Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal AF Full Episode 4/10/2025

Episode Date: April 10, 2025

Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back on the Top 10 rated Legal AF podcast to debate: Trump flinching and hitting the emergency break on his half-baked tariff plan, while finding a new way to commit stock manipulation crimes as well; the Supreme Court finding "technicalities" to support Trump in 3 separate cases; the Supreme Court on the verge of deciding whether we live in America or a country where an innocent man because of a "screw up" can rot in a foreign jail without due process as the ACLU files new suits on immigration issues, the DOJ fires lawyers for telling the truth to judges, and other senior lawyers head for the exit, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Support our Sponsors: One Skin: Get started today at https://OneSkin.co and receive 15% Off using code: LEGALAF Vessi: Take the first step toward adventure with Vessi. Visit https://vessi.com/LEGALAF to keep your travels comfortable and dry. Explore confidently and enjoy 15% off your first pair at checkout! Soul: Go to https://GetSoul.com and use code LEGALAF to get 30% OFF your order! Oracle: See if your company qualifies at https://Oracle.com/LEGALAF Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Friday, the amateur arrives in IMAX. I want to find and kill the people who murdered my wife. Critics rave. The amateur is a tense, unpredictable ride. You're just not a killer, Charlie. Train me. That constantly finds new and inventive ways to up the stakes. The first one you kill, you let the other ones know you're coming. I want them all.

Academy Award winner Rummy Malik and Academy Award nominee Lawrence Fishburne, the amateur. Only in theaters on IMAX Friday. Get tickets now. Okay, Martin, let's try one. Remember, big. You got it. The Ford It's a Big Deal event is on. How's that? Uh, a little bigger. Ahem. The Ford It's a Big Deal event. Nice. Now the offer? Lease a 2025 Escape Active All-Wheel Drive

from 198 bi-weekly at 1.99% APR for 36 months with $27.55 down. Wow, that's like $99 a week. Yeah, it's a big deal. The Ford, it's a big deal event. Visit your Toronto area Ford store or Ford.ca today. To support sustainable food production, BHP is building one of the world's largest hot

ash mines in Canada. Essential resources responsibly produced. It's happening now at BHP, a future resources company. A little late, but we are here. Legal AF at the intersection of law and politics with Karen Freeman-Iknifilow and Michael Popock. And where do we start? What happened today? I'm not really, I took a long nap. I must have missed some things. Oh, you're right. Donald Trump participated in a stock swindle by announcing at nine 37 this morning in a social media post. Today's a good day to be buying some stocks. And then $4 trillion of value later at about one o'clock just before the

treasury note sales he announces the thing that was fake news two days ago it sounds like insider trading to me uh of a 90 day stay for anybody who didn't retaliate and four trillion dollars worth of shareholder value was recovered meaning follow the the money who in Donald Trump's life, including his family, benefited from Donald Trump changing the policy and doing it so quickly, Karen, that even his own trade representative, tariff representative in Congress today was not aware of the announcement leading a leading Democratic, Democrat, Democratic Congressperson to exclaim on the Congressional record WTF. And this is amateur hour. And how did you not know about a social media post freezing the tariffs when you're here

to allow us to provide oversight about the tariffs. So we got to talk about the chaotic world that Donald Trump has created and what it's done to our economic security. Then we had just about a day or so ago yesterday, Trevor McFadden, the Trump appointed judge in about a 30 page decision, upholding the first amendment and freedom of the press determined that, this is his words, not mine, the Trump administration in brazen fashion violated the First Amendment rights of the Associated Press

by banning them effectively from all places that matter that make news in the White House, including the Oval Office and Air Force One, because they refused in their style book, I'm not making this up, folks, to declare that the Gulf of Mexico was the Gulf of America. And the brazen part is they're public about it. Trump said, I don't like the AP, they won't call it the Gulf of America.

And Suzy Wilde said the same thing, and Carolyn LeVette said the same thing, and the judge says, yeah, that's the sin qu'on non of being a First Amendment violation for viewpoint. You have no other reason. But he did some interesting things in the way he structured his order. And a quote he used, which I thought

sounded a lot like Donald Trump, and we'll talk about that when we get to that particular segment. So that's a win for the First Amendment and the freedom of the press. And then it brings us to Donald Trump's immigration policy. You've got Mr. Armando Abrego-Garcia, whose family is hanging on pins and needles, waiting to see what the United States Supreme Court is going to do, whether they're going to support a federal lower court judge's order to have him return because everybody admits, including at the Department of Justice, that it was a quote unquote mistake, a snafu, an error, somebody screwed up as one federal circuit court judge, appellate court judge said,

and he is now rotting in an El Salvadoran prison where he should not be because he had an order of protection by an immigration lawyer. And we're going to talk about Mr. Abrego Garcia and whether now with the full briefing before the Supreme Court, whether they're going to rule for America where notice and due process matter or not. And we're going to find out what world we're going to wake up in probably later this week as the United States Supreme Court bends over backwards for the third time in over, in about a week, to find a technical reason

to support the Trump administration. Ordering that 16,000 probationary employees that were ordered to be rehired by Judge Alsop in the San Francisco federal court, nah, they can pack their boxes again. They've been fired again, this time by the United States Supreme Court in a five to four decision.

At the same time influencing, I believe, a fourth circuit decision on the heels of it that overturned another ruling by another federal judge which supported the probationary employees. And we're gonna talk about how the domino effect has happened there and all the different ways the Supreme Court has found a way to support Donald Trump. And then we've got, you know, just things that Karen and I will talk generally about.

People leaving the Solicitor General's office, the career professionals that matter, orders being given out by Pam Bondi and Todd Blanch, the bad cops of the Department of Justice, to their, the people that remain there, what it says about integrity, the firing of lawyers for the Department of Justice who refused to lie for this administration, all that and so much more right here with Karen and me. Hi, Karen. Hello, how are you doing, Koaw? I'm doing great. I have a, it's not a good, it's not a great, it's an okay reason. I was having dinner with Dina Dahl and her husband.

Nice, how are they doing? They're doing great. They flew to Miami. We joined my wife and I and Francesca, our daughter joined them and we met Greg and Dina Dahl in Miami and then of course we got hit with Miami traffic coming back. So I thank the audience for hanging in there with us.

