mean that parent loses custody, right? But it could. So this bill is very, you know, it's not cut and dry. Like I said, it's going to be a case-by-case basis if this does become a law. It's not a law yet. It passed along party lines in both the Assembly and the Senate, and it is expected to be signed into law. This bill was written by Assemblymember Lori Wilson. She has a child who identifies as a transgender. And, you know, when this bill

was introduced and when she spoke in support of the bill, what she told the California Assembly was that she said, quote, parents affirm their child. Typically, it happens when their gender identity matches their biological gender. But when it doesn't, the affirmation starts to wane. Our duty as parents is to affirm our child, end quote. Now, obviously, this is a bill that has steadfast supporters and steadfast opponents. That's just typically what we see when bills are split among party lines, and especially when bills deal with such controversial issues. So what supporters are arguing is that not accepting your child for who they are could lead to serious mental health issues within the child. Therefore, the child should not be in the custody of a parent who can be seen as antagonistic to the child.

They say that this bill keeps children out of a potentially dangerous situation. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that this isn't an issue that's up to the government. The government shouldn't have a say and that it's up to the parent to determine how they want to parent their child, how they want to handle their child. So again, it'll be up to Governor Newsom to decide if this does become a law. But as I said, he is expected to sign it. Now, let's move on to the next story, which is similar. It's dealing with another assembly bill out of California that is now a law.

And X, which is formerly known as Twitter, suing over the law. So X Corp sued California on Friday, challenging AB 587, and they're saying this law is unconstitutional. Assembly Bill 587 is a content moderation law. California calls this a social media transparency bill that is meant to fight online hate. X, on the other hand, says this bill is meant to pressure social media companies to eliminate constitutionally protected content, which the state views as problematic. So first and foremost, let me just say that Assembly Bill 587 is about a year old. So it's not a super new piece of legislation. It was signed into law last September. And Texas and Florida have also created these content moderation

laws. But Texas and Florida have very different laws than California does. So they're kind of on the opposite side of the spectrum. California's law wants more content defined and moderated, whereas Florida and Texas want to make it illegal for platforms to suspend or punish users that post content with which the platform doesn't agree. So they're very different. But that's for another time. Let's focus on California's law and what X has to say about it. The law has three components.

So first, you have this requirement that social media companies now have to publicly post their terms of service. Their terms of service have to be accessible to users. The second requirement is that social media companies have to submit this terms of service report on a semi-annual basis to California's Attorney General. And what this report has to include is the following. So it has to include a current version of the Terms of Service. It has to include any changes made to the Terms of Service since the last report, whether the Terms of Service define certain types of speech, so hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalism, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference. And if the terms

of service define these types of content, how are they defined? So that has to be included in the report as well. The fourth requirement in the report is a detailed description of content moderation practices. And the fifth is this requirement to include information on content that was flagged by the platform. So that's what has to be included in the terms of service report, which is part of the second requirement. The third requirement under the law is this penalties component. So if a social media company violates this law, the social media platform can be held liable for a penalty up to $15,000 for each violation per day. And the court can also enjoin the social media company from doing business in the state.

So in the simplest of terms, what X is saying is that these requirements, those three requirements that we just went over, the terms of service publicly posted, the report to the attorney general, and the penalties component are intended to not only require platforms to define certain types of content that aren't easy to define without injecting some sort of political bias, but also that the law is forcing platforms to moderate these types of content when it's not cut and dry. In other words, X is of the position that California is making these platforms take a stance on political issues. And because they're subject to penalties, if they don't moderate these political issues, California is pretty much

pigeonholing these platforms into abiding by what the state feels is right from a political standpoint. So that's kind of like the simple breakdown. Now let's take this one step further. Here in the United States, we have certain types of speech that are protected and certain types of speech that are unprotected. Generally, our speech is protected, right? Protected speech is pretty much all speech except for unprotected speech. Unprotected speech includes things like child pornography, true threats, fraud, false statements of fact, obscenity, etc. What X says is that this law is intending to moderate speech that hasn't been deemed unprotected and is therefore protected. So again, those categories like hate speech, racism, extremism, misinformation, harassment, foreign political interference, those categories that the law specifically mentions.

