The Rule of Law Brief

Nathan M. F. Charles — Former federal prosecutor and Navy SEAL officer; Managing Partner at Charles International Law.
  • 5.0 (3)
  • News Commentary
  • Daily

A principled defense of constitutional governance, civil liberties, and professional ethics in the face of rising authoritarianism—anchored in legal rigor, national security insight, and a commitment to nonviolent resistance. natecharles.substack.com

  1. 5d ago

    There Are Leaders Walking Among You

    After a quarter century marked by war, economic upheaval, a pandemic, and repeated uncertainty, the U.S. Naval Academy Class of 2001 has become very comfortable operating in crisis mode. Advance planning remains a work in progress—as our class president, Jen, can probably attest. But returning to Annapolis for our 25-year reunion gave me something I badly needed: renewed resilience. My classmates have carried their commitments to service into military careers, businesses, religious vocations, and communities across the country. Seeing them again reminded me how many people we have who understand responsibility and continue to honor it. In this episode of the Rule of Law Brief, I reflect on that reassurance and what it means as America approaches consequential midterm elections. The results will matter enormously, and so will the administration’s response to them. I also invite service academy graduates from every academy and every class to introduce themselves in the comments. Share your academy, class year, and town or region, and let your neighbors know you’re there and willing to help. Leadership carries responsibilities even when you aren’t in charge. If someone you know is anxious about America’s future, share this episode with them. My Naval Academy reunion reminded me that there are leaders walking among us—and that we have people we can turn to when the way ahead is uncertain. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    There Are Leaders Walking Among You

  2. Oct 2

    Lebanon County Mail-In Ballots Are Here — Don’t Forget the Stamp

    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. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    Lebanon County Mail-In Ballots Are Here — Don’t Forget the Stamp

  3. Oct 1

    When Military Expertise Becomes an Illegal Export

    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. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    When Military Expertise Becomes an Illegal Export

  4. Sep 30

    Cash in Hand, But Still Locked Out: Being Unbanked in America

    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 finance@charlesinternationallaw.com 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. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    Cash in Hand, But Still Locked Out: Being Unbanked in America

  5. Sep 26

    Prior Restraint: When Can the Government Stop You From Speaking?

    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. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    Prior Restraint: When Can the Government Stop You From Speaking?

  6. Sep 23

    Trump TV and the Line We Once Drew

    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. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    Trump TV and the Line We Once Drew

  7. Sep 18

    Learn When to Take “No” for an Answer

    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. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    Learn When to Take “No” for an Answer

  8. Sep 11

    The President Cannot Cut You a $5,000 Check

    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. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

    The President Cannot Cut You a $5,000 Check
See All (160)

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
3 Ratings

About

A principled defense of constitutional governance, civil liberties, and professional ethics in the face of rising authoritarianism—anchored in legal rigor, national security insight, and a commitment to nonviolent resistance. natecharles.substack.com

Information

  • Creator
    Nathan M. F. Charles — Former federal prosecutor and Navy SEAL officer; Managing Partner at Charles International Law.
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    160
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Nate Charles
  • Show Website
    The Rule of Law Brief