The episode also highlights the contentious issue of district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions, a judicial practice that has raised concerns about overstepping authority. With insights from West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, we explore the legal and constitutional challenges posed by this trend. Moreover, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo provides a perspective on moral clarity and leadership, touching on international relations, notably the dynamics between Russia and Ukraine, and recent events in Iran.
SPEAKER 04 :
In a surprising move, President Trump nominates Mike Waltz, his former National Security Advisor, to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
SPEAKER 03 :
Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Seculo. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome to Sekulow on this Friday. And if you joined us yesterday, you heard us talk a lot about National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who would be departing the White House. And there was some curious language about this because he’s Trump’s National Security Advisor. He was caught up in the Signalgate kind of scandal that the media reported. was pushing so hard and some of the language early in the day said mike waltz to depart the white house then some people maybe suggested it was fired but depart we thought was kind of a curious word used there and then as it developed we now know the reason he’s departing he’s not necessarily being fired or forced out he’s moving to a different position And this is actually a position that requires Senate confirmation. If you’ll remember, Elise Stefanik, who was originally nominated to be the ambassador to the United Nations, withdrew her nomination at the request of the president because of the concern about losing another seat in the House. But there was someone who had already resigned from the House. who was in the Trump administration, and that was the National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz. He has now been nominated by the president to be the next ambassador to the UN. So this will require confirmation hearings. This will take some time before this is official. But I’m going to read for you what President Trump put out yesterday afternoon about this after all the media was in a tizzy about what was going on. And the logic seemed to be that he was forced out. And even my analysis here was that it was probably to kind of shift or distract from the attacks that the left was perpetrating against the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth. But here’s what President Trump had to say. I’m pleased to announce that I will be nominating Mike Waltz to be the next United States ambassador to the United Nations. From his time in uniform on the battlefield in Congress and as my national security advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our nation’s interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role. In the interim, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as National Security Advisor while continuing his strong leadership at the State Department. Together, we will continue to fight tirelessly to make America and the world safe again. Thank you for your attention to this matter. So we’ve learned quite a bit from this. Now we know that this wasn’t a firing or an ouster or even him leaving the administration. He’s just moving to a different role and he will now have to go through confirmation. Um, there is a very strong role and I think it’s important to have a strong individual like Mike Waltz. He is a former green beret has served, uh, has some national security chops. Obviously he was a national security advisor. Now he will fill that role at the UN, which, uh, We were very saddened when Elise Stefanik was not going to be in that role. She’s very strong for Israel, a good friend of this broadcast. But we understood also what she was asked to do to remain in the House to kind of keep that majority intact for now. But now we see Mike Waltz moving there. And I think this is an interesting note as well, that Marco Rubio will be the acting national security advisor, or at least an interim position, which makes sense also. He’s a secretary of state. National security is very much in what he does as secretary of state. And advising the president on this during the interim time, I think, will go smoothly. There won’t be a hiccup. But we will keep you updated as we see what comes next and who that non interim position will be. We’ll tell you as well. We’ve got a great show ahead, folks, as we take a look at this week, all the action the ACLJ has done, even looking at those judges that have been arrested for obstructing or harboring illegal immigrants cases. We’ve got a lot ahead, but we also thank you if you participated in our April Life and Liberty Drive. We couldn’t continue this work without you. It was a critical month, and we appreciate ACLJ members and champions who stood with us during that Life and Liberty Drive. We’ll be right back with more on Sekulow. Stay tuned, and we’ll talk to you after this break.
SPEAKER 07 :
Welcome back to Sekulow. Phone lines are open for you, by the way, at 1-800-684-3110. I want you to join us on air because we are going through a lot of great content today. I also want to hear from you. How do you feel about the work of the ACLJ? Do you feel like we are doing the work that you want us to do? What could we do? What topics could we cover? What would you like to see? And also… If you have any good words of encouragement, words of prayer, I’d love to hear from you as well. Of course, we want to start, Will, and break down some of this breaking news with this judge that’s facing felony charges in Wisconsin. It almost sounds comical, like we’re making light of it. And you’re only making light of it because she was caught so quickly and because it happened so fast. And this is what’s happening. And there’s a bit of ridiculousness that comes from these kind of moments in our society.
SPEAKER 04 :
That’s right. So the immigration officials had from an authorized immigration official found probable cause to believe that Flores Ruiz was removable from the United States and issued a warrant for his arrest. So they’re going through the process. And upon his arrest, he would be given notice of intent decision to reinstate a prior order, which is removal from the United States because he had been prosecuted. previously deported and then he would have an opportunity to contest the determination by making a written or oral statement to an immigration officer so this wasn’t someone that was being picked up in a part of trend de aragua or ms-13 and going to be put on a flight to el salvador this is normal immigration enforcement process so it’s not even something that the judge could have a uh an issue with saying you know there’s these injunctions against or anything yeah This is normal process of someone who had already been deported and was before her court for very serious criminal charges. And they even make note.