And, but we've rolled up our shirt sleeves. We got a lot to talk about. Carrie, you want to, let's do tariffs, right? I framed it to open, you know what happened. 9.37 in the morning, Donald Trump says, great time to buy. A 1.30 or so he announces 90 day, 90 day stay, $4 trillion floods back into the market,

benefiting who knows who, but let's get your opinion. Look, I mean, it was pretty clear to me when Elon Musk, who seems to be out from Doge, felt he could go openly to war with Peter Navarro and talk about who's credited with being the architect of these tariffs, basically going to war with him publicly on X, calling him all kinds of names and a moron and doesn't know anything. who's credited with being the architect of these, of these tariffs, basically going to war with him publicly on X, calling him all kinds of names and a moron

and doesn't know anything. And Peter Navarro going back against Elon Musk and essentially calling the tariffs a really bad idea. It was pretty clear at that point that something was about to change because Elon Musk, although he might no longer be part of Doge, I think is pretty clear he's still a part of Trump's inner circle and something was afoot. So I wasn't surprised when Trump reversed course,

but I think that normally what would happen in something like this is the Department of Justice or a prosecutor would follow the money and see if there's anyone who benefited from this. But there's really nothing you can do about it, right? Because the Department of Justice is controlled by Donald Trump. So nobody's going to investigate whether there's any insider training that I can think of, unless the local prosecutor's office does it.

But I just don't see any way that anyone would be held accountable. I don't see the SEC looking into whether or not someone benefited from this, whether again, not just insider trading, but you're not allowed to impact the markets. And again, if this was anybody else, there'd be an investigation, but it's the president of the United States.

He controls the executive branch and any of these agencies, whether it's an administrative agency, a regulatory agency, or the Department of Justice, all work for him. So of course we know they're not going to look into that. So he can do whatever he wants. He can thank the Supreme Court for that in Trump versus the United States. Right, Roberts gave him license to commit larceny.

He gave, that's how we knew that, we talked about it. It's not, we managed expectations. We said this was gonna be the lesson that Donald Trump learned from having one criminal immunity from prosecution from this administration before he was elected president again and that he was gonna operate that way. We were gonna see the greatest grift in the history see the greatest grift in the history of our America. That's exactly what we're watching.

No self-respecting, honest public servant president of the United States would stand in front of the American people and sell stock and benefit his friends. No, you know, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, he's out shilling for Tesla stock, which is a violation of a number of statutes, but who's gonna investigate it? The House, the Senate, the executive branch.

Stop me if the wheel lands on something that'll actually act, which is why generally, the public watching this inaction and watching the pendulum swing so far in the wrong direction, self-corrects at the midterms and says, you know what, we got to get the other party, one or both of the other branches, because, or at least the two chambers of the House and the Senate, because we got to hold Donald Trump accountable, because nobody else is holding him accountable.

I mean, I mean, I think I did a hot take on it, and I'm sure it's up on Midas as well. But you've got the representative Horford, who's cross-examining as part of his job in Congress of providing oversight. The Steve Horsford is cross-examining Jamie Greer. By the way, anybody watching and listening to Jamie Greer that thinks he's the head of the tariff

and tarification policy of Donald Trump, seriously? I mean, I wouldn't let that guy wash my windows if I was stopped at a traffic light, let alone run my tariff policy. He's obviously, you know, he's sort of a paper, not even a tiger, he's just a figurehead. And while he was giving his testimony, was right around one o'clock when Trump announced

that he was going to pause for 90 days. Obviously taking a page out of two days ago, there was a rumor, sounds like now it was a leak that they had a quickly deny at the rapid response team for Donald Trump. Fake news because he wasn't ready yet, but somehow it leaked that he was thinking about exactly what he did today, a 90 day pause.

And that made the markets really happy. And they recovered $2 trillion worth of their lost value on that rumor that Donald Trump issued a fake news social media tweet and it went into the crapper again. But he has eyes, he saw what happened. And so he decided, wow, the fake news can make it 2 trillion. Let's see what I can do. So he announces it.

This guy's there. It led Horsford, Representative Horsford to say, and I quote, "'So the trade representative for Trump "'hasn't spoken to the president of the United States "'about a global reordering of trade "'that he just announced it on a tweet? "'What?

"'WTF? "'Who is in charge here? "'This is amateur hour.'" I love the What? WTF? Who is in charge here? This is amateur hour. I love the fact that WTF ended up in the congressional record. And all Greer, Jamie Greer had to say was, well, he was elected president of the United States. I'm not gonna reveal the things that we talked about.

He says, we gave you questions to answer. You need to answer those questions here. And so follow the money. I'm sure over the next several days, organizations, including ones that are with us on Legal AF, like Court Accountability Action, are gonna figure out who has benefited by the $4 trillion recovery, with a T, today,

among Donald Trump's friends. And we'll come back to it and we'll report on it. But we're just watching so many firsts with Donald Trump's friends. And we'll come back to it and we'll report on it. But it's, we're just watching, you know, so many firsts with Donald Trump, right? First to be twice impeached, first to be criminally, multiply indicted, first to be convicted, first president to be a convicted felon, you know?

And so of course he's doing these things as well. And that's why transitioning for a minute to Judge McFadden, who was a Trump appointee, qualified Trump appointee in TC, he issued finally his order about the Associated Press. Now let me frame that and turn it over to Karen. Associated Press through its wire service services one half of the world's population. I mean, that's even better.

That's better than McDonald's. I mean, two and a half, whatever billion people get their news in some way from the Associated Press. And they are, according to the judge, hemorrhaging money, because they've been banned and barred from doing their job and getting access to the president in the White House. And I was a little troubled when the temporary restraining order was denied. We were like, uh-oh, I thought it was because they moved too late. Because you gotta move kind of quick on a TRO.

I was like, what are they waiting for? And I was like, all right, well, let's just wait to see what happens at preliminary injunction time. And now we've got the order from Trump's own judge, not a liberal, not a Marxist, not a corrupt person, Trevor McFadden. Karen, what did you make of the order and what do you think it means

for at least some of the judges on the DC court? Yeah, so, I mean, look, let's just back up for a minute and talk about what's happening here. So the press has a First Amendment right to be present and to report on things. And the press has as much of First Amendment right as anybody else has. And so that is something that if you're gonna make rules

that infringes on someone's constitutional rights, that has the highest scrutiny by the courts, meaning you cannot just do things, right? You have to have really good reasons. So let's just, again, have a little mini breakout session on the First Amendment. The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.

Okay, so it goes on after that, but it specifically lists the press in there. And so I think that's an important thing to remind everybody. And it really protects the right of individuals and organizations to publish information and opinions without any government censorship or control. So Trump essentially barred the Associated Press

from physically covering events while he let other reporters in. And traditionally the AP always had a front row seat. They were always asked the first question, partly because what they're known for is neutrality. They are the ones that they're not, they don't really have a point of view and never really have, they're neutral.

And then everybody else gets news, smaller news organizations, local news organizations or international news organizations will take the information and will frame it from their point of view, right? It could be right, it could be left, it could be for some other perspective, it could be for some other reason. But that's what the Associated Press is.

It's a tremendous service to the press at large. And so what happened here, and so again, they're known to be neutral. They are not known to be left-wing or anti-Trump or anything like that. But what they decided to do was not rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. And Trump decided to block them from having access

to those live briefings. So, and so really what this judge said in a really sharply worded opinion, I have to say for any judge, let alone a Trump appointee was basically, you're not allowed to give a viewpoint basedbased denial. It has to be content neutral. And those are sort of terms of art

when you're talking about First Amendment and free speech. And Trump was trying to say, oh, we're just not giving them extra special access. But that's not what they were asking for. They weren't asking for extra special access. What they were really asking for is just a level playing field. So if you are letting other reporters in, then they have to be let into.