X says that defining these categories of content is a politically charged and controversial undertaking. So let's give a few examples. What the lawsuit says, it kind of like poses these questions, right? It says, is speech that intentionally misgenders a transgender individual hate speech or harassment? Question mark. Is criticism of Israel anti-Semitic hate speech? Question mark. Is suggesting COVID originated in a lab in Wuhan considered disinformation? Question mark. So what X says is all of these are politically charged topics, which people have different opinions on. So there's this general public consensus that things like child pornography, true threats, fraud, false statements of fact, obscenity, those things are generally accepted as wrong,

unprotected, unwarranted, inappropriate speech. But what X is saying in the lawsuit is that these categories like racism, hate speech, extremism, misinformation, harassment, these things mean different things to different people, and the public doesn't have this general consensus around these types of speech like they do with the categories of unprotected speech. So X's lawsuit goes on to say that basically they're stuck between this rock and a hard place because the law is forcing them to choose how to define these categories of speech that will ultimately piss off one side or the other, right? No matter which way you do it, one side's going to be pissed. And that's why X is saying platforms shouldn't take a stance.

Adding on to that, X also says that the government cannot be telling it what it must say without violating the First Amendment. And it analogizes the scenario to requiring a presidential candidate to disclose how he or she feels about hot button issues during their run for presidency. So what the complaint says, and I'm going to read directly from the complaint here, it says, an analogy helps illustrate this point. Imagine, for instance, a state law that in the interest of transparency, forced individuals running for president of the United States to publish their positions on several hot button political issues, whether abortion should be permitted in cases of incest or rape, or whether former President

Trump committed any crimes, on which, in the government's view, most political candidates were avoiding stating their positions. Even if the law did not mandate politicians to take any particular position, but simply required them, under the threat of civil penalties, to publicly spell out their position, or lack thereof, on those controversial issues, as part of an effort to pressure them to adopt a certain political view, there can be little doubt that such a law would trigger heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment. Assembly Bill 587 is no different. Now, the state of California obviously has a different take on this. When Governor Newsom signed this bill into law last year, what he wrote was this.

He said, quote, California will not stand by as social media is weaponized to spread hate and disinformation that threaten our communities and foundational values as a country. Californians deserve to know how these platforms are impacting our public discourse, and this action brings much needed transparency and accountability to the policies that shape the social media content we consume every day, end quote. And just as a final note to wrap this up, the assembly member that introduced the bill, Jesse Gabriel, he also called the law a transparency measure, and he added, quote, if Twitter has nothing to hide, then they should have no objection to this bill, end quote. Let's take a

quick break. When we come back, we will finish with our last three stories. What is Eric Adams saying about the New York City's migrant crisis? I've seen a few headlines circulating in which, you know, Eric Adams is saying that the migrants are destroying the city. So let's talk about it. I watched the video for myself. I, you know, watched what he had to say, and I want to talk about what he had to say. And then I want to talk about some different stances on the issue. Eric Adams' comments came at a community conversation last week in New York City where he took questions from residents. But before the floor was open to questions, he talked about how the city has been turned around since January 1st,

2022, in a good way, right? He was saying how tourism had gotten better, their bond rating was increased, and he was just talking about all these good things that had happened. But what he said was this. He said, quote, we turned the city around in 20 months. And then what happened? It started with a madman down in Texas who decided he wanted to bus people up to New York City. This is, of course, referring to Governor Abbott in Texas. He continued on, 110,000 migrants. We have to feed, clothe, educate their children, wash their laundry sheets, give them everything they need. 10,000 migrants a month, and it's going to destroy the city. He said that it's going to impact every community because the budget is

going to have to get cut in every area in order to accommodate the migrants, which has an estimated cost of about $12 billion. And then, so that was on September 6th. And then this past Saturday, he announced cuts as high as 15% to all city agencies by next spring. He said that the cuts are due to the migrant crisis itself, but also because of the lack of substantial support from the federal and state government regarding the migrant crisis. He added that if the city doesn't get more federal help between now and January, there could be an additional 5% cut in January and another 5% cut in April.