SPEAKER 07 :
Again, not criminal charges that are just immigration related. Right. Actually not immigration related. Offenses within the United States. Violent crime within the United States is the charges that were why he was there in the room.
SPEAKER 04 :
And they even say that when they’re going to these courthouse issues, they say this within this charging document, that they don’t go to family court issues or civil court issues. They only use the courthouse as the venue when they know someone is there for a criminal charge. So just that fact alone. But they went through the entire process here. The immigration officials talked with the sheriff’s department, who’s in charge of keeping the courthouse safe. They talked with clerks and administrators at the courthouse to make sure everything was in line. And they also say they do this, especially with criminal offenses many times, where they will pick up someone for arrest. because it’s safer for the arresting officers, for the individual, for the people around, because they know that person’s coming through security. They’re not going to be armed. There’s not going to be an issue that could escalate further and cause violence or harm to other people. So this is a routine thing they do when they have the information that someone that they are after, that they have a warrant for, is going to be in the court. Now they went there, they spoke with people at the court, the clerk said, can you please wait to do the arrest until after his case has gone through its hearing? So don’t obstruct our state process, let that play out before, and they agreed. So these agents are there, there’s people from ICE, there’s border patrol, there are FBI agents, and they wait, and then the attorney for this individual goes and tells the judge, there’s ICE agents out there. This part is where it turns to the point of absurdity. And they say that she got visibly angry in the courtroom, called the clerk over, and then she went outside and confronted them visibly angry many witnesses said and said you have to go she said do you have a warrant a judicial warrant no i have an administrative warrant which is what a uh an immigration warrant would be and she says no you have to have a judicial warrant to do this here you need to go talk to the chief judge So they say, okay, they’re obliging and everything. They are trying to keep this calm and do this by the book. They go to the chief judge’s office. One of the agents that was there because they were all plainclothes was not a part of that discussion and was on the other side of the hall. watched her then go look around for other agents to make sure they’re all gone goes back in the courtroom confers with the attorney of this defendant takes him through she summons him over takes him through the jury chamber and then directs him, and that’s all non-public areas, so they can’t do an arrest there. Takes him, gets him through a different exit. Then after they talk to the chief judge, and he says, you may make arrests within the public areas. This is fine. They then go back out. They see him going through another door, very Scooby-Doo, as you mentioned, that was not directly behind that courtroom of Judge Duggan. And then they pursue him in a foot chase and end up catching him. And they have all this very matter of minutes. As you said, it wasn’t even successful, but she orchestrated this elaborate distraction. Go talk to the chief judge.
SPEAKER 07 :
By the way, didn’t we find out also that the people on the other side of the case, I don’t know, the lawyers of the people who were…
SPEAKER 04 :
potentially allegedly beaten including a man and a woman that were beaten by this guy weren’t involved in this weren’t told right so the lawyer for the defendant was talking having this sidebar with the judge but the lawyer for the state the state’s attorney was told none of this and all of a sudden is like where’s the defendant and the clerk goes oh the judge has informed me that his proceedings have been adjourned for the day and he’s like well why didn’t you tell me any of this also the victims are here and the victim advocate was there and still this judge thought she had the authority this arrogance To say, you know what? I don’t care about the law anymore. I am going, I don’t like what the administration is doing with this immigration stuff. I’ve already told people if they’re scared to come in my courtroom, you don’t have to come into court. You can come into Zoom. I am going to subvert the law. That’s where people lose faith in our institutions.
SPEAKER 07 :
I want to take this call, Scotty’s calling, because I think he’s asking the question that certainly I’m asking, which is essentially, why are you risking your life, your career, over someone who is again this is not oh your favorite family man who came over who brought his fam through and they’re being deported there’s a lot of heart there i understand those you know i understand having a heart for people who need help but when it’s talking about somebody who their alleged crime is beating a woman who is his roommate and another man uh this is why risk it all and scotty go ahead
SPEAKER 01 :
Yeah, just that. What kind of tie…
SPEAKER 07 :
does this judge have with this illegal immigrant whether it’s relational or or monetary that she would put her life in jeopardy for this guy doesn’t make sense i think it’s somewhat it could mean look there’s a lot of obviously corruption that goes on but there’s obviously the sort of you don’t want to say it but the trump derangement syndrome that breaks people down i’ve seen a lot of good friends get broken down by this and look sometimes i understand it’s tough But if you’re a judge, a sitting judge in Wisconsin or anywhere in this country, you still have a job to do and you got to do it. And your responsibility as an American isn’t to do this.