They weren't asking for like, reporters don't get to be in the, you know, in the Situation Room or the Oval Office or you don't have a right to that unless, of course, you're inviting the press into that, to Air Force One, to all the places that you see pool reporters go. And if you're doing that, you have to let them in too. And you certainly can't bar them for reasons because you don't like the content of what they're reporting.

So for example, he's not allowed to say, I'm only allowing Fox News and Newsmax and places like that. He has to allow everyone in if he's going to allow them in. I also thought it was interesting, and I didn't realize this, that the iconic photograph where after Trump was shot and he raises his fist in the air and he has blood coming down his face

with the flag in the background, that was taken from an AP photographer, right? Like the AP kind of gives him good and bad, you know, they're just neutral. They just report things. And so that he would go after them really says a lot. But the judge was, I think, he said some pretty good wording

in there. He said things like under the judge was, I think, he said some pretty good wording in there, he said things like under the First Amendment, if the government opens the door to some journalists, be it in the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere, it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less. So, and Trump, you know,

the Trump officials were very explicit and brazen. They don't even protectually try to pretend that it's anything else. They say why they did it, which helps, it helps judges kind of say, look, you're not allowed to do what you're saying you're going to do. And so it was a pretty strongly worded decision by Judge McFadden. And basically he said, you know, the order said you shall immediately rescind your viewpoint denial to the Associated Press

and any other viewpoint related journalists and gave a stay of a few days so that if they want to appeal this decision, he can go and appeal it. I think this is one that even the Supreme Court is going to say you're not allowed to do that. I mean, it's one of the first things I learned in Con Law, in first year of law school, right?

It's, you know, you really have to be content neutral when you're infringing on someone's First Amendment rights. Yeah, absolutely. I thought McFadden, I'm gonna read a couple of things from McFadden, I thought McFadden slyly took a shot at Donald Trump, even though he was appointed by Donald Trump. On page 14 of his order,

in talking about the historical underpittings of the First Amendment, so important freedom of the press, we know it well, here on the Midas Touch Network as an independent entity, people see the difference in our approach and viewpoint because we're not beholden to corporate overlords or others. You know, we're beholden to our own conscience when we write. But who does this sound like? I don't think he just pulled this one out of Roger's Thesaurus

or book of Quotations. Here's what he wrote on page 14 in talking about the First Amendment and the Federalists who helped, you know, who wrote in order to promote the Constitution. He said, the pseudonymic writer, Philadelphiansis, somebody writing under a pseudonym, for instance, stressed that the free press was, quote, the scourge of tyrants, oppressors, villains, and bloodsuckers,

the bulwark of freedom that caused the haughtiest lordling to tremble, and an inestimable jewel that places the poorest citizen on a level with the richest demagogue. Hmm, who are the rich demagogues, tyrants, oppressors, and bloodsuckers in this story? I don't think that was by accident, even though he was a Trumper. He later talked about the First Amendment and the importance of the press this way on page 16. He said, These immediate and forceful backlashes

to attacks on the press underscore how Americans understood the First Amendment in the early centuries. They saw this foremost protection as safeguarding their natural right to heap honest criticism upon the government without fear of official reprisal. That's what we do every day right here.

We were trying to heap honest criticism without fear, although we have a little fear, a fear of reprisal. I just thought the structure of his memo, his memorandum of, was interesting too. No Democrat would have thought to write it this way. But he started with almost like don't bash me. I'm not stopping you from doing the following six or seven things, but you've gone too far, Trump,

with brazenly breaching the First Amendment by punishing Associated Press, particularly because they won't adopt your Gulf of America and their style book. You said they're neutral. I agree with you, except Suzy Weil, the chief of staff, she said, no, they've weaponized their style book. I've never, they've weaponized their style book. I've never, they've weaponized their dictionary? I really don't understand what that means

or what people think of the Associated Press. I think of them as having almost no point of view, let alone a point of view. But this is how he starts it, Karen. It's very interesting. He says, about two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico. It's almost laughable at how simplistically he puts it.

The Gulf of America, period. It's almost cutting in its criticism. The Associated Press did not follow suit. For that editorial choice, the White House sharply curtailed the AP's access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the president. The AP now sues seeking a preliminary injunction in joining the government from excluding it because of its viewpoint.

And then he says, today the court grants that relief. But this injunction does not, now he's given the list of things that he's not doing, does not limit the various permissible reasons the government may have for excluding journalists from limited access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all,

be given access to the president in a non-public space. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists they want to sit down with for interviews and which questions they answer. And it certainly doesn't prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views. You can still all do that.

But then he hits it with exactly the way you let off or you mentioned just recently. No, the court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the government opens its doors to some journalists, be it the Oval Office, the East Room or elsewhere, it cannot then shut the doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less. I just think the whole structure, there is power in the structure of it and almost like a satirical satire of this administration baked into, they're going to be studying Trevor McFadden here and what he was really trying to accomplish. And what I haven't heard, and if people found it, put it in our chat tonight, is Donald Trump immediately bashing Trevor McFadden,

his own judge, calling him a liberal, Marxist, criminal, corrupt, fascist, left-wing, nothing, nothing. So the only part I wanna leave it on right here is that McFadden did stay the order, meaning it's in place, they're back in the game, except he stayed his order until the 13th of April, giving Trump time to go to the DC Court of Appeals on his way to the United States Supreme Court.

And then we're gonna have to see, you and I are gonna spend a considerable amount of time talking about the Supreme Court in the second half of this show today and what they're doing and why it's so hard to predict what they're going to do. But when it comes to First Amendment, except for Alito and Gorsuch, I think most of them are protective

of the First Amendment. What do you think? I think so too. I mean, the First Amendment is one of those, it's like not all amendments are created equal, not the whole Constitution is not necessarily created equal. The First Amendment is just something, there's such a body of law protecting it.

It's one of those rights that we all hold near and dear to our hearts. So I agree with you. That doesn't mean he can't make a lot of mischief and make a lot of hay for people, which is what he does when he doesn't like the way people are doing certain things. I mean, hot off the presses tonight, lawyers who work for the Department of Justice

aren't allowed to attend anything or be a part of the American Bar Association. You know, like that's how, like that's huge. Again, the American Bar Association, a neutral body that is a way of, I've taught there, I've learned from them, I've lectured, there's just ways of lawyers getting together and learning from one another.

It's not partisan, again, there's no point of view, but he has a way of really, of bullying people to try to get his way. And I see this as, you know, it just appears that they act first and then think later. You know, there's no kind of the way we've all been taught to behave. And when I was in government for many years,

what we would do is we would have an idea and then we would study the legality of it. And we would look and see the pros and the cons and is it something that you're allowed to do as a lawyer and if you're not, you don't. I mean, that's just the way it is. That doesn't seem to be a concern necessarily for this, for the people who are doing these things.

