As the U.S. Supreme Court term ended, it issued a series of monumental decisions.

One sharply curtailed the power of federal administrative agencies to interpret the laws they administer, overturning a precedent from 1984.

Just three days later, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court granted the president almost complete immunity from any criminal prosecutions.

In response to these decisions, Dr. Stephen Goldman, a psychiatrist, historian and author, joined “Next Witness…Please” to express his deep concern for the future of American democracy.

Dr. Goldman brings decades of experience in academic and clinical medicine and public health. He has treated and worked with combat veterans and deeply studied the Civil War, Reconstruction, race and the impact of that war on America.

His latest book, One More War to Fight: Union Veterans Battle for Equality Through Reconstruction, Jim Crow and the Lost Cause, delves into these themes.

Dr. Goldman expressed his alarm over the Supreme Court’s recent trend of overturning longstanding precedents which he believes breeds uncertainty among the populace.

He is particularly worried about the Supreme Court decision to overturn the Chevron precedent which allowed federal administrative agencies to interpret ambiguous laws.

Now that the matters must go before judges, Dr. Goldman fears that science and scientific principles will not be fully utilized in making crucial decisions about Americans’ health and well-being.

Additionally, Dr. Goldman is critical of the Supreme Court giving autocratic immunity to the president.

He also voiced serious concerns about the implementation of Project 2025 and Schedule F if Donald Trump is re-elected, warning that both could severely damage American democracy.

https://www.stephenagoldmanmd.com/

Federal Judge Aileen Cannon, in Florida, issued a 93-page opinion on July 15 dismissing all 40 counts against Donald Trump of illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them.

Her ruling was based on outlier opinions that the appointment of Special Prosecutor was unconstitutional and that his office was being unconstitutionally funded by the U. S. Treasury.

Her decision is contrary to all other decisions regarding the office of Special Prosecutor even back to the days of Watergate.

She says that the Special Prosecutor could not be appointed without specific legislation from Congress authorizing the appointment and that any candidate for such office would need to be confirmed by the Senate.

She also found that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith had been funded by the Treasury Department without Congressional authority in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U. S. Constitution.

The Special Prosecutor’s office will appeal this ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

On this edition of “Next Witness…Please,” retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson delve into the guts of this decision, explore how unique the decision is and try to project what the “next steps” will be in this case.

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on presidential immunity raises as many questions as it answers.

It requires trial judges in Trump’s pending criminal cases to hold evidentiary hearings to determine if his actions fall outside official acts, which are not protected by immunity.

Trial courts must also assess what evidence can be used to support the remaining charges.

The Supreme Court has ruled that testimony or private records related to official acts cannot be used in trials for unofficial acts, adding further complexity.

This new process of evaluating actions leaves trial judges in a quandary without clear guidance from the Supreme Court.

In this episode of Next Witness…Please, the “Judicial Twins” (retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson) break down the challenges trial judges face under this confusing decision and explore potential outcomes for Trump’s current cases.