SPEAKER 04 :
Well, and there’s a question coming in from YouTube. This is Patrick that asks, how do these people get appointed in the first place? Well, this is a state court. This person’s elected. This person is elected by the people of Wisconsin. So she will have a reelection, which we’ll see how that plays out if she’s even still able to serve as a judge because of a conviction or things of that nature. But that’s what you’re looking at here. These state court judges are elected by people and then they feel like they have the utmost authority. Now, they do have a lot of authority when it comes to the courtroom and making decisions and interpreting the law. But that doesn’t give them the right to take the law into their own hands. This wasn’t even some excuse she could come up with that there’s an injunction, which we’ll talk about those injunctions in the next segment. Yep, absolutely. But there’s this injunction in place. And so I was concerned he was going to be put on a plane to El Salvador. No, this was a warrant warrant. That was valid. Someone who’d already been deported and still violated that and came back and she ignored it. You can’t ignore the law. That’s the famous thing from Letitia James where she said, no one’s above the law when going after President Trump. They think that they are above the law. And you know what? You’re not. And you can get arrested for that.
SPEAKER 07 :
And that’s what happened right now. Look, in one minute, we’re going to be back. We’re going to take a quick break. When we get back, my dad, Jay Sekulow, is going to be joining us. But in this next minute that we have on the air with you, it’s an important time. You may feel like we are amped up right now. It’s because we are, because these are some of the biggest days of our year. We need your support right now. It is also a day of thanks for me because I want to tell you, thank you so much for all your support during our life in Liberty Drive. Know how important it is to us that you support the work of the ACLJ during those critical months where my donations were doubled. It really meant the world to us. And now we are able to set our budgets and soldier on, able to continue all the incredible work we’re doing here. And whether that’s for us, whether that’s for your clients, whether that’s when you need us, we want to be there for you. So I encourage you, easy way to help, hit that subscribe button if you’re watching. If you’re brand new to this broadcast, great way to support the work and to stay updated with the truth because hit that subscribe. So if you can’t support the work of the ACLJ, I’m just going to read you a few things that we’re doing because there’s no case too small and no case too large for the ACLJ when we’re going to protect your constitutional rights, the precious life of the unborn and your freedoms. We’re fighting for right now. These are just a few. A grandmother was told she can’t hold a Bible study. A student who was told she can’t pray. A preacher arrested for sharing the gospel. A nurse who’s being forced to participate in abortions. Pro-life centers are being attacked just for providing hope and life. FBI whistleblowers whose livelihoods were wrecked by the deep state. And a president who was banned from the ballot. That is just what we’ve done in the last, I don’t know, year or less. Some of those are ongoing right now. Give today if you can. at ACLJ.org. We’ll be right back with Jay Sekulow. to Sekulow. Phone lines are open for you. I want to hear from you at 1-800-684-3110. We also know a bunch of you are joining us live on YouTube right now, so I encourage you, if you haven’t yet, hit that thumbs up. It really does help us get into more people’s feeds and get this message out there. My dad, Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel for the ACLJ, is joining us right now. Dad, obviously you and the team have been hard at work, but there are some interesting new cases that are coming out of the ACLJ. We wanted to make sure that we keep everybody updated.
SPEAKER 08 :
We’re going to have more detail on this tomorrow on the broadcast, but let me just start. We have, we’re going to, we are representing what the state of West Virginia. So the ACLJ is counsel to a state challenging these district court judges that are issuing nationwide injunctions against the executive order signed by president Trump. Now, the problem is, A district court’s jurisdiction is supposed to be very narrow, very limited to the locale where they’re sitting. That’s not the case that has happened now with President Trump. So here’s what’s going on. There’s an emergency stay at the Supreme Court of the United States. We worked on this brief through the weekend and are ready to file it momentarily, hopefully. And it will, in fact, be, I think, the seminal, the key brief on limiting the jurisdictions of these U.S. district courts that are issuing, instead of issuing their injunction covering, say, the Northern District of New York, they issue an injunction covering the entire country, even though they only sit in the jurisdiction for Northern New York. It has to stop. When we talk about law and order, when we talk about separation of powers, what’s the president’s authority, what’s the judiciary’s, the one thing the judiciary cannot be is a policymaker. But a lot of these judges have taken that element. And the answer to that at the Supreme Court needs to be, you can’t do that. So we are front and center on that. Like I said, very significantly, and you’ll have more details on it tomorrow, we are representing the state of West Virginia in this cause of action. We’ve got a lot of other cases breaking right now, but I want to spend some time on this, Logan, because the implications are very significant.