To them, it's like we're barring the AAP and we'll see where it goes and they'll fight after that. It's really about, I think it's about flexing your political muscles and your political might. That's what it seems like because it's so clearly lawless. Yeah, they just fired Mr. Rouveni, who was, we're gonna talk about it after our break, who was the head of immigration litigation

for the Department of Justice because his crime that he was canned by Todd Blanch, he told the truth. He told the truth in his filings, he told the truth in a federal court. He complied with his obligations of duty of candor to the tribunal. You're not allowed to lie even though you have to be a zealous advocate, that's where it ends.

And he told the truth to Judge Zinnis in Maryland. He said Armando Abrego Garcia was the subject of a order by an immigration judge not to be removed to El Salvador. That the Immigration Customs and Enforcement, ICE, knew about that order, and despite that order, and that federal order, the fact that he was a green card holder,

hadn't done anything wrong, they shackled him and threw him on a plane without notice in due process and put him to die in El Salvador in a jail, which is not okay. And Judge Zinnis ordered him to return. And when the transcript came out and Todd Blanch saw it, it lit his hair on fire and he decided he needed to fire Ravenny

because Ravenny answered the judge's question honestly. And he said, that he should not have been deported, he should not have been removed. It was a violation of the order. I'm trying to get to the bottom of it with my client, the Department of Justice and Trump. I have not gotten satisfactory answers. I would like 24 hours to continue to talk to them.

And that confession, that honesty, not only killed the government's position, because it had the added benefit of being true, but got the guy fired by Todd Blanch. What world do we live in, Karen? Where lawyers who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and to comply with the rules of professional conduct and responsibility, are fired for doing their job because they told the truth.

It's really unbelievable to me. I can't even believe that that's what happens. It was not just him, but I think it was his supervisor too, was also fired. It's just unbelievable to me. Yeah. Well, the ultimate supervisor is Drew Ensign, who we're going to talk about, who was arguing at the same time, around the same time, in front of Judge Boesberg. We'll talk about the Judge Boesberg case and how it looks like he's probably lost jurisdiction. I don't think he's going to be able to find the Trump administration in contempt related to his orders

to ground the planes and stop them from going to El Salvador based on a ruling by the United States Supreme Court. We're going to interpret, Karen and me, the JGG ruling that just came out and what they found in terms of what is habeas corpus. I can't think of a better person to talk about it than a former federal, a former state prosecutor like Karen Friedman McNiffalo. We're going to talk about habeas corpus, what it means, why Washington was decided to be not the right venue for this and we'll tie it together with another case

that's pending about Armando Abrego Garcia. So sort of like twins, two peas in the pod and what one ruling may mean for Mr. Abrego Garcia's future and his ability to live and what kind of ruling may mean for Mr. Abrego Garcia's future and his ability to live? And what kind of rule of law or other type of constitutional republic we live in, or do we live in a place where a person can be kidnapped and sent to a dark cell in El Salvador and never be heard from again,

even when his Fifth Amendment due process rights have been violated, is that the world that we live in? We'll talk about all of those things and a lot of different issues around immigration that are going on right now when we're back from our first break. Breaks are important to this show. One, the podcast hosts need them.

Secondly, it is a way for the show to not have outside investors, not have a corporate overlord that dictates our editorial decisions. We don't have a Jeff Bezos, we don't have an Elon Musk, we don't have whoever owns the LA Times, we don't have any of that.

We have you, you know, it's like, you know, there's like one support team that's out there, I don't know if it's the Celtics, that's only owned by the public except for the majority owner. We're like that, you know, you support us by way of subscriptions, by way of Patreon, by way of Substack, by way of, if you're Legal AF, the Legal AF YouTube channel, Legal AF MTN,

leaving comments, rating us, reviewing us. This is all part of that ecosystem of support that we need. And then we've got, you know, the way to pay the bills, let's be frank. We've got sponsors that, Jordy Mycelis does an amazing job curating and vetting. We reject most of the sponsors that want to be on here. They have to commit to being pro-democracy,

not ask us to change our content. I've never spoken, and I've jumped onto some of these phone calls. I've never spoken, and I've jumped onto some of these phone calls, I've never spoken to a sponsor where they've ever said anything other than, we love you, the group, and we love your audience. Not like, but could you tone it down on Trump? Like, first of all, that would be like a click off.

Like, the box would go dark in the Zoom, like click. So that's a good thing. So again, if you have the disposable income, I'm not telling you to buy things you can't afford, and you think these are interesting, we do. So here's a word from our sponsors. Soul is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy.

Soul specializes in delicious hemp-derived THC and CBD products designed to boost your mood and help you unwind. Their best-selling out of office gummies were designed to provide a mild relaxing buzz, boost your mood and enhance creativity and relaxation. The out of office gummies come in four different strengths so you can find the perfect dose for your vibe.

Choose from a gentle microdose perfect buzz, a noticeable high or a fully lit experience with wellness at the forefront. You can feel good about what you're putting in your body. All of Soles products are made from organically farmed USA grown hemp and are vegan, gluten free and low in sugar. And if you like their out of office gummies, you got to try their new out of office beverage. A refreshing, alcohol-free alternative,

perfect for summer sipping. Plus, Soul has so many other amazing wellness products with or without THC, including a variety of gummies and capsules that can improve sleep, stress, pain, focus, bloating, and more. Bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to Seoul today. Right now, Seoul is offering my audience

30% off your entire order. Go to getseoul.com and use the code LEGALAF. That's getseoul.com. Promo code LEGALAF for 30% off. Well, if you're like me and you love to travel, you know the struggle of trying to pack the perfect pair of shoes. Something that's stylish and comfortable

and durable enough for all kinds of adventures. Well, let me tell you about Vessi, my ultimate travel essential. Whether I'm wandering through a new city, I'll hike at a mountain trail or out for a spontaneous outing, my Vessi weekend sneakers always have my back. They're waterproof, so no need to worry

about those unexpected puddles or sudden downpour. I stay dry no matter the weather. What I love about Vessi is how lightweight they are. I can wear them all day and they never slow me down. They're sleek enough for a casual day out, but sturdy enough for outdoor adventures, making them the perfect versatile shoe for all kinds of travel. Plus, they're made from sustainable material, so I feel good about my impact on the environment

while I explore. Durable? Absolutely. These sneakers handle all kinds of terrains, from city streets to rocky trails. No need for multiple pairs of shoes in your bag. Vessi does it all. And with a sleek design that pairs

with just about any outfit, you'll look great while you're on the move. Pack smarter and travel better with Vessi. Visit Vessi.com slash Legal AF now for 15% off your first pair at checkout and start exploring with confidence. Say yes to spontaneous trips and rainy day adventures with Vessi. Travel smart with Vessi shoes at Vessi.com slash LegalAF to stay comfortable and get an instant 15% off your first purchase at checkout. And we are back.

