More to follow as details emerge.

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, attorney Nathan M. F. Charles examines the Trump administration’s targeting of Somali nationals holding Temporary Protected Status (TPS), with a particular focus on Minnesota, and explains why the policy is unlawful, pretextual, and fundamentally incompatible with both U.S. law and international human rights obligations.

The episode begins with an explanation of what TPS is and what it is for: a humanitarian, country-conditions-based protection created by Congress in the Immigration Act of 1990 to prevent the United States from returning people to countries where they are likely to face serious harm.

The episode then dismantles the administration’s stated justification—alleged fraud tied to child-care and public benefits programs—by placing those allegations in their proper legal and temporal context. As discussed, the Minnesota fraud cases were identified by law enforcement in 2021 and prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2022. They are not new, unresolved, or emergent. Re-invoking those cases years later serves as a pretext, not a legitimate basis for nationality-wide punishment.

A significant portion of the episode addresses timing. The selective resurrection of long-resolved allegations coincides with renewed scrutiny of the Trump administration over the Epstein files and other self-inflicted political scandals. Viewed in context, the TPS revocation effort functions as a political distraction rather than bona fide immigration enforcement.

The episode draws a critical distinction between legitimate political decision-making and impermissible partisan misuse of executive authority. While TPS is inherently political in the sense that it reflects foreign-policy and humanitarian judgments, it is not supposed to be partisan. Using immigration authority to inflame resentment, punish a politically vulnerable ethnic group, or score domestic political points undermines the rule of law and raises serious concerns—including under the Hatch Act.

The episode also explains why revoking TPS for Somali nationals implicates the international law principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning individuals to countries where they face a real risk of persecution, torture, or other serious harm. TPS is one of the principal domestic mechanisms by which the United States complies with that binding obligation.

Finally, the episode explains why the policy constitutes collective punishment, why there is no nexus between Somali nationality and the alleged misconduct, why the enforcement is racially selective, and why revoking TPS for a nationality in a single U.S. state is legally nonsensical and without precedent.

This is not an argument for excusing crime. Individual wrongdoing should be prosecuted and punished individually. What the law does not permit is punishing an entire nationality for the alleged acts of a few—especially where country conditions have not materially changed.

WORKS CITED & SOURCES

Official Government / Primary Sources

* U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) — Temporary Protected Status for Somaliahttps://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status/temporary-protected-status-designated-country-somalia

* City of St. Paul, Minnesota — Federal changes to Temporary Protected Statushttps://www.stpaul.gov/news/federal-changes-temporary-protected-status

Press Coverage & Reporting

* PBS NewsHour — Federal agents probe fraud allegations targeting Somali child-care providers in Minnesotahttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/federal-agents-probe-fraud-allegations-targeting-somali-child-care-providers-in-minnesota

* CNN — Trump administration freezes child care payments to Minnesota amid federal investigation into alleged fraudhttps://www.cnn.com/2025/12/31/politics/trump-walz-minnesota-child-care-fraud

* NBC News — Trump attacks Ilhan Omar, Somali immigrants in Minnesota amid fraud allegationshttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-ilhan-omar-somali-immigrants-minnesota-fraud-rcna251706

* AL.com — Trump slams Somali “lowlifes” accused of fraud in Minnesota: “Send them back from where they came”(User-provided link)

* MPR News — What to know as Temporary Protected Status for Somalis in Minnesota could end

* Star Tribune / Associated Press — Reporting on the announcement and impact of TPS revocation for Somali nationals

* Google News Aggregator — Coverage of TPS revocation affecting Somali nationals(User-provided link)

Legal & International Law Authorities

* Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649

* 1951 Refugee Convention & 1967 Protocol

* Convention Against Torture, Article 3

* Charles International Law — The Principle of Non-Refoulement (research article)

RECOMMENDED READING / SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Affiliate Disclosure: Some links below are Amazon affiliate links. If you choose to purchase a book through these links, Charles International Law may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you.