SPEAKER 07 :
It’s a big day and a big case that will come in, like you said, tomorrow. We’re going to have my brother Jordan will be on. We’re also going to have some friends from West Virginia joining us. So it’s going to be a great show. You want to make sure you tune in for that. But Will,
SPEAKER 04 :
Yeah, this is just obviously this is an issue everyone has been paying attention to and concerned about. But I think it’s important to reiterate that at the ACLJ, we watch and we find the appropriate time to file in something like this so that we can make the strongest impact that sometimes we want that immediate. How can we fight back? But this is the example of the ACLJ hard at work. finding the right avenue, the right representation to go after something. That is an issue that I know that our listeners and members at the ACLJ are very, very concerned about. And this happens to be that moment.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, it is, Will. And let me talk to our ACLJ members and our ACLJ champions, especially. Let me tell you this. This case is the repercussions, the reason we’ve gotten involved so aggressively and so quickly. this case has huge ramifications i mean gigantic ramifications uh when you elect a president they’re supposed to be able to work through their executive authorities without a court doing what these courts have been doing and they’ve been doing it pretty much without stop now the spring court has got this application they’ve asked for briefings so this is going to it’s going to move in days here so i want everybody to understand this but we have to fight back on this because what you have is an unelected judge somewhere in the country the issue with the stroke of a pen in order to stop the administration policy for the entire country. Then you ask yourself, well, why can’t they stop that for foreign policy as well? And the answer is, under these judges’ interpretation, they have authority to do anything. The answer has to be no. So, you know, it’s one thing that the government’s fighting it, but now the states are fighting it. And I said we’re in a very unique situation, folks. And we are fighting back aggressively. I want to say also something to our ACLJ champions. We couldn’t do this without you. We appreciate it so much. Also to our ACLJ members, so continue to support the work of the ACLJ. Maybe you can become an ACLJ champion and we could use your support in a big way. These cases are, look, the one thing you know is these cases are complex and they’re different than what we’ve done in the past because they’re moving at a different pace. So we have our Supreme Court team is fully engaged on making sure that we’re moving forward on these. Jordan is as well. And I’m very optimistic on where it goes. It’s going to take some time. But like I said, the time on this, Logan and Will, is going to be days, not months on this one.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right, we’ll keep updated on that. That’s precisely when you’ll hear from people like my dad, my brother, when there is really important, incredible things they need to come on and share. Obviously, Will and I are always going to be sharing the updates on the ACLJ. We’re going to have on some of our incredible legal team that’s here in studio, you know, Harry Hutchinson or CeCe Heil. We’re going to have a lot of those people always on this broadcast. We have great guests coming in. Rick Grinnell is going to be joining us a little bit later in the broadcast as well. But know that everyone is hard at work. The ACLJ team is in full action. I think when you have a case like this, Dad, in West Virginia, it can get a little lost in what we’re doing. When you look at what we’re doing on a local level, like we said, we’ll talk about the grandmother who can’t hold a Bible study. But on a bigger, bigger scale, the ACLJ can still get involved on these really… world-changing if not just america changing laws that are happening right now as they battle against this administration no you’re absolutely right logan and let me let me take it you talk about like the bible study can’t happen in an extra way so what if the court rules against us
SPEAKER 08 :
in a case like that, and issues a nationwide injunction banning Bible studies from happening in neighborhoods. Now that sounds absurd, but it’s the same principle of when these judges don’t have jurisdiction, they think they can, without limits, Do whatever they want. So the answer has to be no, the way you handle this is not is not by just speaking and talking about it, which is important. You have to litigate it. And that’s why we’re honored to be representing West Virginia. Jordan will be on with you tomorrow to talk more about that, but it applies to any case. So this case involving jurisdiction. is critical to moving things forward we have to win this uh it may take additional briefing we’ll see how it goes but like i said it’s moving very very quick and we’ll keep everybody updated on that look we got two minutes left in this segment and this some some of you lose us here it’s the first half hour the show is wrapping up
SPEAKER 07 :
If you feel engaged, empowered, you hear what we’re doing here and you want to get involved, you need to do it right now. You just heard from my dad, Jay Sekulow. Later on, you’re going to hear from Rick Grinnell, this incredible team that we’re able to put together and get hard at work. Because remember the ACLJ, we do this show and we also do incredible amounts of great media content, but we also are on the front lines of the legal battles. I believe those go hand in hand. We have to have support for both. And you need to support both. And when you support the ACLJ, it does that. It supports our media team here. Like I said, if you look just beyond this camera, you’d see dozens of people that are working on this show right now to make sure we’re on the air. And of course we have our legal team, some right here in studio, some in Washington, DC and others around the world, some places you don’t even get to know about because of how incredible their work is and how brave some of this media team and this legal team is.
SPEAKER 04 :
And so you’re seeing a lot of wild things happen. But we’re here to protect the rule of law, to the Constitution, to defend it. Because if you can’t trust our institutions, if you have rogue judges trying to make policy or rogue judges trying to break the law, people lose faith in those institutions. But not all hope is lost. We are here to fight for the Constitution. the america that we know and love that we can have trust in these institutions the way they’re set up the way our founders envisioned so that the justice system is preserved and that people have faith in it that it will work out so we’re going to get into all that and more today on seculo and i hope you enjoy the show and we’ll talk to you soon in the next segment
SPEAKER 03 :
keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Seculo. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host.
