Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal AF Full Episode - 5/10/2025

Episode Date: May 11, 2025

Ben Meiselas & Michael Popok head the top rated Legal AF podcast and tonight address Trump's declaration of war against the 5th Amendment Due Process Rights and Writs of Habeas Corpus rights of all, and just how close are we to Trump declaring martial law; the outsized role of Trump's senior advisor Stephen Miller who is not a lawyer, but plays one in the White House, federal courts latest moves to protect democracy in a series of losses for Trump this week, the United States Supreme Court acting out against Trump, and an overview of the upcoming oral argument, the last of the term, on birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Support our Sponsors: Delete Me: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join https://deleteme.com/LEGALAF and use promo code LEGALAF at checkout. 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! Rocket Money: Let Rocket Money reach your financial goals faster by going to https://rocketmoney.com/legalaf Miracle Made: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. Subscribe to the NEW Legal AF Substack: https://substack.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

Breaking news coming in from Bet365, where every nail-biting overtime win, breakaway, pick six, three-point shot, underdog win, buzzer beater, shootout, walk-off, and absolutely every play in between is amazing. From football to basketball and hockey to baseball, whatever the moment, it's never ordinary at Bet365. Must be 19 or older, Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you or someone you know has concerns about gambling, visit connexontario.ca.

Why do fintechs like Float choose Visa? As a more trusted, more secure payments network, Visa provides scale, expertise, and innovative payment solutions. Learn more at visa.ca slash fintech. 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. Let's just get to the heart of the matter. It's the suspension of habeas corpus. It's the destruction of the Constitution that the Trump regime is after. I think that maybe they thought that they were going to just bulldoze over the Constitution and all of the federal courts were going to embrace them, Michael Popak, the way the MAGA Republicans in the House

Bentheny, but now as you're having federal judge after federal judge, whether it's a Trump appointed federal judge a Reagan appointed federal judge George W Bush appointed and yes Obama Biden and Clinton But right now there is this federal judge wall when it comes to the issue of Trump violating due process. We've got some lousy federal court decisions on some other areas. We've got some good federal court decisions on some other areas. But when it comes to Donald Trump's view that he doesn't have to follow due process, we're seeing, no matter if it's a Trump judge, Obama, Biden, they're all saying the same thing.

We've been reporting on that on the Legal AF YouTube channel and the Midas Touch YouTube channel across the other various channels on our networks. So what's the Trump regime doing right here? It's why I don't want to even do a big long lead in and talk about all these other topics, but we'll get to other areas as well. Stephen Miller said it out loud. I don't want to bury the lead in this episode, right?

Stephen Miller, Trump's top advisor, who's not a lawyer. I want to repeat that again, not a lawyer. The same way Jim Jordan, MAGA Republican Congress member who leads the Judiciary Committee, he at least went to law school, not a licensed lawyer, didn't pass the bar exam. But you have these non-lawyers who are basically saying we don't need to follow the Constitution. And Stephen Miller, we know, is the guy who's been telling Donald Trump falsely that the Supreme Court ruled nine to zero, that Trump won the case involving Abrego Garcia,

that he doesn't have to facilitate the return. Stephen Miller's probably the most influential person in the Trump regime right now over Donald Trump's authoritarian impulses. And here's what Stephen Miller said at the end of last week. So let's just get to the heart of it, Michael Popock. Here, let's play this clip. That happens.

Well, the Constitution is clear. And that, of course, is the supreme law of the land that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So I would say that's an option we're actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not. I want everybody to listen to what he said very carefully there before I pass it off to Michael Popak.

That was a threat. That was a gangster shakedown of the Supreme Court. If you break down each of the words that Stephen Miller said there, right, first he said like, it's very clear that, well, actually, you're misrepresenting. It's very clear that you have to follow the Constitution. That's what's clear. Not that you can just suspend habeas corpus whenever you want. I mean, absolutely not. Then the threat was basically, we hope the court to do the right thing, that's a threat to the Supreme Court.

