www.montereycountynow.com JULY 31-AUGUST 6, 2025 MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY 13 Federal law, Title 28, Section 333, authorizes the chief judge of federal circuit courts to summon judges annually “for the purpose of considering the business of the courts and advising means of improving the administration of justice within the circuit.” In the case of the Ninth Circuit of the United States court—which encompasses California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands—that meant hundreds of judges and attorneys gathering from July 21-24 at the Hyatt Regency in Monterey. It was the first time in 11 years the multi-state group convened locally, and remarks on the last day by United States Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan drew interest from far and wide; SCOTUS reporters from The Washington Post and Politico traveled to Monterey for a chance to hear a Supreme Court justice speak in a setting other than from the bench. Over four days, attendees heard about specific legal topics—artificial intelligence and copyright law, legal concerns in the aftermath of catastrophes (such as processing claims through victims’ funds) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. National Marine Fisheries Service, generally granting courts more decision-making authority when government agency officials are interpreting ambiguous statutes. “Loper Bright creates, arguably, a race to the courthouse,” said Abbe R. Gluck from Yale Law School. That race to the courthouse comes at a time when the judiciary itself is under threat. In March, President Donald Trump called for impeaching a federal judge who ruled against his deportation plan. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement rebuking Trump’s comments. “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said at the time. Ah, the old days—when ideas of appropriate were established. Roberts and Kagan routinely find themselves on opposing sides of rulings, but in her remarks in Monterey, Kagan expressed that she also intends to lean on the institution itself to endure current threats to judicial independence. Without naming names, Kagan noted the emerging notion that government officials don’t need to abide by court decisions they don’t agree with. “That’s just not the way our system works, not the way rule of law in our country works,” she said. “In the face of these sort of threats, judges just need to do what they are obligated to do: Make reasoned, independent decisions, and not be so aggravated or maddened by any of these threats… “The way an independent judiciary should counter assaults on an independent judiciary is to act in the sorts of ways that judges are required.” In essence, she argued for business as usual. But these are unusual times. With a president who is perfectly happy to set a court decision on fire, the underlying premise that institutions can endure is shaky. Simply believing in the strength of the institution seems insufficient to get us through. Fingers crossed! Kagan also addressed her frustration with the court’s growing use of the so-called shadow docket, or emergency docket, for urgent cases. “I have expressed a number of times in dissents that we have used it in cases where it shouldn’t have been used,” Kagan said. “My own view is: Be cautious.” Part of her frustration comes from limited briefing in such cases, and limited written decisions. “Courts are supposed to explain things,” she said. “I don’t mean we should write 50-page magnum opuses. I think one, two or three pages would do.” Kagan pens dissenting decisions with some regularity, showing where she diverges from the majority view, even if it is personally challenging. “I find it frustrating, I find it disappointing, I find it sometimes even maddening,” she said. “On the other hand, I like all my colleagues. I think they are all operating in good faith. The most important thing of all is that we are all engaged in a collective endeavor of some importance.” That is, of course, if the endeavor can survive. Sara Rubin is the Weekly’s editor. Reach her at sara@montereycountynow.com. Judge Not Justice Elena Kagan brings an institutionalist message to Monterey. By Sara Rubin VERY FINE PEOPLE…It’s never too soon to start campaigning, it seems, and Squid is already seeing marketing from gubernatorial candidates for the 2026 election. One, Kyle Langford—whose campaign address is a P.O. box in Marina—promises on his website “a better than ever California is within reach.” Read further, however, and he plans to reach back—way back to some dark ages. “California was historically a Catholic state, shaped by Spanish missions that introduced agriculture, education and community values foundational to its early growth,” Langford’s website states. “Our campaign focuses on revitalizing these Catholic foundations.” There’s no mention of separation of church and state, or of the forced conversion and assimilation of Indigenous people—but maybe that’s exactly what Langford means. On July 26, he posted on X with a photo of himself in front of the gate to Auschwitz, with the caption: “My 0% Unemployment Plan.” His economic plan is…a Nazi extermination camp? Squid, aghast, reached out to Langford, who according to his social media, is based in Los Angeles. (Squid’s colleague emailed but didn’t hear back, and calls to his campaign number did not go through.) If Squid does get through to Langford, Squid’s question mostly is: Have you been invited to the White House yet? ART HEIST…As Squid was oozing down the social media rabbit hole of neo-Nazi messaging on X (see above), Squid came upon the account of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which posts often. Some posts champion Alligator Alcatraz, others slam the so-called liberal media. Mugshots are recurring, as are pieces of fine art, posted with brief captions. One that was posted on July 1 shows “Morning Pledge” by Thomas Kinkade, an artwork depicting kids on a rainy sidewalk, with an American flag waving ahead of them. “Protect the Homeland,” DHS added. The Thomas Kinkade Family Foundation posted its own statement objecting. “We strongly condemn the sentiment expressed in the post and the deplorable actions that DHS continues to carry out.” Turns out the “painter of light,” as Kinkade was known in and beyond Carmel, one place where he painted, didn’t want his work associated with dark objectives. The foundation also notes another problem: The use of Kinkade’s copyrighted painting was unauthorized. It should seem ironic for DHS, which is all about ensuring proper authorization for anyone entering the U.S.—apparently nobody’s checking for authorization to yank images from the internet. DHS can expect to hear from attorneys representing the Kinkade foundation, asking the agency to show their papers. We all already know their answer: They don’t have any. THE LOCAL SPIN SQUID FRY THE MISSION OF MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY IS TO INSPIRE INDEPENDENT THINKING AND CONSCIOUS ACTION, ETC. “That’s just not the way our system works.” SEND SQUID A TIP: squid@montereycountynow.com
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjAzNjQ1NQ==