WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - Under the Radar - Episode 23

Episode Date: November 16, 2025

This week on “Under the Radar,” hear about the end of the longest government shutdown in American history, a Supreme Court case that may give district judges more power to block Presidential actions, a Supreme Court case trying to expand the early release of convicted criminals, and more.

This is Under the Radar on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. Now, here's your host, Luke Miller. This week on Under the Radar, hear about the end of the longest government shutdown in American history, a Supreme Court case that may give district judges more power to block presidential actions, a Supreme Court case trying to expand the early release of convicted criminals, criminals, and more. I'm your host, Luke Miller, and on this show, we'll cover the news you didn't catch this week from the mainstream media. While they're covering the president's

latest tweets, here you can hear about the new legislation, executive orders, and Supreme Court decisions that affect you. Welcome to Under the Radar. So the first piece of news I have for you this week is that we finally have the passing of the continuing resolution to reopen the government after the longest government shutdown in American history. According to the White House website, the government shutdown lasted officially 42 days, 22 hours, and 25 minutes, making it the longest government shutdown in history by about two weeks. So as you recall, what a continuing resolution does is it reopens the government by extending the previous year's budget for a short period of time while negotiations continue so that the government

can remain operational while those negotiations happen. In this case, the fiscal year 2025 budget, which technically ended on September 30th, has now been extended through January. 30th. The highlights of this continuing resolution are, first of all, that three parts of government got full year appropriations instead of just the budget for the next two months. Namely, the Department of Agriculture and the FDA, the Food Drug Administration, all military operations and veterans affairs got their full year of funding, and then the legislative branch of government and all congressionally operated bodies. Every other aspect of government spending gets fiscal year 2025 levels for the next two and a half months, while they negotiate a full budget for the rest of fiscal year

2006. Here's what President Trump had to say about the shutdown and the continuing resolution. For the past 43 days, Democrats in Congress shut down the government of the United States and an attempt to extort American taxpayers for hundreds of billions of dollars for illegal aliens and people that came into our country illegally from gangs, from prisons, from mental institutions. They wanted to pay them $1.5 trillion, which would have really hurt our health care businesses and our recipients at levels never seen before. Today, we're sending a clear message that we will never given to extortion, because that's what it was. In just a moment, I'll sign a bill exactly like we asked Democrats to send us all along. It's just a continuation, not a big deal. It's a

continuation and we'll talk later. Yet the extremists in the other party insisted on creating the longest government shutdown in American history, and they did it purely for political reasons. So with all of that, I just want to tell you the country has never been in better shape. We went through this short-term disaster with the Democrats because they thought it would be good politically, and it's an honor now to sign this incredible bill and get our country working again. In the end, it seems Republicans got their way. They did not have to add the Affordable Care Act subsidies, which is what the Democrats were fighting for in this continuing resolution. It's what they were holding out for, why they would not vote for the continuing resolution the previous 15 or so times that they had voted on it. But in the end, congressional Republicans made no commitment to continuing those health care subsidies that had included health care for illegal immigrants, at least indirectly. Again, this is just a continuing resolution. So the fiscal year 2026 budget has not been passed yet. They're still negotiating it. So there's still time for Democrats to negotiate for those healthcare subsidies. It does not look like they're going to get them. They don't really have the leverage to do so, which is why they

were keeping the government shut down, to maintain some leverage to try to get those subsidies put into next year's budget. Also as part of the agreement for the continuing resolution, all federal employees who kept working and who didn't keep working are going to get significant back pay for the amount of time that the government was shut down. And as a matter of fact, some of those federal workers who continued working, even though they weren't getting paychecks through the government shutdown are getting bonuses as well as back pay. So let's talk about the couple things that Democrats got out of this deal. The first thing is that they got the Trump administration to commit to no more layoffs or firings of federal officials while the continuing resolution is in place. President

Trump used his position and his leverage to take advantage of the opportunity while the government was shut down to lay off federal workers. There were at least 4,000 federal workers that were laid off during that amount of time. And the Trump administration had promised that they were going to keep going, that they were going to try to cut down the federal workforce as much as possible. This was a weapon they were using as leverage to bring the Democrats to the table, and clearly it worked here. But part of the continuing resolution is that there will be no more federal layoffs or firings through January 30th when the continuing resolution date comes to an end. The other thing that Democrats got out of this was that they did get a commitment from President Trump in his speech when he signed the continuing

resolution. They got a commitment from President Trump that would keep the health care spending going, but instead of giving subsidies to the insurance companies and to health care companies, they would almost be given as a voucher system to American citizens. Here's what President Trump had to say about that potential for a solution. And I'm calling today for insurance companies not to be paid, but for the money, this massive amount of money, to be paid directly to the people of our country so that they can buy their own health care, which will be far better and far less expensive than the disaster known as Obamacare.