SPEAKER 04 :
Welcome to Seculo on this Friday. And if you joined us yesterday, you heard us talk a lot about National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who would be departing the White House. And there was some curious language about this because he’s Trump’s National Security Advisor. He was caught up in the Signalgate kind of scandal that the media was pushing so hard. The White House and some people maybe suggested it was fired, but depart, we thought was kind of a curious word used there. And then as it developed, we now know the reason he’s departing. He’s not necessarily being fired or forced out. He’s moving to a different position. And this is actually a position that requires Senate confirmation. If you’ll remember, Elise Stefanik, who was originally nominated to be the ambassador to the United Nations, withdrew her nomination at the request of the president because of the concern about losing another seat in the House. But there was someone who had already resigned from the House. who was in the Trump administration, and that was the National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz. He has now been nominated by the president to be the next ambassador to the UN. So this will require confirmation hearings. This will take some time before this is official. But I’m going to read for you what President Trump put out yesterday afternoon about this after all the media was in a tizzy about what was going on. And the logic seemed to be that he was forced out. And even my analysis here was that it was probably to kind of shift or distract from the attacks that the left was perpetrating against the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth. But here’s what President Trump had to say. I’m pleased to announce that I will be nominating Mike Waltz to be the next United States ambassador to the United Nations. From his time in uniform on the battlefield in Congress and as my national security advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our nation’s interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role. In the interim, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as National Security Advisor while continuing his strong leadership at the State Department. Together, we will continue to fight tirelessly to make America and the world safe again. Thank you for your attention to this matter. So we’ve learned quite a bit from this. Now we know that this wasn’t a firing or an ouster or even him leaving the administration. He’s just moving to a different role. And he will now have to go through confirmation. There is a very… strong role, and I think it’s important to have a strong individual like Mike Waltz. He’s a former Green Beret, has served, has some national security chops. Obviously, he was a national security advisor. Now he will fill that role at the UN, which we were very saddened when Elise Stefanik was not going to be in that role. She’s very strong for Israel, a good friend of this broadcast, but we understood also the… what she was asked to do to remain in the House to kind of keep that majority intact for now. But now we see Mike Waltz moving there. And I think this is an interesting note as well, that Marco Rubio will be the acting National Security Advisor, or at least an interim position, which makes sense also. He’s a Secretary of State. National Security is very much in what he does as Secretary of State. And advising the president on this during the interim time, I think, will go smoothly. There won’t be a hiccup. But we will keep you updated as we see what comes next and who that non-interim position will be. We’ll tell you as well. We’ve got a great show ahead, folks, as we take a look at this week. All the action the ACLJ has done, even looking at those judges that have been arrested recently. for obstructing or harboring illegal immigrants. We’ve got a lot ahead, but we also thank you if you participated in our April Life and Liberty Drive. We couldn’t continue this work without you. It was a critical month, and we appreciate ACLJ members and champions who stood with us during that Life and Liberty Drive. We’ll be right back with more on Sekulow. Stay tuned, and we’ll talk to you after this break.
SPEAKER 07 :
Welcome back to Sekulow. Again, it is a packed show. My brother Jordan Sekulow is here, and of course, Will Haines is in studio. Later on, Jeff Balaban, Rick Grinnell. It’s going to be packed, so make sure you stay tuned. But now we’re joined by a very special guest, one of our good friends, and also happens to be the Attorney General of West Virginia. Now, I’ll pitch it to Jordan, because I think, Jordan, you need to set up what we’re doing here, and then introduce our guest today.
SPEAKER 06 :
Well, people know about this injunction issue. They know it’s a huge issue. It involves immigration. It’s a huge issue. It involves enforcement by the executive branch of basically carrying out their functions. Usually we’re talking about executive agencies and bureaucrats out of control. But now it’s our court system. And people, I think, in this first hundred days have said, What are groups going to do? What can West Virginia do? What can the Attorney General do in West Virginia to stop these judges who are issuing orders to affect all of our lives when their jurisdiction is in a district of a state? For instance, in this case, before we go to JB, Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts are affecting how the federal government is able to carry out its job in West Virginia and nationwide. So let’s go to our good friend, J.B. McCuskey. I always like to say this. General McCuskey, this is, I think, was a great example of how your team and our team were able to work together in a matter of days to go before the court to honestly put forward what these issues are really about. And it’s about these out-of-control judicial—we talk about judicial activism all the time. We are now seeing it in real time.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah, I think one of the most interesting parts of this, Jordan, and it was interesting that Logan brought up the confirmation process of district court judges. If we’re going to allow district court judges to act like Supreme Court justices, their confirmation proceedings are not going to be like that anymore. And, you know, if you say every president has to appoint, you know, 75 or 100 district court judges. Right. If every single one of them takes three weeks like a Supreme Court justice, we will run out of judges pretty soon. Right. But on a more important note, I mean, I think the point here is. is that district courts are set up under our constitution to resolve issues and controversy that are in front of them. And what they’re now doing is they are resolving constitutional issues where there isn’t an actual plaintiff. They are resolving questions that are not designed for their courts to be resolving. And it has really dangerous precedent setting It almost doesn’t matter the topic. Right. And to be fair, I don’t want Republican judges doing this when there’s a Democrat president either. Right. The system works beautifully and it works in the way that our framers set it up. And what our office and what we’re so grateful for your help in doing is arguing is that district courts need to get back to what it is that they do. And that is resolving issues and controversy with actual plaintiffs in front of them. and leaving the constitutional review that affects every American, not just the Americans that are in their districts, should be left to the Supreme Court.