It's very clear. Basically, we will start sending tanks in DC. We will start using the military against American citizens, and we will declare martial law, and we will start doing these things if you don't rule in favor of us, if you make us look bad in these rulings. So be careful what you do. Now, he didn't use all those words that I just said, but I've spoken now to a lot of constitutional scholars who we have on the Legal AF channel and our channel.

Here, they all say the same thing. So Popak, I know we're gonna talk about what happened in Judge Bozberg's court involving the class action where Bozberg wants to have discovery regarding, you know, what's going on in El Salvador. We're gonna talk about Judge Zinnis, of course, you know, what's going on there

where the Trump regime invoked the state secrets doctrine. Southern District of Texas, Trump appointed judge, you know, ruling the Alien Enemies Act unlawful. Judge Hellerstein, Southern District of New York, Clinton appointee, Alien Enemies Act unlawful. Judge in Colorado, judge in Maryland. They're all, but at the heart of it is this issue, right, Pope? It's due process. And we're here, I think, sooner than many people expected that this is the showdown. We're here. When we last saw Donald Trump in the White House before this first 110 days, we know towards the

end he was considering the suspension of the Constitution, the declaration of martial law, the seizing of voting equipment. They had an executive order already drafted. It's part of the evidence in the Jan 6th and the interference case against Donald Trump and in the Jan 6th committee's report that was being pushed the time by Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and Patrick Byrne from Overstock.com and others. So Donald Trump has an allergy, an allergic reaction to the Constitution

and his requirements. So when he doesn't like what it says, he ignores it. When he doesn't like what the Supreme Court says, he either ignores it or he twists their words out of all recognition. He carries around a very strange version of the Constitution in his back pocket. It only has two provisions. It's got Article II, which is the power of the presidency and the Second Amendment. Everything else is cut out

like one of these paper doll things. And that's, and when you combine that with having people, and I agree with you, Stephen Miller, and I've been calling it out, you've been calling it out since the administration started, Stephen Miller has become the only one apparently, according to other reporting, that has walk-in rights, meaning he can barge into the White House, the Oval Office, anytime he wants, and sit down with the President. He's the last word, literally.

He stays in the room until everybody has left. He's Donald Trump's Svengali. He's the last word, literally. He stays in the room until everybody has left. He's Donald Trump's Svengali. He's the puppet master. It's not Elon Musk as the domestic policy president or even foreign policy president. It is Stephen Miller as Donald Trump's brain at this point. He's not a lawyer, although he was the architect for the original depraved immigration policy.

The first time around in the first administration, the reason kids were separated from their parents and put in cages, see Stephen Miller. Stephen Miller is also the architect of the whole use of the Alien Enemies Act, again a non-lawyer, playing one on TV or playing one in the White House. He's the reason that the Alien Enemies Act was invoked. He's the reason that Donald Trump came up with the phony proclamation that we are at war with Venezuela and we have enemy combatants in our midst in the form of Trendy Aragwa. That's all a lie. It's been blown open as a lie in various things that you and I have learned and shared with our audience the last two weeks, including

internal memos from the intelligence community of Donald Trump, which says that's a lie. And then you have what we always fear. You and I actually talked about it three weeks ago. I said at one point where, and I said it in a hot take about a week ago, that we are dangerously close to Donald Trump declaring the suspension of the constitution and declaring martial law. And he's effectively done that. This is not even a slippery slope, because there's no slope between what Stephen Miller just did,

just blithely in the in the gravel driveway of the White House to reporters and announcing that they're considering suspending the quote-unquote privilege of writ of habeas corpus. That is a, it's actually a requirement, even though the word privilege was used, that's really an old timey way of saying it's a due process right of people as the Supreme Court has interpreted. We're gonna suspend it.

