The Rule of Law Brief

Mail-in ballots for Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, are arriving in voters’ mailboxes. I received mine today, October 2, and if you requested a mail-in ballot, yours may be waiting for you as well.

When you complete it, follow the enclosed instructions carefully: completely fill in the ovals for your chosen candidates, place the ballot inside the yellow security envelope, seal it, and place that envelope inside the purple-trimmed return envelope. Then sign and date the outer envelope as instructed.

Most importantly, the return envelope is not postage prepaid. You need to put postage on it or take it to the post office and pay the postage. Don’t let something as simple as a missing stamp prevent your ballot from being delivered.

Lebanon County mail-in ballots are arriving now—and there’s one easy-to-miss detail voters need to know: the return envelope is not postage prepaid. Share this with another Lebanon County voter so a missing stamp doesn’t keep a ballot from being delivered.

Recent reports have raised questions about whether Western military veterans—including potentially former U.S. Navy SEALs—provided military training to Russian nationals who later fought in Ukraine. The underlying allegations remain disputed, and I have no inside information about whether they are true.

But the reports highlight a serious legal issue that every veteran working in overseas defense, security, aviation, or military training should understand.

During my time as a Trial Attorney in the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, export-control cases—and particularly cases involving “defense services”—were a significant part of my work. Under the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), military expertise can itself become a controlled export.

In this episode of the Rule of Law Brief, I explain what the ITAR means by a “defense service,” why overseas military training can require State Department authorization, the special restrictions applicable to Russia, and the potentially severe criminal and regulatory consequences of getting this wrong.

For veterans entering the private defense and security industry, the central lesson is simple: leaving military service does not necessarily mean leaving national-security law behind.

The Rule of Law Brief examines national security, constitutional law, immigration, and the legal issues behind the headlines—drawing on experience from the military, federal prosecution, and private practice. Subscribe for analysis that goes beyond the headline and explains what the law actually says.

Imagine having enough money to hire a lawyer but no practical way to pay. For people who rely on cash, an online checkout screen can become a barrier to essential services.

In this episode of the Rule of Law Brief, Nathan M. F. Charles examines the challenges facing unbanked individuals, particularly newly arrived immigrants and people seeking refuge in the United States. He explains why financial safeguards serve legitimate purposes—and how their implementation can still exclude legitimate customers.

The episode covers:

* What it means to be unbanked in an increasingly digital economy.

* Why banks verify customers’ identities through “Know Your Customer” requirements.

* How identification requirements and institutional policies can create barriers for immigrants.

* Why lacking a Social Security number does not automatically prevent someone from opening a bank account.

* Practical payment options, including help from a trusted person, money orders, and eligible prepaid cards.

* Why someone paying your legal fees does not gain control over your case.

Charles International Law is also developing a retail cash-payment option through PayNearMe. That service is not yet available through the firm, and prepaid-card acceptance varies by product and payment system.

Read our free guide, Working with Charles International Law as an Unbanked Individual, for payment options and links to government resources. If you need help arranging a payment, contact [email protected] before purchasing a card or sending a money order.

The rule of law matters most when it affects someone’s ability to participate in everyday life. Subscribe to the Rule of Law Brief for clear explanations of legal rights, institutional barriers, and the practical consequences of public policy.

What exactly is a “prior restraint,” and why does the First Amendment treat it differently from punishment imposed after someone speaks?

In this Rule of Law Brief, attorney Nate Charles explains one of the most important—and frequently misunderstood—doctrines in First Amendment law. Drawing on Supreme Court decisions including Alexander v. United States, Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, Carroll v. President & Commissioners of Princess Anne, Tory v. Cochran, and Walker v. City of Birmingham, Nate examines the constitutional limits on judicial orders restricting future speech.

Prior restraints are not categorically unconstitutional. Courts can restrict speech in appropriate circumstances, including to protect important governmental interests. But a judge’s signature is not a constitutional magic wand. When the government prohibits future communications, the restriction implicates an especially demanding area of First Amendment law, including requirements concerning governmental justification and the scope of the restraint.

The episode also explains the critical distinction between punishing unlawful speech after it occurs and ordering someone not to speak in the first place—and why someone subject to an arguably unconstitutional injunction generally should challenge it through the courts rather than simply ignore it.

The Rule of Law Brief explains the law behind the headlines—and the constitutional principles that are often lost in the argument. Subscribe for clear, practical discussions of constitutional law, courts, civil liberties, immigration, and the American legal system.

In this Rule of Law Brief, I discuss the White House’s new “Trump TV” stream through the lens of my work as a military war planner. Our plans accounted for how agencies such as the State Department would support a broader strategy, including the legal limits on public diplomacy aimed at foreign audiences.

The Smith–Mundt Act of 1948 authorized the United States to explain its policies abroad. Amendments that took effect in 2013 made foreign-audience material more accessible domestically, while retaining a restriction on using the covered programs’ funds to influence U.S. public opinion. That restriction does not apply to the White House’s “Trump TV” channel, but the principle behind it raises a question: how much government-produced promotion of a president should Americans accept?

When I planned military operations, we had to account for the line between explaining U.S. policy abroad and influencing Americans at home. The White House’s new “Trump TV” channel makes that line worth discussing again.

Today’s Rule of Law Brief is a little different from my usual political and legal commentary. Sometimes a legal lesson simply walks up to your front door.