SPEAKER 04 :
JB, when you look at this, I’m sorry, Attorney General McCuskey, I’m so used to just calling you JB. All right, thanks. When you look at this issue, judges were never meant to be policymakers. And what we have effectively now are… hundreds, if not thousands of potential policymakers in the United States that aren’t constitutionally equipped to be policymakers. They’re not elected. They don’t have a mandate from the people to affect policy on the United States. But we’re seeing individuals and you see the percentage. It’s like 92% of those that have issued these injunctions against President Trump were appointed by Democrats. you’re seeing that they are now carrying out policy of even prior administrations, if you want to take it to that level, by blocking moves that they don’t believe, because of their political ideology, should be the policy of the United States. And I think that’s what really should hit home with every single American, especially if you did vote for this current president, and even if you didn’t, That’s not how this works in the United States. And that’s one of the main things I think that we, along with the state of West Virginia, are trying to put a stop to.
SPEAKER 05 :
yeah and i think you know there’s an important distinction to be made here right we have a supreme court and we have appeals courts for a reason and that is to determine whether the application of the law to a specific instance was done properly and when that application of the law is being done improperly or the law in and of itself is unconstitutional that is a question for a circuit judge or for the supreme court and what we’re finding now is that district court judges in the interest of political expediency are overstepping, in my opinion, their bounds and what our brief says also. They’re overstepping in order to stop things that they find politically untoward. And that isn’t their role. and you know if these things get to the u.s supreme court and those nine judges make a determination that the that these trump executive orders i don’t think that’s going to happen i’m i’m hopeful it doesn’t happen but at least we know that the the the venue was correct to determine whether or not the federal government’s actions were constitutional that is that is not in these instances the place of a district court and it is is the place of our circuit courts in our Supreme Court. And they are skipping what is generally the most important step. And the reason why it’s so important is that’s where you build the record so that the appeals courts can start to understand the totality of the issue and make an informed decision about the policy that they’re reviewing.
SPEAKER 06 :
you bring up an interesting point because this is these cases had no trials and when I say trials I mean they weren’t fully briefed they weren’t fully before the court these were injunctions issued that then can try to what they tried to do is stop the executive branch for carrying out its lawful duties, how they interpret laws that have been passed by your elected officials, by Congress, to empower the executive branch to carry out those laws and a judge in a random district says, I don’t agree with the interpretation of the executive branch on how to carry out this law. And just to put into example, this is not normal, JB, 67% of all federal injunctions issued by these courts have been against President Trump that is in the the history of the United States of America 67% and then you have to get into the politics unfortunately we know when we talk about judicial activism politics plays a role 92% of those were issued by Democratic-appointed judges, and you talked about the confirmation process. We want to get back to a place in the United States of America where we aren’t politically identifying a district court judge and saying, well, they were appointed by a Democrat, so they’re going to be able to stop the President of the United States from carrying out action that officials we elect at the level of Congress, so at your district level, and then at your state level with the Senate, because they don’t like the way it’s being carried out.
SPEAKER 05 :
or they find a lawyer that they’re friends with, or it is a politically… Honestly, I think some of these judges are trying to get famous, and that stinks to say, but I think a lot of these folks love to see their name at the bottom of these rulings because it makes them feel like they are a part of a process that they don’t like. The problem is that they’ve all sworn an oath. They’re all lawyers, they’re all good lawyers, or they wouldn’t be district court judges, right? And there’s a level of importance that they end up feeling for issuing these kind of things. But we don’t live in a world of fields and we don’t live in a world of importance. We live in a world of rules and we live in a world with a constitution. And we cannot allow this piecemeal system to continue or it will completely halt the all executive actions from now on, and it’ll hold it for Democrats too, right? We don’t want a world where our judges are doing this either. We’re looking for a world where these courts have the same function no matter what party the president’s in, and the president is allowed to do the things that they’re constitutionally asked to in an expedient way. And if those actions do end up crossing a line, We want that process to be heard in the appropriate courts. And that is very clearly the United States Supreme Court. And that is very clearly what’s not what’s happening now.