Now the only way you could ever suspend it, and it's only been suspended four times in our history and always during a time of war. And that is if the, you you are if we have an invasion back to predatory invasion or a war like event going on so we have to get rid of the niceties of our constitutional due process habeas corpus for those who I don't want just use these terms of art without explaining the rid of habeas corpus is the very foundation of everything that is right in our Constitution about due

process rights and the right of somebody to be taken before a federal judge and not left to rot in a dank dark prison like the Count of Monte Cristo or like a Brega Garcia in a gulag overseas. The reason we keep talking in all these cases about due process and notice about writs of habeas corpus, which is the way that the Supreme Court in their six to three decision in related to, sorry, in their six to three decision in the JGG case, as they ruled, they said,

you wanna send people to a gulag? You can do whatever you want after you give them due process through a writ of habeas corpus and get that person before a federal judge. And then that federal judge can make a decision whether the Alien Enemies Act has been properly invoked and whether due process has been properly given to this particular person.

They don't wanna hear that. They didn't hear it and they don't wanna hear it. And so Stephen Miller saying, here's an idea. We'll just be consistent and press a losing hand. The losing hand that they're pressing is that they don't have to give constitutional due process, and they can summarily remove and deport people,

and that could be you and me and everybody else to prisons if they quote unquote have a predatory invasion or incursion or warlike event, and they can also, that's the losing hand, they can also suspend the writ of habeas corpus. And this, I have to tell you, even that staggering comment must have put a chill down the spine of many members of the United States Supreme Court, not even, not just the moderates or the liberals on the court, including somebody like, like Chief Justice Roberts. Because to say that we're going to trump up a wag the dog moment and create a phony war

in order to do things like roll up the Constitution and put it away for a period of time. And so that's why I said, I bet it's not a slippery slope. Slippery slope implies we got to go a certain distance to get to that. We are here, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that they're even considering that, that means the attorneys general, the ACLU's, the public interest groups, the mightest mighty, the legal a-oppers, we got to be ready to file in court at the appropriate

moment, haven't drafted already the lawsuit and the injunction to stop the suspension of our Constitution and the removal of the injunction to stop the suspension of our constitution and the removal of the writ of habeas corpus right. I never thought in my lifetime in anyone's lifetime that we'd ever be talking about that. This is not the civil war. This is not world war II. This is not the Philippines. This is, this is 2025 America, a democracy. The only thing that happened in November that should have changed our that that should have changed is who's occupying the White House. Not the very government and the bedrock of our constitutional republic.

So we're seeing Supreme Court justices at various events now vocalizing these things, right? I mean, we've seen, and it's mostly the liberal members, right? We've saw two weeks ago, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson at an event in Puerto Rico, Justice Sotomayor spoke this past week of all places at an American Bar Association event, which I thought was notable as well, because Donald Trump has banned Department of Justice lawyers

from acknowledging the existence of the American Bar Association, which they've labeled a bad actor, a leftist, radical liberal group, the American Bar Association, which is anything but that, that helps promulgate ethics rules, and, you know, has always been viewed as bipartisan as a grant never been viewed as a political thing at all. Simply is an organization that stands for due process. And then they have subject matter areas of expertise.

Anyway, just as so tomorrow was speaking at the American Bar Association and she had a message basically to lawyers like you can capitulate right now and if you're weak like you can capitulate right now, and if you're weak and you can't handle this, don't become lawyers. We need courageous lawyers, not weak lawyers. And then she talked about the threat that was taking place. And then you also had Chief Justice Roberts

speaking in Buffalo where he mentioned as well, you know, and he said it kind of in this very sheepish way that also like, well, you know, I think well, you know, and he said it kind of in this very sheepish way, though also like, well, you know, I think that, you know, when it comes to, you know, when it comes to challenges to judges, it shouldn't be impeachment, you know, you come through that you go through the process. It was like, maybe a little bit of a stronger defense right there. Right now, Justice Roberts, but you know, it's still jarring, I guess, that he's even saying anything publicly, because you don't really hear Supreme Court justices having, you know, addressing issues, you know, right now, while they're not, while