He also said he doesn't see an end to the problem, saying, quote, never in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an ending to. I don't see an ending to this, end quote. AOC, who is, of course, a Democratic representative representing New York's 14th district, responded to Eric Adams' comments through a tweet, saying, quote, choosing to gut public programs, favor big businesses, skyrocket rents, and defunding schools to add another $5 billion in militarization, and then blaming immigrants for it is not leadership, end quote. Adams then responded on MSNBC saying, quote, it is time for my national leaders to step up. I'm hoping that

the congresswoman will come in and walk through to see the conditions. End quote. He also appeared on a local television station warning that the migrant crisis is going to bring a financial tsunami, saying, quote, We are about to experience a financial tsunami that I don't think the city has ever experienced. Every service in the city is going to be impacted from child service to our seniors to housing. Everything will be impacted. Now, Adams is getting it from all angles for his remarks, right? So you have Republicans and conservatives saying, you asked for this, you wanted New York City to be a sanctuary city, you got what you asked for, this is your own burden to bear. Democrats are saying that Adams

is sounding like a Republican. One who one Democrat who wrote an opinion piece for MSNBC actually equated Adams to a black Trump. So he's he like I said, he's taking it from all angles. He has implemented a few measures to kind of counteract this migrant crisis, but he says it's at the point where he just he needs more help. So in May, in anticipation of the lift of Title 42, he actually signed Executive Order 402, which suspended provisions of right to shelter said that families who arrive before 10 p.m. must be given a shelter bed by 4 a.m. that same night. But under his executive order, it lifted that time frame restriction and said that New York City no longer has to provide migrant families with their own room and instead can direct them to a communal shelter instead. At the time when that executive order was signed, the Legal Aid Society in New

York condemned it. They were saying that putting families and children in communal shelters opens them up to the risk of diseases, sexual assault. It would have an adverse impact on mental health. But Mayor Adams was like, I don't I have to do what I have to do. It's have an adverse impact on mental health. But Mayor Adams was like, I don't, I have to do what I have to do. It's been roughly four months since then, since that executive order was signed. There have only been more migrants entering the city. Like I said, Adams has asked both the federal and state government for help. He's distributed flyers advising migrants not to come to the city anymore. So that's what he has to say about the migrants, and that's how he's feeling. But I wanted to include this as a story because I think sometimes

there's certain stories that all of the headlines look the same. So literally, when I was researching for this story, every article used the same headline, which was the one quote that the migrant crisis is going to destroy the city. And I think it's easy, you know, which was the one quote that the migrant crisis is going to destroy the city. And I think it's easy, you know, when all the headlines say the same thing, we walk away with the same message, which is that, okay, he said X, and that's what the story is. But sometimes we need more context, right? Because as an example, in this case, he wasn't saying the migrants themselves are going to destroy the city, but rather all of these migrants are making it so the city is spending so much money on them. Indirectly, it's destroying the city because now they're having to cut in, you know, everywhere else.

They're having to cut all of the agencies within the city, including the police department, which means that there's not going to be as many police to tackle crime, and that's going to affect crime, et cetera, et cetera. So it kind of all goes back to when he opened up his discussion. He said that New York City had improved for all of these reasons. And now because there's an influx of migrants, all of the city's money is going towards them. This city is going to fall right back to where it was because there's not going to be as much money left for all of these other areas. So long-winded way of saying that I think the story deserved a little bit of context, and now you're more informed than maybe you were before about it. The fifth story is about New Mexico's governor suspending the right to carry. New Mexico's governor, Michelle Grisham, suspended the right to carry firearms in public