And I've had, I think, great support. I've even had Democrat support. So we want the money that would be going to the insurance company, which is hundreds of billions of dollars. You know, their stock prices have gone up by 1,000% in many cases, a thousand percent over a short period of time, because our country stupidly pays them so much money with this Obamacare scandal. So I want the money to go directly to you, the people. And you go out and you'll buy your own health insurance and you'll negotiate different plans

and you'll get much better insurance. And you will be an entrepreneur for yourself. So I'm always willing to work with anyone, including the other party. We'll work on something having to do with health care. We can do a lot better. We can do great. What can be argued was the most significant democratic victory from this whole thing is that the government shutdown lasted through the 2025.

elections. So last week, there were several very important elections across the country, and Democrats swept them. Zoran Mamdani won the New York City mayoral race, the Democratic candidates won the Virginia gubernatorial race and Attorney General's race, in spite of the fact that the Democratic candidate had leaked text messages where he wished death upon his opponent and his opponent's children and fantasized about it. A Democrat won the New Jersey gubernatorial race, the Minneapolis mayoral race, and several others where Democratic candidates were on the ballot. They won in all of the races. So I'm not necessarily saying that that was intentional, but the government shut down likely helped a lot of those Democrats win some of those races. A lot of these elections were in

relatively or heavily blue cities and states. And so congressional Democrats holding out and fighting against congressional Republicans and fighting against Trump and the Trump administration gave Democrats a bit of a rallying cry in a lot of these elections that were held over the last couple weeks. Even though none of those elections were against President Trump, congressional Democrats holding out against the Trump administration gave Democratic voters in a lot of these local and state elections something and someone to vote against. And so that likely increased voter turnout for a lot of these elections, and that shows a pretty good political strategy there. So in spite of the fact that they had to concede on the health care issue for the continuing resolution to open the government

back up, Democrats got a promise not to lay off any more federal workers for a few months. They got back pay for all the federal workers, essential and non-essential for the time missed during the government shutdown. They got a commitment from President Trump to continue negotiations and offer an alternative for equal health care spending, even if it's not the Affordable Care Act subsidies that they wanted. And they got a sweeping victory in the 2025 elections. So I don't say all that to say that Republicans failed with this continuing resolution. I don't think that's the case at all. I think it is a pretty good continuing resolution. And it was one that was very necessary given the extent and length of this government shutdown. But I just tell you these things to say why the Democrats would

give in at this point. And that's why they receive some tangible benefits from this whole thing and they're ready to move on to the fight for the fiscal year 2026 budget. The next piece of news I have for you this week is a Supreme Court case that deals with the increasing issue of district courts issuing universal injunctions against presidential actions. So for the show, I follow all of the executive orders that the Trump administration signs into law. And in following the Supreme Court docket as well, I'm noticing a pattern arise. over and over and over again, where the Trump administration will issue an executive order, someone will bring a lawsuit against the Trump administration, a district court judge will impose

an injunction upon it, which basically blocks the action universally until a higher court makes a ruling, and then the case gets fast-tracked if it's important enough to the Supreme Court where they decide once and for all. But in that time before the case gets to the Supreme Court, it could take years for the Supreme Court to hear and or decide about these matters, and in those cases, the temporary injunctions that are imposed by the district court judges nullify executive action for a very long time. And in most of these cases, what the district court judges were doing was called a universal injunction, which means that they were pausing the rule which was being brought to court, not only in its application against the defendant, but universally. So taking the

third gender on passports case, for example, the universal injunction for that was that the district court judge ruled that the Trump administration would require a third gender option to be available for everyone, not just the one person who brought the case, or not just for the particular people who brought the case. So that's a universal injunction. And over the summer, in a case called Trump v. CASA, CASA, CASA, the Supreme Court ruled that those universal injunctions gave district courts far too much power to override the executive branch of government. And so the Supreme Court limited those universal injunctions. The district courts could only do temporary and particular injunctions for the plaintiffs bringing the case to court. Now just to show how big of an issue this is

and how modern of an issue this is, really, the George W. Bush administration faced six injunctions. Barack Obama in both of his terms faced 12 court injunctions. In the first Trump administration, he faced 64 judicial injunctions. The Biden administration faced only 22, which was still more than any president in history other than President Trump. And then in the first five months of Trump's second administration, he had already faced 40. district court injunctions against his policies. Before the CASA case, the Trump administration was on pace to deal with 400 federal injunctions across this term, which is three times the amount of all other federal injunctions in American history combined. Now, this Trump v. Casa case over the summer changed things a little bit because it limited the universality of injunctions. And so a lot of these cases that are being brought against the Trump administration now have switched strategy and have gone to class action lawsuits because that's kind of a way of getting around the rule. In a class action law suit, one person or a group of plaintiffs sue claiming that they have standing and injury, and so they sue on behalf of their own interests and the interests of all other people in their