Thank you, Sol and Vessi. And of course, another way to support all we do is to come on over to the LegalAF YouTube channel, LegalAF MTN. Hit the free subscribe button. We've got, it's gonna be soon, a dozen contributors who are there along with me. We've got Court Accountability Action, Alex Aronson,

Lisa Graves, Mike Sacks, who I think just announced he's running for Congress today. We've got Shan Wu, got Dina Dahl, we've got me, we got Melba Pearson, Dave Arenberg, Karen when she's not busy being a lawyer. I've got another kind of major coup, which I'm gonna announce in about a month. I can't do it yet, but it's the place to go

to hang out at the corner of law and politics, legal AFMTN. All right, let's get back to the United States Supreme Court, three different rulings all in favor of Donald Trump for different reasons in the last eight or 10 days. We'll do it kind of in reverse chronological order. Karen, the first one or the last one is the order, well, I guess the second last one, is the order about Judge Boesberg

and whether he was right or wrong to certify a class of people who were impacted by Donald Trump's phony war proclamation, proclamation of war, to tell the world that we're at war with Venezuela, that we're at war with the enemy combatants of Venezuela in the form of the Tren de Aragua, band of narco drug dealer, terrorist, gang members, whatever they are,

and in order to deport them, remove them and deport them without notice to El Salvador. To Judge Boesberg, this did not sound in habeas corpus, meaning an individual right for a prisoner to come before a court, a federal court, and be heard about whether they've been falsely imprisoned or some other aspect of punishment. So you're looking at like thousands of individual writs

of habeas corpus, rather it could be a class action with an administrative procedures act declaration about whether Donald Trump was right or wrong to declare war and whether he was using the administrative, the alien enemies act rightly or wrongly or not. And so he issued his injunction, temporary restraining order. He was about to go to preliminary injunction.

We were in the final, final hours of his temporary restraining order. In the meantime, he was also getting to the bottom as to whether the Trump administration willfully violated his order and continued to send planes to El Salvador when he had grounded them effectively by order. He'd done a whole hour long cross-examination of Drew Ensign, the lawyer for the Department of Justice on that one. And he was just, I mean, I'm sure the order had been written finding the Trump administration in contempt. Except we went up to the DC Court of Appeals, two-to-one decision.

It affirms what Boasberg does. Now we're off at the United States Supreme Court. And they just issued their ruling, which pissed most people off. It's a per curiam, cowardly, unsigned. We know it's five to four. We know who the five are. It's Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joining the others. I'm sorry, six to three.

I said five to four. Well, wait a minute. Was it five? That one was five to four, I think. I think, yes, it was five to four, Amy Coney Barrett joining with the liberal wing, if you will, the Democratic wing of the Supreme Court. That one was five to four.

Why don't you pick up from the Supreme Court, and then we can tie that together with Abrego Garcia. if you will, the Democratic wing of the Supreme Court. That one was five to four. Why don't you pick up from the Supreme Court and then we can tie that together with Abrego Garcia. Yeah, I mean, you know, it's funny. I've noticed it's like girls versus boys on the Supreme Court. You know, that's where it seems to be breaking off a lot. You know, Mamie Coney Barrett siding with the women

in a lot of these five to four decisions. But so I'm just going to pick up on something you asked, which is habeas corpus. What's habeas corpus? And habeas corpus is essentially a legal order requiring a person or an institution holding someone in custody to produce that person before court to determine whether the detention is lawful.

And it's something that is used in my world a lot since I primarily practice criminal law. And that's what you bring is a habeas corpus petition. It's like the corpus, meaning the body, the physical body of the person that you bring before the court to say, is his detention or her detention lawful or unlawful? And what's happening here is this kind of, it's this procedural thing that's bubbling

up in the context of deportation. And the Supreme Court is essentially saying that anyone who wants to challenge these deportations has to do it one by one. They have to bring a habeas corpus petition in the location where the body is being held. So that's, for example, one of the things that they were criticizing the Judge Boasberg for

because he was in Washington, DC. They're saying, no, you have to bring this in Texas where the individual is physically being held. Now, why is that a big deal? It's a big deal for two reasons. Number one, because if you do this one, with the volume that they're going to be deporting people, there's no way without any process, right?

This is what they're doing. They're literally, normally you have due process. Normally these people get hearings and you get to have some kind of due process also afforded by the Constitution, by the way. That's a legal term that was located in the United States Constitution in the 14th Amendment, that people are required actually,

or they have a right to due process or process in the law. And what's happening is what they're doing is what Trump is doing is they're basically deporting first, ask questions later. It's much harder when you're sitting in a jail in El Salvador to bring a legal action so you don't have access to a lawyer. It's almost impossible.

That's one issue. The other issue is if you have to do it one by one, these are thousands of people. Court system will be crushed under the weight of thousands of petitions. So that's why why people are trying to bring these as groups. And the third issue with this is if it gets sent down to Texas where the body is being held Texas and the Fifth Circuit is known as one of the most conservative districts

who I think will likely vote in favor of Trump. Now all of these cases are all involving different people, and we're going to talk about Mr. Abrego Garcia, who is an administrative error, is what they're calling this unfortunate situation. But many of the other individuals are actually gang members, right? Some of the most violent gang members.

And, you know, I, look, I have to say as a career prosecutor and someone who was a prosecutor for many decades, the worst people I've ever encountered in my life are these violent gang members. I mean, if people are genuinely part of MS-13 and Trende Aduua, I don't know how they pronounce it, TDA, they are some of the most vicious, violent individuals that you'll ever meet in your life responsible

for the worst, most heinous crimes. And certainly, they should not be in this country. And I have no issue with removing them from this country or not allowing them to be here to begin with. But what I don't agree with is that they're not afforded any process. They, that they, and we shouldn't be afraid of giving them process.

It's not difficult to prove these things. It's not difficult to go through the proper procedures. And everybody's is, I think, is entitled to that. And as a democracy, I think we should all want that, even for the worst people, they should have process and trust the process that the process will work. When you don't give process, you have things like administrative errors,

which is what happened to Mr. Abrego Garcia, which I'll turn it over to you to talk about, Popak. Okay, great. No, I agree. And to be clear, Abreaco Garcia, based on the record, is not what you just described. He is a green card holding person, never accused of a crime, married to an American citizen

with a five-year-old child who they picked him up in front of the five-year-old child. He's checked in regularly with whoever he had to check in with, and he's had an order to prevent his removal, an amnesty-type order in his pocket since 2019. He hasn't committed a crime in El Salvador. He hasn't committed a crime in America.

