The Neoliberal Round Podcast

Renaldo McKenzie, Content Chief at The Neoliberal, reports on his interview with John Anthony Castro, a 2024 US GOP Presidential Candidate who is now a political prisoner after suing Donald Trump for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. His lawsuit and candidacy were upended due to the indictment and subsequent imprisonment. Renaldo spoke with John Monday afternoon, which was published as an article in The Neoliberal Journals at theneoliberal.com and The Neoliberal Post at renaldocmckenzie.com.There is also the actual interview available on the podcast and YouTube Channel entitled: BREAKING NEWS: JOHN A CASTRO SPEAKS FROM FEDERAL PRISON ABOUT HIS LATEST LEGAL BATTLE FOR FREEDOMHere is an excerpt of the commentary:There has been a significant new development in John Anthony Castro's fight for freedom.On Friday, the U.S. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its previous opinion. It granted rehearing in John Castro's federal case. Castro argues the move validates serious legal deficiencies he identified in the appellate court's original reasoning.But by Monday, August 17, 2026, the situation had shifted again.Rather than granting John Castro the relief he believes should follow from problems with the original opinion, the panel issued a revised opinion that attempts to preserve the result while changing portions of its reasoning.In our latest conversation with John Castro, the former Republican presidential candidate described the extraordinary sequence of events and explained why he believes the substituted opinion creates new legal problems rather than resolving the old ones.The central dispute concerns a sentencing enhancement imposed on Castro for allegedly exercising a leadership role in criminal activity.According to Castro, the Fifth Circuit's original opinion reasoned that the leadership enhancement could stand without a finding that another person was criminally responsible.John Castro attacked that reasoning in his petition for rehearing.His argument was strikingly simple: How can someone legally be considered the leader of criminal activity if the government and the district court never established that another criminally responsible participant whom he led existed?As Castro summarized the problem during our interview, the original reasoning effectively made him:“a leader of no one.”Then came Friday's dramatic development.The panel withdrew its opinion and granted rehearing.For Castro, the withdrawal was an important acknowledgment that something was seriously wrong with the original decision. It is important, however, to distinguish withdrawing or replacing an opinion from a judicial admission that the court was legally “wrong” on every disputed issue. The precise meaning of Friday's order must ultimately be determined from the language of the court's order itself.What happened next is where the controversy deepened.By Monday, August 17, the Fifth Circuit had issued a substituted opinion.Castro argues that instead of correcting the underlying problem, the panel attempted to strengthen—or, in his words, “beef up”—its reasoning by adding a new rationale.According to Castro's description of the substituted opinion, the panel now reasons that, based upon the record as a whole, it was plausible that at least one other person was involved or criminally responsible.But Castro says that creates an entirely different constitutional and appellate problem:Where did that factual finding come from?Castro argues that the district court never expressly made the finding upon which the appellate panel now relies.From Withdrawal to a Substituted Opinion: By Monday, the Court Had Changed Its ReasoningSubscribe on any stream. Find your stream at https://anchor.fm/theneoliberalRenaldo is author of Neoliberalism, Globalization, Income Inequality, Poverty and Resusrance