position who share the same claims and injuries. Now, in the case before the Supreme Court this week, a man named Bradley Patton was suing in a class action lawsuit against the state of Tennessee, but by the time the lawsuit came to trial, he no longer had standing. The policy that he was challenging was a Tennessee law that requires people to prove that the money they use for bail wasn't stolen. But he was no longer eligible for bail because he pled guilty to the original crime that he was accused of. And so he was no longer a pretrial detainee. He was no longer eligible for bail. And so the law no longer applied to him. And the reason this is relevant to a lot of the federal cases and why it's going to be an important decision is that when class action

lawsuits come up against the Trump administration, let's say, they could effectively dismiss the whole class action lawsuit by satisfying the injury of the original plaintiff or plaintiffs. So let's take the example of the third gender on passports thing. So if the Trump administration says to the particular plaintiff that brought the original case, you particularly and you alone can put a third gender on your passport, then the plaintiff no longer has standing to bring the entire class action lawsuit. And so the class action lawsuit by law would have to be dismissed at that point. And so that would allow the Trump administration or states that were dealing with the same kind of issue to get around class action lawsuits by just satisfying the injury of the original plaintiff. On the other,

other hand, and this is the real potential problem, if the Supreme Court were to rule that the class still has standing to bring the case, even if the original plaintiff's standing has been addressed, then all injunctions imposed by district courts would be universal. So let me explain that a little bit. Using the same example of the third gender on passports case, if a district court judge ruled that the Trump administration has to allow the original plaintiff who brought the case to have a third gender mark on their passport, which is what happened, then as long as it's a class action lawsuit, it never has to stop there. The court can't just rule and say the Trump has to address the standing of the plaintiff. The Trump administration then has to address the standing of

everyone in the class as the plaintiff. And because class action lawsuits are becoming more and more of the way to get around the CASA case that limits universal injunctions, these class action lawsuits are just going to become universal injunctions. It's just going to be the same exact thing. And it's going to keep this trend going of district judges being able to fully, universally block executive actions in a way that the Supreme Court has already ruled is an overextension of the power that they've been given. You're listening to Under the Radar with Luke Miller on Radio for Hillsdale 101.7 FM. The next piece of news I have for you this week is another Supreme Court case about the application

of something called the Compassionate Release Statute. So there were actually two Supreme Court cases that were heard this week that have to do with the Compassionate Release Statute. They were heard together, so there's going to be one decision that has to do with both of these cases. But they both have to do with something called the Compassionate Release Statute, which is a federal law that since 2018 allows federal inmates to request a reduction of their prison sentence before it is fully served, typically on the grounds of, quote, extraordinary and compelling reasons that usually include medical conditions, age, family circumstances, sufficient rehabilitation, things like that, but it's completely up to the judge's discretion. And the judge's discretion part of this rule is what is given rise to these cases. Now, before 2018, it used to be that only the Bureau of Prisons could file a motion for compassionate release, not the inmate themselves. And so that made these instances extremely rare.

But now, since the First Step Act of 2018, inmates themselves can petition federal courts directly for compassionate release. And so it basically comes to the discretion of the particular judge. And if they can find a favorable judge, you can have instances arise. like Joe Fernandez, who was convicted in 2011 of having shot two men to death. Fernandez appealed for a compassionate release and was given that compassionate release by the district court, reducing his sentence that was mandatory life in prison, keyword mandatory, which is not really mandatory at the discretion of this district judge, who reduced the

sentence to time served and let him go free. The judge found that there was extraordinary and compelling reasons for the sentence reduction given his, quote, perceived doubts about the strength of the evidence, and also because of the lesser sentences that were given to Fernandez's accomplices in the whole crime. And they got lesser sentences because they pled guilty and cooperated with the government. Now, Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out that Fernandez's argument for why he should have been given compassionate release because he was, and the case is the federal government challenging that release. Gorsuch said that Fernandez's argument was really weak because, quote, I thought in our

legal system the jury's verdict on the facts is not something a judge can impeach unless it's clearly erroneous, which is a blatant problem with this compassionate release rule. The way our court system works is if a jury finds you guilty that the sentence the jury gives you goes, Fernandez got mandatory life in prison, and the way the compassionate release statute works is that one district court judge, at his discretion for what was, quote, extraordinary and compelling reasons, was able to look and say, the evidence that was used to convict him might have been weak, so the jury and their verdict were just completely overturned. The other case that has to do with compassionate release is very similar, except the two people who brought this case up were convicted in separate cases of