SPEAKER 07 :
And that’s why we’re headed there, JB. And the ACLJ team has been working with you, working with other people to try to figure out what’s our best method here, because we see the outpouring of voices from our audience that says this is an issue we care about. We didn’t even know judges could do this. And of course, there’s obviously the nerves of like you said, What happens when it does go after our smaller cases, our Bible school cases, our Bible study cases, the home churches, all those things that could be easily almost re-weaponized this way. And if you allow, if we allow this to continue on this way, that is why the ACLJ team has to get involved.
SPEAKER 06 :
Yes, and we have to do it quickly. So we have to have the resources to be able to work with the team in West Virginia and JB’s team, the Attorney General of West Virginia, to represent the people of West Virginia. And JB, I think that’s an important note. The final question to you is… We are in a state, you are standing up for all of your constituents to say we are not going to be bound in West Virginia by what a judge decides at the district court level in Maryland. It does not make sense. It is not how our founding fathers decided to set up our judiciary. Based off, we could go through a long history there. This is judicial activism at its worst.
SPEAKER 05 :
Yeah. And I mean, I have you know, I live in a state that believes in the Constitution. And so it’s easy for me to stand up for my constituents in this way. And thankfully, the way that attorney generals, the way that our offices are set up is that we can represent both our constituents. But we also when we use the proper channels, which we’re using. are able to stand up for people outside of our borders as well, because we are challenging the constitutionality of actions in the proper format that was delineated by the Constitution. And we’re doing it in sort of an ironic way in this instance to fight against people doing it the opposite way.
SPEAKER 07 :
All right, well, JB, thank you for joining us. Time to stand up, everybody. Have you heard about the new case that we are taking on with the state of West Virginia? You heard from JB. We know this is a issue that you have felt really passionate about, and now we have a roadmap, a path. We can’t do it without you. If you’re watching, we’ll be right back with more on Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow. Phone lines are jammed right now, but they’ll open up at 1-800-684-3110. We’re now joined by Senior Counsel for Global Affairs, of course, former Secretary of State. Mike Pompeo, who is joining us right now. And Mike, you have a terrific piece we’re going to get into a little bit later on the ACLJ website. But of course, we wanted to kick this off talking about what is going on in Russia and Ukraine. It was someone who’s visited. You had over the weekend some meetings between President Trump and Zelensky. And then obviously you had Putin announcing now a three day ceasefire with Ukraine starting May 8th, claiming that is to celebrate the defeat of Nazi Germany. So the question is, should America and Ukraine see this as a test for Putin, who is obviously famous for breaking these ceasefires? Is this just another show? I want to get your thoughts.
SPEAKER 02 :
Well, look, the connection to World War II shouldn’t escape anyone. President Putin has talked about this for a long time. He always rewrites that history, frankly, in the same way he has tried to rewrite the history with the Soviet Union and Ukraine. I do hope that they’re closing in on a solution here. I hope that they’re going to get the guns to settle down. President Trump has been working diligently. He’s got a team that’s been working hard on it. But, you know, the American people get the joke. We all want peace. We want there to be no wars. But we’re not prepared to surrender 16000 kids that the Russians have taken into their country out of Ukraine. We’re not we’re not willing to give Vladimir Putin the victory of aggression. And that’s the that’s the rub. That’s why we haven’t been able to pull this off in the first couple of months of President Trump’s time. And I hope I hope this ceasefire for three days. I hope it lasts three days. He’s often announced these fires and then not live it up to them. That’s also true for the Ukrainians. They’ve done the same. But I hope he’ll live up to it. And then I hope it can be extended. And I hope the Europeans can step forward, provide the resources necessary for a security arrangement in the aftermath of this aggression from Vladimir Putin, and that we can get a solution that is lasting and long-lived in Europe. And we don’t have to deal with these issues of thousands of people being lost lives, innocent civilian lives being lost every month.
SPEAKER 04 :
Mr. Secretary, one of the big pieces to this that’s being reported, that a potential peace deal between Ukraine and Russia would involve Crimea remaining under Russian control. Obviously, this is the region that was taken by Vladimir Putin under the Obama administration. Really interesting. When the beginning of this conflict started, if you if you want to kind of pinpoint it, then there was some calm for years. And then when Joe Biden took office was the full fledged attack by the Russians. Where do you think with this this potential carrot that’s maybe being dangled by the Russians that will accept this deal? This is kind of our sticking point, though. Where do you think Ukraine would land on this? It kind of seems like a very hard sell for Zelensky, but we know that Zelensky met with the president and the Vatican over the weekend and just kind of wanted to get your thoughts on that. Is it a trick by Russia because they know it’s not going to be accepted or what do you make of it?
