The Rule of Law Brief

The FBI's Job Is Not to "Put People Down"

When does speech cross the line from protected expression into a criminal threat? In this episode, immigration attorney Nate Charles examines the federal case against Nicholas Matthew Scelfo, who allegedly threatened to kill an ICE officer and the officer’s family during a protest outside the Delaney Hall detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. If the allegations are true, the First Amendment does not protect that conduct. But the story does not end there. Nate also analyzes FBI Director Kash Patel’s response to the arrest, including Patel’s statement that “you touch a cop, and this FBI will put you down.” While that statement is legally distinct from the alleged threat made by Scelfo, it raises important questions about the role of law enforcement in a constitutional republic, the importance of precision in official rhetoric, and the FBI’s stated mission to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution. Can a protester violate the law while government officials still have an obligation to model restraint? What does the “true threats” doctrine actually require? And what should Americans expect from the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agencies? These are the questions we explore in this episode. A protester allegedly made a criminal threat against an ICE officer's family. Then the FBI announced the arrest with rhetoric that raises serious questions about constitutional governance, due process, and the role of federal law enforcement. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe [https://natecharles.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Why Character Matters in a Constitutional Republic

Americans often hear that the United States is a constitutional republic rather than a direct democracy. That’s true—but many people miss the implications. A republic depends on citizens electing representatives to govern on their behalf. Those representatives negotiate, compromise, and make countless decisions outside direct public observation. The public cannot sit in every committee meeting, attend every negotiation, or monitor every conversation. That reality makes character indispensable. In this episode, I explain why integrity in public office is not merely a moral concern. It is a structural requirement of representative government. If citizens cannot trust the people making decisions behind closed doors, eventually they stop trusting the government itself. The modern Republican Party’s embrace of the idea that character doesn’t matter is not merely hypocritical. It is fundamentally incompatible with the constitutional system the party claims to defend. A constitutional republic depends on trust. If character in public office doesn’t matter, representative government itself begins to break down. Here’s why integrity is a structural requirement of self-government. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe [https://natecharles.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

The Constitutional Problem with DHS's Airport Threat

The Department of Homeland Security is reportedly considering shutting down Customs and Border Protection processing at certain airports and redirecting international travelers elsewhere. The issue is not whether DHS has authority over customs and immigration. The issue is whether it can use that authority for openly political purposes. In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, attorney Nate Charles examines the constitutional doctrine prohibiting arbitrary and capricious government action and explains why the administration’s own stated rationale may create serious legal problems. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that agencies must base their decisions on facts, evidence, and lawful governmental objectives. Agencies cannot rely on factors Congress never authorized them to consider, and courts are not required to accept explanations that do not match reality. This episode explores: • What the arbitrary-and-capricious standard actually means• Why agencies must provide rational explanations for their decisions• The difference between legitimate operational justifications and political retaliation• Why openly political motives can undermine otherwise lawful governmental actions• How due process protects against arbitrary exercises of governmental power At stake is a fundamental principle of constitutional government: public power must be exercised for public purposes, not political grudges. Can the federal government use immigration and customs authority to punish cities whose politics it dislikes? In this episode, attorney Nate Charles explains the constitutional doctrine that may make such actions unlawful and why the administration’s own public statements could be its biggest legal problem. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe [https://natecharles.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Why I Teach

As many of you know, in addition to my legal practice, I previously taught in the criminology department at American University in Washington, DC. Although my schedule no longer consistently supports university teaching, I have always believed that professionals have a responsibility to help educate and mentor the generations that come behind them. That philosophy is a large part of why I create these videos. Knowledge should not remain locked away inside professional circles, institutions, or specialized industries. Some of the most valuable lessons I have learned throughout my career came from experienced professionals who were willing to publicly share their expertise, perspectives, and lived experiences. I believe that kind of knowledge-sharing is important not only professionally, but civically. Over the years, my law firm has developed several educational materials and online courses, but up to this point they have largely existed on our own platforms. Recently, however, I began exploring broader educational platforms like Udemy.com as a way to make those materials more accessible to the people who might actually benefit from them. As a result, we are seriously considering expanding our educational offerings and developing additional courses related to law, public policy, immigration, constitutional issues, professional development, and related subjects. This video is ultimately a request for feedback. What topics would you actually want us to teach? What legal concepts, practical skills, public policy issues, or professional insights would you like to see expanded into full educational courses? Please leave your thoughts and suggestions in the comments. We are actively considering these projects, and your feedback may directly influence what we create next. I have always believed that professionals have a duty to share knowledge and help train the next generation. My firm is now considering expanding our educational content into full online courses, and I would genuinely like your feedback about what we should teach next. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe [https://natecharles.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

TSA PreCheck Touchless and the Surveillance State

In this short video, Nate Charles shares a firsthand experience with TSA PreCheck Touchless at the Philadelphia International Airport. The system was fast, seamless, and undeniably convenient—but it also served as a stark reminder of how deeply facial recognition and surveillance technology have become integrated into ordinary life. TSA PreCheck Touchless is incredibly convenient. It is also a vivid reminder that facial recognition surveillance is no longer theoretical—it is already embedded in everyday American life. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe [https://natecharles.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]