in and around Albuquerque because of some recent shooting deaths. There were three children that were shot to death between the months of July and September. There were also two what were considered mass shootings recently. So she decides she's going to suspend the right to carry firearms. The suspension was classified as an emergency public health order. It's a 30-day ban on open and concealed carrying of firearms. It applies to public property, and it applies to anyone other than law enforcement and licensed security officers. The order did allow citizens with carry permits to carry their guns on private property like gun ranges and gun stores if the firearm is transported in a locked box or if a trigger lock is used to prevent

the gun from firing. The order also prohibits guns on state property such as state buildings and schools as well as in parks and wherever else children might be, and the ban is to be enforced by the state police and anyone who violates it would be subject to the ban is to be enforced by the state police, and anyone who violates it would be subject to a fine up to $5,000. When Grisham implemented this order, she said that gun violence is an epidemic in America, she's done letting it be an epidemic in the state, enough is enough, and this is, you know, how she plans to combat it. Now, immediately upon issuing the order, the governor received a lot of backlash from both sides of the aisle, actually. Obviously,

we know why Republicans would be against this, but she also got backlash from Democrats. She did have some supporters too, which we'll talk about. But by Saturday, one day later, multiple lawsuits had been filed, one by the National Association for Gun Rights, another by a resident of New Mexico, as well as gun owners of America. And I believe by Monday, there were at least four lawsuits filed, if not five. So here's what people are saying. As for politicians in the state, obviously, as I said, we know how Republicans feel about this.

They're very much against it. They're saying this is a violation of our Second Amendment rights. Two Republican representatives have even called for the start of impeachment proceedings against the governor. But one Democratic representative from California, not New Mexico, so California's obviously its neighboring state, his name is Ted Lieu, and he said in a tweet, quote, I support gun safety laws. However, this order violates the United States Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the United States Constitution. The governor, Governor Grisham of New Mexico, responded by saying, Hey Ted, conceal and open carry are state laws that I have jurisdiction over. If you're really

interested in helping curb gun violence, I'd welcome you to join our next police academy class. Senator Ted Cruz then jumped in. He reposted Ted Lieu's tweet, adding, quote, Wow, wow, wow. Here are words I've never said before. Ted Lieu is right, end quote. Now, on the other side of this, you have groups like New Mexicans to prevent gun violence that have expressed their support of the order, tweeting, thank you, Governor Grisham, for having the courage to do something. You have obviously other gun control advocates that are in support of this bill. But then you have some people that aren't really sure which route to take. So the sheriff in Bernalillo County, which is the county that Albuquerque is located in, said, quote,

While I understand and appreciate the urgency, the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our Constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold. I am weary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense, end quote. The issue here, okay, so I've told you how people are feeling about this and what the order is. The issue here is this. We obviously have the Second Amendment, right? But the Supreme Court decided a case last year called Bruin. The Supreme Court in that case held that gun restrictions are constitutional

only if there's a tradition of such regulation in United States history. That holding is binding here. However, the two cases are a little bit different. In the New York case, Bruin, that case was over a New York law that required a person to show special need for self-protection in order to get an unrestricted license to carry a concealed weapon outside of the home. In this case, in New Mexico's case, what the governor is saying is we're setting forth this temporary order. It's not a law. It's a temporary order because we're currently in the midst of a public health emergency. So the New Mexico situation is obviously very different. You have a public health emergency. It's a temporary

order. It's not a law as was in New York. So like I said, keep in mind, this case is in the lowest court right now. It would have to go up on appeal and then to the Supreme Court, which as we know, takes a long time. The Supreme Court could, if one case does get there, could very well say, you know, this issue is moot. It's the ban is over. There's no point in us hearing the case. They could also say, check on Bruin, that tells you everything you need to know, or they could say, this is a different case, let's hear it, let's decide it. So this issue could go a lot of ways, but I did want to address that because one of the lawsuits that's filed against New Mexico's governor does cite to Bruin and does say that gun restrictions are only constitutional if there's a