The only crime he committed, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whereas the law firm, Quinn Emanuel, shout out to them, who took the case, said he is a case of one of one. There is no one like him, where the government has also confessed, although they're trying to scramble backwards on that, the government has originally confessed

because it was true that he should not have been removed to El Salvador, especially without due process. I mean, the record from the immigration process demonstrates that Abrego Garcia's family owns a successful business in El Salvador, that they were being shaken down by the MS-13 gang, that as part of the shakedown, they basically kidnapped Abrego Garcia

and forced him to be in the gang. He's not a leader of the gang, he was actually a pawn of their attempts to try to shake down his parents. And that led an immigration lawyer to order him never to be sent back to El Salvador. The Quinn Emmanuel firm did a good job, I thought, in briefing this to the United States Supreme Court,

including after their decision on what we just talked about, the J.G.G. case coming from Boasberg. And they said, well, this is interesting. A little known fact that gets lost in the reporting. Brega Garcia was not removed pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, as confessed by the government. He was removed under other powers of the presidency. There's a number of ways that a president can deport people

or a secretary of state can order their removal. He happened to have not been under the Alien Enemies Act. So their first position was, you're ruling on the Alien Enemies Act about due process, the Fifth Amendment, and all of that, where you basically let 250 people who are already in El Salvador rot there, does it apply to him? Because he's not part of the Alien Enemies Act.

Even if he was, if you distill the essence of your ruling, he needed Fifth Amendment due process and notice. He was not given it. And I like the cases that they, I read the brief that Quinn filed. I like the cases that they cited, because to refute the Trump administration's argument, the straw man argument, that oh, the position of Abrigo Garcia's lawyers is to try to make a federal judge

into the president of El Salvador or to usurp the power of a president to conduct foreign policy or delicate foreign relations and to, or it's outrageous and unprecedented to be ordered to return somebody who's been accidentally inadvertently sent in a Kafkaesque way to another country. And the reality of that is that's a lie. There's a series of cases, including in the Fourth Circuit, which covers Maryland where he lived up to the Supreme Court, that say that a federal judge certainly has the power to order the return from a foreign country, somebody who's been deported

in violation of our constitution or immigration law. In fact, they cite one case in particular, Karen, in which the person was removed and sent to El Salvador, happened to be the same country. And after he was already sent to El Salvador, a US immigration judge ruled that he should not have been sent to El Salvador and gave him the same type of protective amnesty order that Abrego Garcia got. and the judge was able and affirmed

on appeal to order the guy's return even though he, when he was sent, he was not subject to that order. Abrego Garcia is even better than that in terms of his facts. His facts are he had it, the government knew it, the government didn't care, and they threw him on the plane anyway. So we're going to have to see. I think they thread the needle well. The lawyers for a Braco Garcia, having gotten dealt that hand a day or so ago,

which they had to deal with. And now they're just fighting with the Supreme Court about whether they get another chance to answer some of the arguments, because the Trump administration is busy backpedaling about what Mr. Rouveni, their former lawyers, said in court and in filings because they don't like what he said. He said, oh, it's inconsistent with the position of the Trump administration. What, to lie?

I don't really understand. It was an order that he not be removed. It's a fact that he was removed over it or as one judge, Judge Thacker on the Fourth Circuit said, which was the intermediary court before this Supreme Court case, that's unconscionable, the position of the Department of Justice and the Trump administration. So we're going to see, it's going to come fast. And you and I are going to wake up in some world. It's either going to be the world where people like Abrego Garcia get due process and get notice and get their fifth

amendment rights vindicated and are ordered to return in order to do that. And again, he's not going to be released into the general population. All the family is trying to do is get him back to Texas, Maryland. He can sit in a detention center while his lawyers fight it out with the government about whether he is MS-13 or he's not MS-13 based on the facts that I just outlined, but he does it from here with lawyers here.

Maybe under a writ of habeas porpoise based on the ruling, maybe not, whatever, but he certainly doesn't sit, and I mean, in a jail where he could face certain death. I mean, and that's the world you and I are gonna have to explore with the United States Supreme Court. Anything else on Abrego Garcia for now, Karen? Yeah, I just didn't understand how...

I know that the Trump administration was saying they don't have the authority to order the return of somebody from El Salvador, they don't have jurisdiction, but aren't we paying... Is it our taxpayer dollars actually paying El Salvador to hold our prisoners? I thought we have an agreement with them, and I think that actually, sure, if Trump picked up the phone,

I think there probably wouldn't be an issue with bringing them back just like there's no issue with filling up the jails, right? One thousand percent. Here's what Abrego Garcia's lawyers said about that point. The government's impossibility argument does not fare well. Affairs know better.

The government contends that it's impossible to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return by the court imposed deadline. They then go through all the reasons, including the district court asking, why can't the United States get a Brego Garcia back? I don't understand. They're paying for him to be there. The president of El Salvador, Bukele, has said they're holding them at the at the whim of the United States, basically a delegated prison for the United States. We don't really understand.

So one, they lay out the case law that a federal judge is empowered within his jurisdiction to order the return of somebody, even from countries like El Salvador, particularly from El Salvador. And then they do quote the $6 million figure, which has all been admitted, in terms of their ability to pull that string.

There is no, to your point, there is nobody, other than the bullshit the Trump administration is peddling, that believes that Donald Trump couldn't order their ability to pull that straight. There is no, to your point, there is nobody, other than the bullshit the Trump administration is peddling, that believes that Donald Trump, or Marco Rubio, couldn't pick up the phone right now and get Abrego Garcia back. Nobody believes that. When Kristi Noem is out doing whatever she was doing

in front of those bare chested criminals in violation of the Geneva Convention with her little baseball cap, a little tight white shirt. She could have also been asking for a Briego-Garcia's return and threw him in the back of the plane she was on or in a transport plane. So let's see what the, but the Supreme Court has a novel way

of ignoring all of this. In the JGG decision, they ignored the entirety of the 250 people that are rotting in the prison. They were just like, well, the future should be by writ of habeas corpus. They should get notice. It's limited what you can do with the Alien Enemies Act, but you can argue about the constitutionality

through writ of habeas corpus in the place where they reside. What about the 250 people in El Salvador, no federal court, what about that? Oh, no No, we forget them. Ignore them. Ignore them. Ignore the record. This is the problem with the Supreme Court. Ignore those sticky, stubborn things called facts developed in the record and just create policy, just legislate, which is what they're doing before our very eyes in trying to help Donald Trump, right?

We got three wins for Donald Trump, all on technicalities. Let's turn to the one, let's, well, you know what? We're going to turn it, when we come back from another break, we're going to turn to the one about them overturning Judge Al'sop's decision in San Francisco to reinstate 16,000 probationary employees and how they did it is even more nefarious, even more unsavory. We'll talk about that and some other things related to immigration and the policies of Donald Trump. But first, we have another word from our sponsors. A perfect time before we go there. I know our producer's like, I'm ready to go, Popok.