firearm offenses. They were sentenced in 2006 and 2011 to a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years. However, more recently, Congress has changed the law in regards to those firearm offenses, and so the penalty now for those same offenses does not include the mandatory 25-year minimum. Congress specifically stated that the people who had already been convicted don't get to have their sentence reduced because of this. That was specifically part of the law that Congress passed. However, the two defendants Rutherford and Carter appealed for compassionate release saying the laws have changed and under the current law we wouldn't have been convicted to such a long sentence. A district court judge agreed that this qualified as extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release

and so the federal government is also appealing this case before the Supreme Court. So both of these cases look at the compassionate release statute. They both show instances of district court judges being able to overturn the verdict of a jury based on their own discreet. Any of that kind of stuff can allow a judge to look at a particular case and overturn mandatory minimums, which is the problem that the federal government is having and why they've brought this case to the Supreme Court. All of the analysis at this point seems to say the Supreme Court is going to rule with the federal government and restrict the compassionate release statute in some way so that prisoners aren't just going straight to that as an appeal to get their convictions reduced by a judge in rejection of the will of the jury that decided their case.

The last piece of news I have for you this week is an executive order signed by the president November 13th entitled Fostering the Future for American Children and Families. This executive order deals with the foster care system. It points out a few problems with the current system, claiming that children stay for too long in foster care, that young adults leaving the foster care system often lack support for education, careers, and life skills, that foster caseworkers are overworked and the data systems they use are outdated. And one of the biggest points of emphasis being that some organizations are restricted from participating in foster programs due to their religious beliefs or convictions. So the purpose of the executive order is to use federal

resources, technology, and partnerships to better support children in or leaving foster care. Now, there's a couple of steps that the executive order takes in particular. First, it directs the HHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, to improve its data collection about the foster care system. So to have better reporting on which states are doing really well, which states are producing foster kids with great academic scores and who get great jobs and those that don't to collect information on which states are doing better at preventing abuse within the foster care system, are better at recruiting and retaining foster parents, states who are better with partnering with nonprofits and faith-based organizations, and to publish a report on those

things so that people who want to get into the foster care system know which states are most likely to support them in that mission and where they're most likely to be successful. So that's the first part of it. The second part called the Fostering the Future Initiative, which is going to be directed in part by the First Lady, is a mission primarily to increase the educational opportunities and what they call training vouchers for kids in the foster care program. So it's going to be a voucher program essentially for foster kids that's going to allow for what they call greater flexibility in education. So there will be scholarships specifically for foster children that will be given to foster parents through vouchers and they'll be able to use those

vouchers for homeschool or private school or however they see fit, particularly because foster families tend to have unique situations. Like they have a lot of kids that they're having to put through school or they have kids with particular or special needs that come from difficult circumstances, that come from difficult past, whatever it might be, there are different needs that foster families have for schooling. And so this educational program will provide scholarships to help improve education for foster kids to try to improve educational and employment opportunities and outcomes for those kids. The last important thing to note is that the executive order promotes the foster system working with qualified faith-based organizations. So there have been many instances

where certain organizations that want to work with the foster care system have been restricted from participating in those programs due to religious beliefs. So some examples of that would be the CSS Catholic Social Services, Miracle Hill Ministries in South Carolina. and several different faith-based agencies in Michigan that have been cited by the ACLU in this particular situation. All of these organizations that are faith-based have been completely restricted from cooperating with the foster care system to put kids into foster homes because they refused to work with same-sex couples. So under the existing rule before this executive order, the United States government had thought that faith-based organizations, exclusive definition of marriage, meant that these organizations and all the good that they could do in working with the foster care system and putting kids into these foster homes were not qualified to work with the program and therefore must be restricted.

This executive order removes those restrictions, one, and two, specifically promotes the foster care working with faith-based organizations to expand and improve the foster care system. So to recap this week, we had the continuing resolution that ends the longest government shutdown in American history. We had two Supreme Court cases, one that will impact the power of district judges to universally block executive actions, and another that will restrict judges' ability to release convicted criminals from their sentences. And we had an executive order to rejuvenate the foster care system. Tune in next week for more. Well, that's all I have for you today on Under the Radar. I'm your host, Luke Miller, and I want to thank you for listening and encourage you to tune back in next time for more coverage of the news that fell under the radar.

You're listening to Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. Thanks for listening to Under the Radar with Luke Miller, here on Radio Free Hillsdale, 101.7 FM.