unless they're actually on the bench. Can I just say one thing on your Roberts thing? Mm-hmm. He said, you know, we were all waiting for him to say something. He said, there are some excesses and abuses that the court can weigh in on. I'm like, what are you effing talking about? He created, you and I called it,

he created this Frankenstein monster, and he's been complaining about it since January, even before Donald Trump took office, about the abuse on the judiciary in his State of the Judiciary address on January 1, you did hot takes on it, I did hot takes on it. And so, but he released the crack in. He created an unstoppable, unless the federal courts, you know, don't do their job, which they are, thank God,

in the courts that they've been filed in. But he alone is the author, it's not just the Roberts court. He wrote the Colorado insurrectionist barring them from the ballot decision in which they said, we're not gonna bar Donald Trump as an insurrectionist from a ballot. That wasn't just a majority decision. That was written by Roberts.

He wrote the immunity decision. He assigned the other major decisions that empowered Donald Trump. He assigned to somebody else. So this is on him. And for him to sit there in his little suit and tie was really galling to me. To talk about, as you said,

the cheetah's eating your face, or Frankenstein's ravaging the countryside. Yeah, you created Frankenstein. And now we're trying to figure out, to mix metaphors, how to shove him back in a bottle. Let me just show people the way he sounded, just so everybody can see like what I thought was just extra weak here.

I think we've got this clip, let's play it. What do you think of these calls for impeachment of judges based on the decisions that they've made? Well, I've already spoken to that. And you know, impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions. That's what you're for, right? That's what you're there for. That's what you're for, right? That's what you're there for.

That's what we're there for. Yeah. Because I want you to contrast that with Congressmember Menendez Jr., who was in Newark when Mayor Baraka was arrested by, maybe it was ICE, it was probably more likely these private prison officials who are contracted out by ICE from the GEO group, arresting mayors from the city who are there in their official capacity as a mayor. The mayor has the right to say, why are you opening up detention centers in my city? Let me take a look at it. I'm the mayor of this, I'm the mayor of this city. I want to make sure you're not torturing people, that there's compliance with health codes.

I'm the mayor of the city. He shows up, they arrest him. And on the one hand, you have Justice Roberts, well, I just think that maybe we should do this. And then contrast it to what went down when you had private security guards, you know, and I've seen some people saying, how do we know that these people aren't even like the, you know, the same people who were there on January 6th? Like, how do you know these aren't

the proud ones? Who are these, you know, who are these people, like beating up assaulting like beating up, assaulting members of Congress and arresting a mayor from Newark. And then, so contrast what Robert said, here's Menendez Jr. Let's play it. Along with three members of Congress, it was an act of intimidation. It was an act of intimidation, not just to the mayor, not just to us, but to everyone watching.

We know what ICE has been doing in our communities. We know that the president lied, and this administration lies every day when they're saying they're going after criminals. It is not true. They feel no weight of the law. They feel no restraint on what they should be doing. And that was shown in broad daylight today

when they not just arrested the mayor of Newark, but when they put their hands on two members of Congress who are standing behind me. How is this acceptable to anyone in this country? How is this acceptable? And that's an Alina Haba special, because she is the acting interim US attorney for New Jersey. And she said she's gonna go after political rivals

of Donald Trump. The mayor of Newark has long been touted as a potential presidential candidate. And he was just dealing with the other Congress people were doing, which was shining a light on these ice detentions in their community. And as you said, either some rent a cop or somebody else arrested them.