Legal AF, the YouTube channel. Come on over to Legal AF, the YouTube channel. Hit that subscribe button. We are growing. We gained about 10,000 this week. That's all on you. I'm doing the content curating, but you're doing the watching, the enjoying,

the commenting, the reviewing, and the rest. And one of the things we need you to do is boom. I mean, we get 300, 400, 500,000. We had almost 2 million views of all the work there in 48 hours, but we don't have 2 million subscribers. So I want more subscribers. So let's take some time, if you will,

and help us grow that ProDemocracy channel. And now a word from our pro-democracy sponsors. If you're like me, you've noticed that getting older is full of little wake-up calls. You start seeing more hair in the drain, your part looks wider, and suddenly you're zooming in on old photos and wondering if your hair was always this thin.

And that's why I'm really loving what one's skin is doing. Their OS1 peptide has been transforming our skin hair at Legal AF for a while now. Now with their new scalp serum, OS1 Hair is here to help us with hair loss, thinning, and shedding, something that is near and dear to my heart for sure. OS1 hair is the first scalp serum powered by one skins OS1 peptide, which targets those aging cells called senescent cells. And it's scientifically proven to help your hair and your hair cells do what they're meant to do grow fuller denser healthier hair. So get to the root of hair loss and thinning with OS1 hair, you'll

save 15% off on your first purchase with legal af that code at oneskin.co. It's not.com, it's.co. I love it. Hair thinning is an issue that I have noticed and it is a great product that is a long time coming. So I'm thrilled to have it. I love using it along with one skins skin cream that also targets in essence cells and also helps me stay and look younger. So this was all founded by an all-woman led team of skin longevity scientists. OneSkin is redefining aging

with a proprietary OS1 peptide. So get 15% off with code LEGALAF at oneskin.co. That's 15% off oneskin.co with code legal AF. And after you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Thank you so much, Oneskin, for everything. Even if you think it's a bit overhyped,

AI is suddenly everywhere from self-driving cars to molecular medicine to business efficiency. If it's not in your industry yet, it's coming fast. But AI needs a lot of speed and computing power. So how do you compete without costs spiraling out of control? Time to upgrade to the next generation of the cloud. Oracle Cloud Infrastructure or OCI.

OCI is a blazing fast and secure platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, plus all your AI and machine learning workloads. OCI costs 50% less for compute and 80% less for networking. So you're saving a pile of money. Thousands of businesses have already upgraded to OCI, including Vodafone, Thomson Reuters, and Suno AI. Right now, Oracle is offering to cut your current cloud bill in half if you move to OCI for new US customers with a minimum financial commitment.

Offer ends March 31. See if your company qualifies for this special offer at oracle.com slash Legal AF. That's oracle.com slash Legal AF. That's oracle.com slash legal AF. Whoops, and we are back. Thank you for our pro-democracy sponsors. We got Vessi, we got Soul, we got One Skin, and we got Oracle.

God, I cut that one so long ago, it was in my old house. But we're back now. And thank you for all of them. All right, let's round out. Let's get into the homestretch of the show. You know, three wins for the Trump in all different ways. Al Sop, a judge in San Francisco, and Brednar, Bredar, sorry, a judge in Maryland, kind of back to back two weeks ago, entered preliminary

injunctions about rehiring all those Doge fired probationary under one year service workers in the federal workforce. They did it for different reasons. They kind of backed into the same place, but for different reasons. ALSOP said it was a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act because it was arbitrary and capricious because they fired people without notice and without warning and for no reason.

They said it was performance-based, but of course it couldn't be because they didn't review anybody's performance and they fired everybody, including people that had just gotten pats on the back like three weeks earlier or two weeks earlier. And so he put a stop to it and ordered their rehiring while he got to the bottom of the case.

At the same time, which was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, at the same, almost the same time, but for different reasons, Bredar issued it in favor of 19 states and about nine or 10 different agencies, including the Department of Defense. There was a lot of overlap between the two rulings and ordered the rehiring because he found it violated

federal law about a reduction in force. We call it a rift when a company, entity, or government starts firing people more than one. Like, you know, one person is a separation. You know, 10 people, five people, three people, thousand people, 10,000 people, that's a rift. That's a reduction in force. And there's rules in order to allow a people, 1,000 people, 10,000 people, that's a rift. That's a reduction in force. And there's rules in order to allow a people to be, you know, there's an act called the

WARN, W-A-R-N, act and acronym, about warning people to give them time to prepare so they're not thrown out onto the cold streets of the unemployment rolls without warning. Same for states because states run unemployment programs, not federal, and so they need to be ready for one, 10, 10,000, 100,000 people hitting their unemployment rules. So he found it for that. So he had these two going on at the same time. They both, one got appealed to the Ninth Circuit, ALSOP got affirmed.

The other one got appealed to the Fourth Circuit, we were waiting for a ruling. In the meantime, just to show the diagram here, the Alsop decision through the Ninth Circuit got its way to the United States Supreme Court. And they made a ruling about the preliminary injunction issued by Alsop, and then the Fourth Circuit made a ruling about Bredard's case,

all in the last 24 hours. Karen, why don't you take it from the Supreme Court? We'll make our, we'll bend our way back the Fourth Circuit. Yes, but look, the Supreme Court in an unsigned decision, it's six to three, basically gave, they ruled on technicality. They didn't really rule on the substance and said that the group that brought the case

does not have standing. And essentially saying that it was okay to fire the probationary workers because they did not have standing. And so they lifted this ruling that was supposed to rehire them and granted a stay pending appeal while they go down and brief this issue, right? So the two groups that sued, there was a not-for-profit group and a labor union group, and standing is one of those things that you have to show as a plaintiff, is that you have standing.

And there's several things when you bring an action that has nothing to do with the substance, like whether or not you're right or not, of an action if you're a plaintiff. You have to show, for example, that the court has jurisdiction over the matter. You have to show that there is venue that's in the right location.

And you have to show standing. And standing is essentially is there, it's. And standing is essentially, is there, it's the term that is used, is there a live case or controversy with an injury, with like a cognizable injury. And they said there was no standing here in this matter with the group that brought this case. And so sent it back down to review and interpret

the substance of the law. So this is, you know, this is a win for the Trump administration temporarily because they don't have to be rehired. And, you know, this is gonna wind its way back up there potentially, I think, but this is a temporary win for the Trump administration because they don't have to rehire them back. And it's just interesting to see how the Supreme Court

is ruling in these matters. But, Kovac, you're the employment expert, so I'd love to hear you kind of expand on this one in particular a little bit more. You know, you have a lot of incredible employment related Experience I'm only new to the employment litigation world But I so I'd love to I'd love for you to kind of do a little more of a deep dive on this for our

Audience because there's no one I can think of there's more of an expert in this area than you. Thank you very much Yeah, I'll see what I can do on this particular case I mean I was troubled by the ruling because I thought it was a weak exit ramp that they adopted in order on a technicality to avoid making a hard ruling and having a confrontation with the executive branch or Donald Trump.