While I was at my wife’s house outside Nashville, a door-to-door roofing solicitor stopped by offering a free inspection for storm damage. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Small businesses need customers, salespeople need leads, and I have considerable sympathy for anyone hustling to build a business.

But the old sales maxim “don’t take no for an answer” has limits.

When you are standing on someone else’s property, and the homeowner makes clear that the conversation is over and wants you to leave, the situation is fundamentally different from a pitch on neutral ground. Continuing to press the sale can potentially create legal consequences—including, depending on the circumstances and applicable state or local law, criminal trespass.

The lesson is simple: hustle. Make the pitch. Ask for the business. But know when the answer is no.

Persistence is a sales technique. Remaining on someone else’s property after you have been told to leave can become a legal problem.

This video is for general educational purposes and is not legal advice.

“Don’t take no for an answer” can be decent sales advice—right up until you’re standing on someone else’s property. Here’s where persistence can cross the line from salesmanship into a legal problem.

President Trump has promised Americans a $5,000 “tariff dividend” if Republicans win the midterm elections. Commentators are debating whether the promise is realistic—or whether conditioning it on an electoral victory resembles bribery.

But those questions overlook the central constitutional problem: the President cannot unilaterally withdraw money from the Treasury.

Article I gives Congress the power of the purse, and the Appropriations Clause expressly prohibits drawing money from the Treasury except pursuant to appropriations made by law. Tariff revenue is public money—not a presidential account that the White House can distribute at will.

In this episode, I explain why Congress would have to authorize and fund any tariff-dividend program before the executive branch could issue a single check.

A President can propose $5,000 checks—but he cannot unilaterally order them. Tariff revenue belongs to the United States Treasury, and the Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power of the purse.

September 11th defined my early adulthood. I was training to become a Navy SEAL when the planes struck the towers, and I later completed multiple combat deployments to Afghanistan because of those attacks.

That experience taught me that terrorism is not merely violence. It is violence calculated to provoke a political and psychological reaction. Terrorist movements attack civilians hoping that governments and societies will respond indiscriminately, validate the terrorists’ narrative, alienate the population, and create new recruits.

Al-Qaeda wanted Muslims to believe that the United States was at war with Islam. When Americans denigrate Muslims, favor one religion through government, or weaken the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, they make that lie more credible.

Honoring the victims of 9/11 means more than remembering what happened. It means denying al-Qaeda the victory it sought by defending religious liberty, preserving our constitutional principles, and refusing to allow terrorists to determine what kind of country America becomes.

Religious hatred does not defeat al Qaeda. It validates al Qaeda’s narrative. Share this video if you believe America honors the victims of 9/11 by defending the constitutional freedoms the terrorists attacked.

Charles International Law is expanding its practice into maritime law and personal injury on the high seas.

In this episode, Nathan M. F. Charles explains why maritime law—one of the oldest and most distinctly international bodies of law—is a natural extension of the firm’s existing work at the intersection of people, governments, commerce, and legal systems across borders.

The expansion also draws upon the firm’s unusual depth of firsthand maritime and diving experience. Nathan is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, a former Navy SEAL and military diver, and a lifelong student of ships and international commerce. Senior Associate Alanna Wade largely financed her legal education by working as a commercial hard-hat diver.

Together, they bring both legal training and practical knowledge of the equipment, working conditions, operational decisions, and hazards involved in commercial diving and maritime employment.

This new capability will complement—not replace—the firm’s growing immigration and international-law practices. Charles International Law is building upon its existing strengths to serve commercial divers, seafarers, and other maritime workers whose livelihoods connect the world.

Subscribe for practical insight into maritime law, immigration, international affairs, and the legal issues that arise when people, commerce, and governments cross borders.

Imagine the government could enter your license plate into a computer and, within seconds, learn where you work, where you worship, which doctors you visit, whose homes you frequent, and whether you have attended a political protest.

Flock cameras are often presented as ordinary crime-fighting tools. They photograph vehicles traveling on public roads and help police locate stolen cars, missing children, and criminal suspects. But the real danger does not lie in any single photograph. It lies in the ability to combine thousands of seemingly innocuous observations into a searchable history of a person’s movements, relationships, beliefs, medical concerns, and political activities.

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles examines:

* How Katz v. United States established that the Fourth Amendment protects people—not merely physical places

* Why modern technology is rapidly eroding our reasonable expectations of privacy

* How artificial intelligence makes mass surveillance vastly more powerful by connecting otherwise harmless pieces of information

* Why government surveillance presents dangers that corporate data collection does not

* How surveillance can chill political speech, protest, association, and opposition to governmental authority

* Why the same system that helps an honorable prosecutor find a kidnapper can help an authoritarian government identify and track its political opponents

* Why police should obtain a warrant when they have probable cause—not maintain a warrantless, searchable record of everyone’s movements

Surveillance infrastructure has no conscience. It cannot distinguish between legitimate law enforcement and political repression. As governmental surveillance capabilities expand alongside an increasing willingness to punish constitutionally protected expression, that distinction becomes impossible to ignore.

Flock cameras do more than photograph license plates. They can create a searchable history of where we go, whom we visit, and what we believe. When mass surveillance meets growing authoritarianism, a crime-fighting tool can quickly become an instrument for tracking dissent.