* Sivaprasad Wadhia, Shoba.Banned: Immigration Enforcement in the Time of Trump.Audible Audiobook (Unabridged), Tantor Media, 2019.https://amzn.to/4qzQmUC

* Yusuf, Ahmed Ismail.Somalis in Minnesota (The People of Minnesota).Paperback, Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2012.https://amzn.to/4q1DoyP

* Lewis, I. M.A Modern History of the Somali Nation and State in the Horn of Africa.Paperback, Ohio University Press, 2003.https://amzn.to/492IFAh

* Anadil, Iftekhar.Somali Refugees in America: Community Gardens as Spaces of Refuge.Kindle Edition, Lexington Books, 2025.https://amzn.to/4jve7Le

* Osman, Ahmed J.Somali vs. Trump: The Future of American Immigrants.Kindle Edition, 2025.https://amzn.to/49jNNz1

If you care about the rule of law, democratic institutions, and how immigration policy is being weaponized for partisan ends, subscribe to The Rule of Law Brief. Each episode breaks down complex legal issues clearly, honestly, and without spin—grounded in law, history, and lived reality.

In this New Year’s episode of The Rule of Law Brief, I explain why my professional resolution for the coming year is to report more attorneys to disciplinary counsel for clear violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—and why that decision has nothing to do with personal grievance, politics, or settling scores.

Every state in the country has binding, enforceable rules governing attorney conduct. Every lawyer learns those rules, is tested on them, and is licensed on the condition that they follow them. Yet the violations that occur most frequently—and are enforced least often—are not the complex or ambiguous ones. They are the simplest, most obvious rules: prohibitions on lying to courts, misrepresenting facts or law, filing frivolous pleadings, abusing discovery, engaging in conflicts of interest, and using the legal process as a weapon rather than a tool for adjudication.

Despite how common these violations are, meaningful discipline is rare. Bar counsel offices are underfunded, complaints are routinely dismissed, investigations take years, and sanctions—when they come—are often imposed long after the damage is done. Compounding the problem, the legal profession has developed a culture that actively discourages reporting misconduct, often mislabeling silence as “professional courtesy.”

This failure matters far beyond the legal profession. There is broad agreement among serious political scientists that the survival of democracy depends on the perceived legitimacy of institutions. Courts sit at the center of that legitimacy. Democracy cannot survive if people cannot get a fair shake from the courts—or even believe that they cannot. And people cannot get a fair shake from the courts when lawyers cheat and get away with it.

If lawyers will not enforce the rules that govern our own profession, no one else will. And if we refuse to do so, we should not be surprised when public confidence in the legal system collapses—and democracy collapses with it.

Recommended Reading

* Condoleezza Rice, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to FreedomAn institution-focused examination of why democracies succeed or fail, emphasizing legitimacy, fairness, and the rule-bound operation of courts and other democratic institutions.https://amzn.to/4pijs9I

* George Conway, American Breakdown: The Trump Years and How They Befell UsA lawyer’s account of institutional erosion, ethical collapse, and the consequences of normalizing misconduct within the legal and political system.https://www.amazon.com/dp/1668004665

Disclosure: The Condoleezza Rice link above is an Amazon Associate link. If you purchase the book through that link, I may earn a small commission at no additional cost to you.

If you care about the rule of law, institutional legitimacy, and the survival of constitutional democracy, subscribe to The Rule of Law Brief. I publish clear, unsentimental analysis of how legal institutions actually function—and what happens when professionals stop enforcing the rules that keep them legitimate.

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, civil-rights attorney Nate Charles examines a disturbing §1983 case arising out of Baltimore County, Maryland—one in which undisputed video evidence shows police officers violently assaulting a man following a minor traffic accident, yet a federal district court dismissed the case at the pleading stage.

Charles walks viewers through what the officers actually observed (a low-speed collision and a disabled vehicle), contrasts that reality with the force used, and explains why 42 U.S.C. § 1983 exists precisely to address this kind of abuse of power under color of law.

The episode then turns to the procedural posture of the case:

* years of delay,

* repeated motions, and

* what Charles characterizes as vexatious and dilatory tactics by the Baltimore County Office of Law, all while the case remains unresolved on appeal in the Fourth Circuit.

At stake is more than a single plaintiff’s claim. The episode confronts a larger and increasingly urgent question: what happens to civil-rights law when doctrines like “objective reasonableness,” “legitimate duties,” and qualified immunity are stretched until video evidence itself is deemed legally insufficient?