SPEAKER 02 :
No, I think actually both of these leaders are very serious about Crimea. It is a pivot point strategically. It’s got the important Russian access through Sevastopol and the Russian port there into the Black Sea, which leads out into global trading waters. I think both sides really want this. They want the political control that comes with it. So I think this will actually turn out to be the hardest issue to resolve but that’s that’s what good diplomacy is about there may well be a solution that looks like something that goes back to pre-2014 where the russians still have their access to the port but it is under ukrainian control you can imagine that where the russians claim it the ukrainians claim it in the united states is agnostic you could you could imagine that being a solution i think that’s where president trump’s head is at um I, for one, think it’s really important that the United States not acknowledge Russia owning and controlling Ukraine. That’s why I made the statement that I did with President Trump’s approval back in 2018. I think we have to try to get that right. But we’ve got to bring this conflict to an end. And it’s very clear that the Russians have military control of that place today. Very difficult to get it back.
SPEAKER 07 :
Secretary Pompeo, I also wanted to pivot a little bit and talk about a piece that you wrote on ACLJ.org called Be Not Afraid. And it really is about having moral clarity, leadership clarity and faith and how it can shape the future. I encourage everyone to go read it. I just did even right before the show just to get myself back familiar with it over as you wrote it. It’s really a wonderful piece about sort of that mix of faith, morality and when it comes to leadership in our country and in our world. Obviously, it’s talking on the heels of the passing of the Pope. And you also mentioned your time watching and observing the previous Pope, Pope John Paul II. So I just wanted to give you a little bit of time to elaborate on this article and why you think it’s important to have that kind of clarity going in to a future.
SPEAKER 02 :
thanks for the question you know this is why i’m so proud to be part of the what the aclj is doing this is right the aclj stands for this exact concept the central thesis that we know good from evil we know right from wrong we know decent people from the inhuman and what i talked about in that piece was the importance of those of us who are of faith to never walk away from that faith, to always maintain our faith and to try to live our lives that way. And when we lead, when we have institutions for which we’re responsible or trying to interact with others in the world, make sure that they understand with absolute clarity the moral principles that we have. It’s not that from time to time there aren’t practicalities that appear in the world. There are. You know, talk about what this pope had done, allowing the Chinese Communist Party to select the bishops in China. I just think they didn’t do everything they could have to speak with the power of the Catholic Church in a way that would protect the human dignity of the worshipers inside of China. And so I always try to do that in my public life, and I hope each of us in our current walks will do the same. Try to live with that moral clarity that we all know is the right thing to do.
SPEAKER 04 :
quick final question here. Over the weekend, there was a massive explosion at an Iranian port that just so happened to be coming from fuel that would fuel Iranian ballistic missiles. The Iranians are claiming it was an accident, that it was caused by someone on the ground there. Many people died and were injured in this, but always has that lingering question in the back of your head. Could it have been some sabotage? Just want to get your take on this real quick.
SPEAKER 02 :
Easy answers. It could definitely have been some sabotage. I don’t know that. I’m not suggesting that it was. There are also chemical accidents that happen all across the world almost every day at some level. So it could have been either. But two things are certain. One, it’s great that they’re not going to have this fuel for their missile program. And the second is, I think this does tell us a lot about the Iranians and their efforts as we are now engaged in negotiations with the Iranian leadership. These folks are diligently working to build out not only the nuclear weapons, but the missile capability, that is the ability to deliver those weapons not only into the Middle East, but more broadly. And so great caution is required in those negotiations.
SPEAKER 07 :
Thank you so much, Secretary Pompeo, for joining us today. Hey, everyone who’s watching right now, I do encourage you to go read that new article on ACLJ.org. And while you’re there, it’s a great time to support the work and we appreciate all the support. And of course, you continue to support if you’d like. But again, I just wanted to say thank you. And again, say a prayer for our team at the ACLJ. If you’d like to get our prayer guide, we have a prayer guide that our team puts out. Go to aclj.org slash pray. It’s a free prayer guide that will lead you through some prayers about some of our top issues.
SPEAKER 04 :
We get involved both in local matters, such as people who can’t hold a Bible study or or people that are harassed by the police or arrested even, incited for sharing the gospel, or if they are just protesting abortion, standing up for life, but as well as representing the state of West Virginia, the Supreme Court, with that brief, trying to put an end to these nationwide injunctions by district courts. All that work is possible because of your support. It is also…
SPEAKER 07 :
A day of thanks for me because I want to tell you thank you so much for all your support during our life at Liberty Drive. Know how important it is to us that you support the work of the ACLJ during those critical months where my donations were doubled. It really meant the world to us. And now we are able to set our budgets and soldier on, able to continue all the incredible work we’re doing here. And whether that’s for us, whether that’s for your clients, whether that’s when you need us, we want to be there for you. So I encourage you, easy way to help, hit that subscribe button if you’re watching. If you’re brand new to this broadcast, great way to support the work and to stay updated with the truth. Just hit that subscribe. We’ll talk to you next week.