And I give a lot of credit to Menendez. He comes through, it's a very difficult place from the being because, you know, he's got his father who was going to jail and 17 years for a bribery scandal, who talked about the weaponization of the Department of Justice. But you see it, there's just this complete,

utter authentic passion with Menendez Jr. about this particular issue. You can see he was raw in the moment, but you know, with Menendez Jr. about this particular issue. You can see he was raw in the moment, but that's what we need. We need to bring it now. Yeah, so everybody sees the escalation, right? I mean, what was it, three weeks ago, we were reporting on the judge in Wisconsin,

state court judge, it was a Milwaukee circuit court judge. Yeah, Panna Dugan. Yeah, who was arrested inside of her courtroom. Again, that's something that's, she's a judge who presides over criminal cases, administering justice who was arrested in her courtroom. And Perp walked, and Perp walked with a photo with the FBI. When the feds could easily have arrested this guy right outside the courthouse if they wanted

to in the hallway, if they wanted to on the elevator, they want to set up for these moments of escalation to create protectual grounds. They feast off of the Abrego Garcia. Just like they they want those decisions to, I think, further try to beat us down. We the people and get to that point where they suspend, you know, habeas corpus. So you go from Wisconsin. You have to view these all in context. Wisconsin. Then you go to Newark, they open

up this Delaney Hall, and they're doing this in lots of communities. This flare up in Newark, we're seeing it happen in areas in Massachusetts, we're seeing it happen around the country. They will arrest a mother holding their baby, they will arrest a 16 year old girl, they'll pull over. It was a terrific story of a college student in Georgia who didn't have her citizenship papers. She was pulled over for like speeding, got a simple ticket, thrown in a detention center for months. No one like knows where. So you have all of these touch points.

Then the members of Congress. Can I ask you a question politically? Put on your political hat for a minute. I wanna ask you something seriously. As a political strategist and a person who's keen, a tune to these issues, you're in the White House. And we already know there's new reporting that there's people in the White House that feel like,

it's like the Stockholm Syndrome. They feel like we're watching, Salon has an article about insiders to the Trump administration believing they're watching open and blatant criminality But they don't know how to get out of it out of the administration enough. So let's put that aside for a minute You're you're you're watching the polls 39 percent 40 percent people wanting him impeached if he disobeys the Supreme Court does the things he's doing

Acting out with a brego Garcia, does the arrest. This is losing him support. Why? How does he continue to do this? And why? What is the end game? Polling politically. You know, I think that the, the base, that core, you don't want to lose your 34 to 35% magas. And they like this. Like I think that I think that unfortunately, that there may whether people want to admit it or not in the polling, why he'll stay always at that 34 to 35% number. You notice on the economy, he's in the 20s. But you know, on immigration, the economy, he's in the 20s. But you know, on immigration, he's still underwater, but yeah, 4547. And that's how you kind of get at that, you know, that approval rating somewhere between 35 and 39%, which is historically low. But see, you

know, to me, he he needs the adulation of the 35%. He can't lose that in his own mind. And they like it, and the sad part is, is that there may be your neighbor. It's not like the Civil War, where there was like these states, the South and the North and this thing, right? Right now, it could be your neighbor. It could be the person who you think is a great, Right now, it could be your neighbor, it could be the person who you think is a great, you may like this person, but then it turns out that they actually love the torture and the cruelty part. And you're like, oh my God, wait a minute,

I never knew that about you because you love knitting or whatever, you love this hobby. And wait a minute, you also like, so I think that there's a lot of Americans who like this, who who want to see people suffer, who like the torture, I think they're so miserable in their lives that they want this. And there's no other way for me to reckon, you know, I hate to admit to that. But when you go through your logic tree, you have to admit that that Trump supporters like this stuff. And I don't want to get that morbid on this because why, but I think that they would go further. I mean, you know, human nature. When you go back and look at the way humans behaved historically, It's an enlightened philosophy with French philosophers, leading to, you know, from the Declaration of Independence to enlightened ideas coming into our Constitution. You know, this stuff really emerged, right? Late 17th century, 18th century

late 17th century, 18th century thought. And we had to create checks and balances on human animalistic nature. And I don't, you know, to get coarse, to try to stop certain things that we knew were innate in humans that had led to suffering in medieval times and before them. That's why we were a shining example. So it's sad to see that