Viewers are encouraged to watch the footage carefully, draw their own conclusions, and consider what accountability means when courts decline to let juries do their job.

Clear analysis. No euphemisms. No institutional deference.

Subscribe to The Rule of Law Brief for direct, lawyer-level examinations of how power is exercised—and abused—by government actors, and what the law is supposed to do about it.

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles responds to a viewer question that goes to the heart of constitutional enforcement: What do we actually do when the federal government violates the Establishment Clause?

Building on his earlier article analyzing DHS’s Christmas social media posts, Nate explains why those posts crossed a constitutional line by affirming Christian theology and defining national identity in sectarian terms — and why that conduct is part of a broader strategy of normalizing unconstitutional executive behavior.

The episode walks through the hard realities of enforcement:

* Who actually has standing to challenge Establishment Clause violations

* Why “being offended” is not enough

* Why §1983 does not apply to federal agencies

* Why Bivens actions are largely unavailable

* Where the real remedy comes from: Article III courts and traditional equitable powers

* Why the absence of damages makes enforcement difficult in practice

* And why nonprofit litigation organizations, like the ACLU, often play a central role

The takeaway is uncomfortable but necessary: the Constitution does not enforce itself. Enforcement depends on standing, resources, and institutions willing to act — even when there is no financial upside.

Special thanks to viewer Ed Valdez for asking the right question and pushing the conversation toward real solutions rather than mere problem-spotting.

Law, power, and constitutional limits — examined honestly.

Subscribe for uncompromising analysis of executive overreach and the rule of law.

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, we examine a structural failure most Americans don’t even know exists.

Immigration judges are federal judges—but they are not Article III judges. They do not belong to the independent judicial branch. They are Article II judges: administrative law judges inside the Executive Branch who ultimately work for the President of the United States through the Attorney General.

That design was always risky. It relied on a critical assumption: that presidents would respect due process norms and refrain from pressuring judges to reach preferred outcomes.

Under Donald Trump, that assumption collapsed.

In this episode, we explain:

* the difference between Article III judges and immigration judges,

* why immigration judges are still bound by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause,

* why neutrality of the decision-maker is one of the most fundamental requirements of due process,

* how executive pressure creates unconstitutional bias even without explicit orders,

* and how doctrines like pretermission are increasingly used as shortcuts to deport people without full hearings.

We also explore the paradox now baked into the system: immigration judges are expected to be neutral constitutional adjudicators while operating inside a political enforcement apparatus that rewards speed and removal.

The result is not just injustice in individual cases, but long-term damage to the legitimacy of the immigration court system—and to the rule of law itself.

Clear-eyed analysis of the rule of law when it matters most.

Subscribe to The Rule of Law Brief for honest explanations of how power, courts, and constitutional principles actually collide in real life.

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles examines the unusually deep, often underestimated level of immigration and security cooperation between the United States and Canada. Drawing from his own connection to the St. Lawrence River and his service alongside Canadian officers in Afghanistan, he explains why the U.S.–Canada relationship is unlike any other—and why immigration actions taken in one country reverberate powerfully across the border.

This episode takes a candid look at the mechanisms that make the two countries’ immigration systems effectively interoperable. From shared biometrics and enforcement data to the structure and purpose of the Safe Third Country Agreement, Nate details how—and why—each country tracks travelers’ movements, asylum claims, and adverse immigration events originating in the other jurisdiction.

For travelers, practitioners, and policymakers, the implications are significant:

* Immigration violations such as expedited removal, misrepresentation findings, or failed entries do not remain isolated within one country.

* Both nations receive and act on each other’s enforcement data in real time.

* The Safe Third Country Agreement directly shapes how asylum seekers are processed, screened, and routed.

* Secondary inspection, admissibility questioning, or outright refusal can arise on either side of the border when a traveler has recent issues in the other system.

This episode offers a straightforward assessment of what travelers should expect when moving between two countries that treat their shared border as a coordinated security environment. If your clients have immigration histories in the U.S. or Canada—or if you’re managing cross-border travel risk—this is essential situational awareness.