The case will continue. The case will continue at the Ninth Circuit with a full appeal and with ALSOP with a fuller record, but with these people unemployed and not being paid in the interim. And there's two groups that are involved in that case. One is these public interest groups, some of which you know. I think Norm Eisen's group might be in there.

And the other is like the union, public interest groups, some of which you know. I think Norm Eisen's group may be in there. And the other is like the union, the American Federation of Employees and all that, the largest labor union that represents federal workers, and they certainly have cognizable injury to have quote unquote standing. And as you said, standing is a fundamental thing that judges will look at at the very beginning.

Jurisdiction, standing, and venue drive judges crazy. They'll use it as an excuse to stop a case, even if they find it very interesting, because they're trying to figure out whether there's a live case or controversy, and whether there's a live case or controversy in their courtroom or in their courthouse, as opposed to somewhere else.

And if somebody doesn't have standing, the fear is you're not the right party because you're not injured. And if somebody doesn't have standing, the fear is, you're not the right party because you're not injured. You're really seeking an advisory opinion, which we don't hand out. But I don't think that applied to the, of course, the union members who just got fired. But the judge, the Supreme Court said

that the preliminary injunction issued by ALCEF was not based on the union workers. It was based on the other group standing, which I think is not how they could have easily interpreted it as being there was a party with proper standing that would support the preliminary injunction. So I was sort of shocked that that's the route

that they took. The liberal wing was also shocked, because like, why are we deciding standing now? Let that issue be fully briefed below. In the meantime, keep the status quo and have the people keep their job. That's on the ALSOP side. And that's the same judge that we reported

thought that the Trump administration had lied to him in the courtroom and said it and put them on the horns, you know, put their feet to the fire early on in the case. Judge Bredar, who's now been overturned by the Fourth Circuit, who read the tea leaves with the Supreme Court, he went, I thought, in even a more, what's the word I'm looking for, defensible position, because it clearly violated the reduction in force law, because there was no warning. There was no appropriate time for the states to prepare for the people coming onto the voter rolls. And therefore, at least it should have been delayed,

which is what the injunction would have done. But the fourth two to one didn't see it that way. So now those people are going to have to take it up to the United States Supreme Court, who again, you know, I'd hate to see this this jurisprudence being developed, where Donald Trump just gets win after win after win at the United States Supreme Court, which is frankly, exactly what he wanted when he placed Amy Coney Barrett as the and and Kavanaugh on as the as the fifth and sixth vote. And and, but the federal courts are doing their job. I mean, the ones that are handling these cases,

I think their analysis is spot on. I think they're right. It's just the Supreme Court is just finding ways to reward the Trump administration's bad conduct. Not all the time. But he's three and one at the Supreme Court. The only one with John Roberts creating the five and ordered that $2 billion worth of US aid money be paid out to entities that had provided goods or services to USAID, you know, old debt.

But that was it. And ever since they got bashed, we haven't seen them side with Donald Trump since. And just to remind everybody, in order for the Democrats or the moderates or the free thinking people to win, we gotta run the table. We need to bat a thousand. We need both Amy Coding Barrett and John Robertson since we only have three natural votes in our favor

with Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor. We need, you got to count the five to have a winning hand at the Supreme Court. We need the other two. They, the MAGA, only need about 500. They only need one of the two, just Roberts or Amy Coney Barrett. And that's why it makes this effort so difficult. We said it, people listened, but not really. So many people sat the election out. It's what I say, sat democracy out and left us with a Supreme Court,

you know, and Donald Trump's ability to continue to submit. You think this six to three is bad? Wait till it's seven to two. Wait till the, something happens, unfortunately, on the Democratic side, and Donald Trump gets to pick one of them too. Then there were two generations away from making real change at the United States Supreme Court and you see how important it is.

Carol, what else is going on in the news or your life you want to talk to our audience about? We're at that point in the show. Yeah, exactly. I hear your dog barking in the background. I know. It's the live TV, everybody. Yeah, I know.

I see some of the comments are like, is that a pup dog in the background? Yeah, I know. I hear your dog barking in the background. I know. It's the live TV, everybody. Yeah, I know. I see some of the comments are like, is that Pupok's dog in the background? So what was your dog's name again? Lily? Lily.

Yeah, how I remember that, I don't know. Border Collie, Labrador, as I tell people with our move, everybody's thriving. My wife, my baby, and my dog are all thriving with the move. She's barking up short for a treat, or she needs to go out, or something like that. And you have Boogie? How's Boogie?

I do. Boogie's the best. Boogie's the best. We love Boogie. Boogie's the best. Billy is our other dog who escaped. She's a golden retriever. Oh, no. Somehow escaped our yard today, and some good Samaritan picked

her up, brought her to the vet. Luckily, she's chipped to the vet. That's smart. So smart microchipped and we got the phone call. So we're going to you know, we've had her for four or five years and nothing like this has ever happened before. So we'll figure it out.

But yeah, these dogs are they have your heart your whole heart. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. So there're good people in the world who will pick up, you know, and do something like that. And we got our back right away. Lily stands on the shoulders of two other rescue dogs that went about 14 years apiece. Lucy, Gabby, when you and I met, and Gabby passed,

and then Lily. But no, I mean, look, it's, you know, in this crazy upside down, it's, you know, in this crazy upside down topsy turvy world, it's, you know, great to have family and loved ones and furry friends and, you know. We could all use a lick on the face, right? Yeah, well, I can't wait to come down to Florida

and have dinner with you as well. So great, yeah. Well, there's so much better there than this time of year, than New York. So great, yeah. Well, there's so much better there than this time of year than New York. Dina and her husband were like, oh my God, we love it here. Oh my God, we love it here. And we'll see Dina, that's a good plug there.

Dina will be with me on Friday on unprecedented. I think we posted on Saturday about the United States Supreme Court over on Legal AF MTN. So we've reached the end of our show today, our midweek show, Karen Friedman, Nick Nifilo, and me, Michael Popok. Many ways to support us. Hit the free subscribe button at Midas Touch.

Hit the free subscribe button over on Legal AF MTN. Listen to us on a podcast. Midas Touch, number one podcast in the world, but a little known fact, same chart, Legal AF is in the world, but a little-known fact, same chart, Legal AF is in the top 10. I think we just cracked the top 10, we got past Tucker Carlson, same chart, we just don't talk about it as much.

But we're number 10 in the world because of you guys, and we really do appreciate every one of you and the loving support that we have in this particular audience. So listen to the audio, watch the video, get other people to do the same thing. We've got the Patreon, which is doing very well, patreon.com slash legal AF is another place to get some exclusive content. You can't find it other places, including ad free versions of what we're doing here. And that's it, man. That's the way you can vote where you are

until you get to the midterms and then you gotta vote. There's no two ways about it. So until Saturday, when Ben, myself, and me will be back for another edition of Legal AF and all the hot takes that we do here on the Midas Touch Network at Legal AF. It's Karen Friedman, Nick Niflo, Michael Popak. Shoutin' out to the Legal AFers and the Midas Mighty.