getting kind of ripped apart, which is why when I talk about politics, I try to bring it back to basic humanity and like reminding ourselves of empathy and love and the importance of law, to me, is upholding a civilized society and not one that shocks the conscious. We have a lot to discuss. Let's take our first quick break of the show. When we come back, we'll talk about the, we should talk about, we'll get into some cases, Zinnis and Boasberg's, you know,

there was a great grilling by Boasberg of the Trump DOJ lawyer. In Zinnis, Trump invoked the state secrets doctrine now so that they don't, that's how they're addressing the discovery issue, state secrets. They don't wanna turn over any discovery at all. So they're going back into state secrets, classified information, we're in a war,

we're not gonna share any information with you, judge. And then we gotta talk about the Supreme Court, this big oral arguments this talk about the Supreme Court, this big oral arguments this week in the Supreme Court. May 15th is when the birthright citizenship case goes before the Supreme Court. Everybody subscribe to Michael Popak's YouTube channel, the Legal AF YouTube channel, it's crushing it.

Make sure you subscribe, on its way to one million subscribers, so it'll be, make sure you subscribe on its way to 1 million subscribers. So it'll be a Make sure you subscribe there also popok Put your law firm is doing incredible if people have catastrophic injuries Whether it's car accidents trucking accidents, you know people who are involved in like a wrongful death situation or sex harassment or sex assault Popok where can they reach out? Yeah easy, you got a 1-800 number and a website, sorry, 1-800 number is 1-877-PO-POK-A-F, I made it easy. And then we got the website, which is www.thepopokfirm.com.

Let's take our first quick break of the show, we've got a lot to discuss when we come back. The weather, it's heating up and your nighttime bedroom temperature has a huge impact on your sleep quality. If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend you check out Miracle Maid's bed sheets. Miracle Maid sheets are inspired by NASA and use silver infused fabrics that are temperature regulating so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long.

Using silver infused fabrics inspired by NASA, Miracle Mate Sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long, no matter the weather. So you get better sleep every night. Miracle Sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands and feel as nice, if not nicer nicer than sheets used by some five-star

hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with Miracle. Upgrade your sleep as the weather heats up. Go to trymiracle.com legal AF to try Miracle made sheets today. And whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today, you can save over 40%. And if you use our promo Legal AF at checkout, you'll get a free three piece towel set and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product. It's backed with a 30 money-back guarantee. So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made. Go to trymiracle.com

slash Legal AF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your free three-piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's trymiracle.com slash Legal AF to treat yourself. Thank you Miracle Made for sponsoring this episode. Delete Me makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable.

Look, as someone with an active online presence, to say the least, privacy is more important to me than ever. My name, address, even information about my family ends up on dozens of data broker sites without my consent. That's not just annoying, it's dangerous. It's easier than ever for bad actors to get that info and use it to harass people, especially those of us who speak out, report the truth,

or just post an online opinion. That's why I signed up for Delete Me. With Delete Me, you can protect your personal privacy or your business from doxing attacks before your information can be exploited. They'll go to work removing your data from hundreds of data broker websites. Take control of your data

and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners, private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners, get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeleteeme.com slash Legal AF and use promo code Legal AF at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindeleteeme.com slash Legal AF and enter code Legal AF. One more time, that's joindeleteeme.com slash legal AF and enter code legal AF one more time. That's join delete me.com slash legal AF code legal AF. Welcome back to legal AF. Ben myself is here with Michael Popock. By the way, if you're wondering where I am, this week is the Webby Awards and the

Midas Touch podcast won the Webby podcast of the year. So that award ceremony is on Monday. So we are here, we are here for that. Thank you all to the Legal IAFers and the Midas Mighty for making this show successful because without you it would be impossible. All right, I wanna get into these cases. I wanna talk about Boesberg and Zinnis, Judge Boasberg, Judge Zinnis Boasberg is in DC. Zinnis is in Maryland. Let's talk about those. Then we should talk about, there was that ruling from the federal

judge in San Francisco as it relates to 20 agencies blocking the Doge cuts again in 20 agencies. That was a big ruling this week. And then let's talk about the Supreme Court. But why don't you talk about Zinnis and Boasberg first, Michael Boko. Yeah, happy to. Thank you, Ben. And congratulations to the brothers and to the Midas Touch and to the Midas Mighty for rocketing that podcast to the top. It's a two-fold thing, right?

