All rise

Typically U.S. attorneys hold news conferences to announce bombshell charges, indictments they’ve secured, arrests of suspects in important cases, or to respond to verdicts in cases they’ve just tried. Instead she was railing against Chief District Judge James Boasberg, who had just quashed her grand jury subpoena against Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, in what he said appeared to be a “vindictive prosecution.” The judge said Pirro “had not provided a single shred of evidence of any crime.” As many legal experts have noted recently, opening investigations into and prosecuting the president’s enemies have become favored ways of punishing those enemies, whether the charges against them have any merit or not. 

The judge’s opinion said, in part: “Being perceived as the president’s adversary has become risky in recent years. In his second term, he has urged the Department of Justice to prosecute such people, and prosecutors have listened. For instance, the president exhorted the attorney general to prosecute James Comey, Adam Schiff and Letitia James; within weeks, prosecutors had indicted Comey and James and were investigating Schiff. Consistent with this pattern, DOJ has now set its sights on Powell.” Pirro called the judge an “activist” and the ruling “outrageous.” The president called him a “Troublemaker, Agitator, Wacky, Nasty, Crooked, and Totally Out of Control.” Pirro, who has stunned legal experts in her many failures to get grand juries to indict her targets, including the infamous salami sandwich case, vowed to appeal. 

Speaking of appeals …

I recently attended a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hearing in the Genesis v EPA case. In December 2023, 18 California children filed a claim that the EPA had discriminated against them by discounting the economic value of their lives and their future when it decides whether and how much pollution to allow. A lower court had dismissed the case due to several factors including a lack of standing, and the plaintiffs were appealing that decision. The courtroom was majestic, with incredible art, featuring baby cherubs carved in stone. How fitting for a trial about children’s rights! My press pass got me a front row seat. One lawyer, representing the government, sat alone at one huge table, and around five lawyers, representing the plaintiffs, sat at another. The plaintiffs, ages 10-21, poured in, filled all the seats on one side of the courtroom gallery, and parents, friends and others filled up my side. I had a wonderful conversation with a pair of parents sitting next to me. They were really proud of their kids. 

Soon the three judges appeared, one in person and two virtually. Lawyers for the plaintiffs and government got 20 minutes each to argue before the panel. Each side’s prepared remarks were quickly interrupted by the judges, with questions focused on “standing” and whether plaintiffs could show “intentional discrimination” against children, versus whether EPA policies impacted all people equally, regardless of age. I felt that both sides of lawyers were incredibly well prepared and did a good job arguing the case. The 40 minutes flew by and the hearing was over. As we filed out of the courtroom, one of the young people left in tears, perhaps feeling let down by the adults in charge of the world.

As my columns have reflected, I’ve also felt let down. The executive branch seems to be drunk on power, slashing congressionally mandated programs with reckless abandon, locking up 70,000 people, including thousands of children, in squalid ICE detention centers, persecuting and prosecuting the president’s enemies, threatening and banishing the press, launching military strikes around the globe, including war with Iran, with the Republican-majority Congress going along with it all. Many court decisions have been a bulwark against excesses while others, like granting the president near absolute immunity, have fueled what feels like lawlessness. Some decisions sadden me and others delight me and that balance, actually, feels right.

Being critical of decisions is healthy. Personal attacks against judges are not. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, noting the dramatic rise in threats of violence against judges across the country, fueled by hate speech from as low as the streets and as high as the White House, said last Tuesday that “Personally directed hostility is dangerous, and it has got to stop.”

I agree. There’s a reason we all rise when a judge walks into the courtroom. Let’s extend that respect and courtesy beyond the courthouse in our words and deeds. 

Craig Wiesner is the co-owner of Reach And Teach, a book, toy and cultural gift shop on San Carlos Avenue in San Carlos. Follow Craig: craigwiesner.bsky.social.