Stay ahead of the curve on immigration, national security, and rule-of-law issues. Subscribe now to get future episodes, research breakdowns, and practical insights delivered straight to your inbox.

In today’s Rule of Law Brief, we dive into one of the most revealing contradictions in American foreign policy: the United States champions human rights and the laws of war, yet refuses to join the International Criminal Court—and in recent years has shifted from polite non-participation to open hostility.

Drawing on the history of the Rome Statute, the post-9/11 security environment, and the evolution of U.S. power, this episode examines:

* Why the United States helped build the ICC’s legal architecture but refused to join it.

* How the ICC almost certainly has valid jurisdiction over U.S. nationals for crimes committed on ICC-member territory—yet the U.S. has made clear it will not allow prosecutions.

* The role of hegemony, sovereignty, and strategic calculation in shaping U.S. resistance.

* Why complementarity doesn’t calm U.S. fears—and why the ICC doubts U.S. internal accountability.

* How U.S. allies became caught between their support for international justice and American pressure.

* How the Trump administration abandoned decades of diplomatic restraint and retaliated directly against ICC officials.

* Why this issue becomes even more acute as the United States drifts toward authoritarian tendencies.

* And finally, the uncomfortable truth: justice for thee, but not for me.

This is where the idealistic narrative of American rule-of-law leadership runs headlong into the realities of geopolitics.

If you care about human rights, national security, the rule of law, or how American power actually operates in the world, subscribe to the Rule of Law Brief. I cut through the mythology, challenge the comfortable narratives, and explain how law, war, and politics collide in the real world.

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles breaks down one of the most widespread misconceptions circulating online: the idea that Donald Trump “can’t be authoritarian” because critics are still able to post about him on social media. Drawing on operational doctrine—not punditry—Nate explains why authoritarianism is not a binary condition but a spectrum along which countries drift over time.

Using the U.S. Army’s Human Factors: Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies as the analytical backbone, Nate outlines the inverted-U relationship between regime type and political violence: stable democracies on one end, stable autocracies on the other, and maximum instability in the hybrid middle—what political scientists call anocracy .

He then applies this framework to the United States, arguing that rising extremism, political violence, and the normalization of coercive tactics are not random. They are precisely what the doctrinal research predicts as a country slides away from full democracy but has not yet reached full authoritarianism .

Finally, Nate addresses the predictable pushback—that this is all just academic hand-waving or partisan rhetoric—by noting the doctrine’s provenance: originally published by the Special Operations Research Office, republished by Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, and supported by U.S. Army Special Operations Command J3X, the Unconventional Warfare Directorate .

This episode is a clear, sober look at the mechanics of authoritarian drift and why America’s political landscape is showing exactly the warning signs the literature expects.

Stay ahead of the curve on national security, democracy, and the rule of law. Subscribe for rigorous, accessible analysis grounded in real doctrine—not partisan noise.

This episode dismantles a basic—but now politically weaponized—misunderstanding: that the President can use military force simply by designating a group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under the Immigration and Nationality Act. That claim is legally false, constitutionally indefensible, and is being pushed in bad faith to justify unlawful military strikes, including the recent attacks on drug boats in the Caribbean.

We walk through the actual statutory framework of the INA:

* what an FTO designation requires,

* what legal consequences attach to it,

* why those consequences are immigration and financial in nature, not military.

We also clarify the Treasury Department’s Specially Designated Global Terrorist label—an entirely separate sanctions regime under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It has zero bearing on authorizing military operations.

Then we turn to the one domestic-law instrument that does authorize force:the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11.That statute narrowly authorized operations against the people and organizations responsible for the attacks—essentially al-Qaeda and its lineage. It has nothing to do with drug cartels, nothing to do with immigration law, and nothing to do with unilateral presidential claims of inherent wartime authority.

The bottom line:Rebranding immigration tools as war powers is unconstitutional, reckless, and illegal.If the United States is going to wage war on a new target, Congress must pass a new AUMF. Shortcuts aren’t lawful. And they aren’t acceptable.

Stay ahead of the legal and national-security issues politicians keep misrepresenting. Subscribe for sharp, unvarnished analysis grounded in actual law—not internet mythology.