tradition of such regulation in United States history. There is no such regulation in United States history here, and therefore, New Mexico's temporary ban is unconstitutional. So I felt that that was important to just touch on. The sixth and final story is about Mark Meadows and him not getting his case moved to federal court. And this is an update to August 29th episode where I covered the hearing on the issue. But a federal judge made his decision on Friday that Mark Meadows' case will not be moved to federal court as Meadows had requested. Meadows then appealed the decision on Monday and asked for an emergency stay. But let's do a brief recap

of why Meadows wanted his case moved and why the judge ruled the way he did. And then I'll get into what the appeal means and what the emergency stay means. Mark Meadows is one of Trump's co-defendants in the Georgia election case. He was also Trump's former chief of staff. So the indictment against these defendants alleged various actions done by all 19 people. Well, when it comes to Meadows, there's eight actions that the indictment says Meadows took in furtherance of this alleged scheme to overturn the election. Meadows was arguing that these actions that are alleged in the indictment were part of his federal duties as chief of staff and therefore the case should be moved to federal court. Why did he want it moved to federal court? Well, because if it got moved to federal court,

it opened up this possibility of him being granted federal immunity. So that's why he wanted it moved, but how he would get it moved is different. There's a federal law that calls for the removal of criminal proceedings that are brought in state court against federal officials when charges stem from actions taken under color of their office. In other words, if a federal official is charged with a crime that stems from their official duties, this federal law says it has to be removed to federal court. It can't be brought in state court. So that's why Meadows was arguing that the alleged actions in this indictment were done under color of his role as chief of staff.

Therefore, it should be moved to federal court, opening up the possibility for federal immunity. The Fulton County DA, on the other hand, argued that Meadows was acting outside his scope of federal duties, and the DA relied on the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act prohibits federal officials from engaging in partisan political activity as part of their official duties, meaning activity directed towards the success or failure of a particular party. That's what political activity is. So the federal judge hears the arguments and testimony from both sides. But ultimately, the judge said this. The judge said, quote, the color of the office of the White House chief of staff did not include working with or working for the Trump campaign, except for

simply coordinating the president's schedule, traveling with the president to his campaign events, and redirecting communications to the campaign. Thus, engaging in political activities exceeds the outer limits of the office of the White House chief of staff. End quote. He did say that his order doesn't pertain to any of the other defendants. Four other defendants have also filed to move their cases to federal court. But even though the judge said, you know, his ruling doesn't affect them, it does give us an idea of what the outcome of those cases could be. However, those cases also involve slightly different arguments, so there could be a slightly different

outcome. So we will see on that. Now, I mentioned that Meadows appealed the decision and he asked for an emergency stay. So basically what that means is he appealed to the appellate court. The appellate court obviously can't hear it tomorrow, but what they can do in the meantime is grant an emergency stay. They can also deny the emergency stay. What an emergency stay does is it basically stays the lower court's decision while the appeal is happening. So if the appellate court grants the stay, it means that the judge's order keeping the case in state court is on hold until the appellate court can make its own ruling. Now, what that could do is it could delay the trial a little bit, depending on when the appellate court could actually hear the case and make a decision. Now, on the other hand, if the appellate court denies the stay, then the case will continue on and Meadows could be tried before the appeal even plays out. So that's what could happen with that emergency stay. Now, a decision, because it's an emergency stay, a decision usually comes down

quite quickly from the appellate court. So that decision could even come out, you know, between the time this episode is recorded and it releases. So now you at least know based on the decision what would happen going forward. Now, I did say on my Instagram that I would be covering some key takeaways from the G20 summit that wrapped up on Sunday, but I just had so many stories today I decided to push it. This episode's already long enough. However, if you are interested in reading some key takeaways, I do have a Reuters link listed in my sources section. You can always click on all sources here in the podcast episode description, or just go to jordanismylawyer.com, find this episode, scroll all the way down, and that's where you'll see the link. But that concludes this episode. Thank you so much for being here. Don't forget to leave me a review if you're enjoying this show. Have a great week and I will talk to you on Friday.