It's the content and having become go-to podcasting for politicians and people, even at the intersection of law and politics is one, but then it's just that the audience's support of it and taking it to their heart is the other. And I'm so glad you've been recognized by this award. And so let me turn now to Bozberg and Zinnis. Sounds like a law firm somewhere.

And they all, both these things that were going on in their courtrooms all come out of the same place. A tremendous epic losing streak by the Trump administration led by Stephen Miller and Donald Trump and Pam Bondi and the rest in the area of immigration removal deportation. And it's just epic. There's no silver lining to it. It's just one after another. Sometimes on the same day, federal judges are ruling almost in unison but in separate courthouses and courtrooms and states that Donald Trump has not provided notice in due process,

has not abided by the requirements of the writ of habeas corpus, has violated his statutory duties under the Alien Enemies Act, has improperly invoked the Alien Enemies Act, has improperly invoked the Alien Enemies Act because there's no predatory incursion. And that's going on as you've outlined now, in a half a dozen courts,

including three over a 72 hour period last week in Texas, Colorado, and in New York, which is the exact thing that the Supreme, that's the exact path the Supreme Court set us on when Donald Trump was busy celebrating a case that he won that we're gonna talk about next in Judge Boasberg's courtroom that we call JGG, those are initials to anonymize and protect these Venezuelans who have been deported or about to be deported to El Salvador without due process. That JGG case, the six to three case,

that had Donald Trump and Stephen Miller and others popping champagne corks. And it was nothing. It was a Pyrrhic victory at best. It was a procedural victory about process, not about the substantive ability or the right of Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act as an emergency power It's not about the substantive ability or the right of Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act as an emergency power to deport without due process.

That's how they interpreted it, but that's not how everybody else interpreted it, including the Supreme Court and judges like Boasberg and Zinnis. So we have the spawn, the progeny coming out of the JGG case as cited by every one of these other federal judges I just talked about. And if there was any ambiguity about where the Supreme Court stood in the JGG case,

which was you got to have Ritz of habeas corpus. You got to have federal judges involved. You got to do it while they're in the United States. You got to give them notice, and you can challenge the Alien Enemies Act before each individual judge. That's the thing, Ben, when we talked last week about the other shocking, staggering moment, which I never thought would be topped, which was Donald Trump telling Kristen Welker, I don't know, due process. Do I have to give due process to everybody? Is that, I have good brilliant lawyers, maybe, do I? I don't know, seems like a lot.

Seems like that'd be too many things to do. I don't wanna do that. And Kristen Walker's like, are you effing, I mean, she didn't say it, but she was certainly thinking, are you mad? And then Stephen Miller topped it. It was like, how do I out crazy, crazy? I got it, we'll suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

I'm like, but we can't ignore it. I mean, we can't get Trump fatigue and we can't ignore what they're clearly saying out loud. They have a very good habit of doing exactly what they say they're going to do with the Trump administration. They're very good that way. We're gonna play, we're gonna run the playbook from project 2025 page by page.

They are doing that. Whatever they said on the campaign trail alien enemies act we're doing it a writ of habeas corpus we're looking into it uh america for americans only steven miller special yeah we're doing it so you got that going on then you have two more if the ambiguity was not it was somehow lost on the Trump administration, two more Supreme Court decisions in a row should have solved that problem for them. Nine, zero, supporting Judge Zinnis, saying that she's doing everything right

to rule that due process, this common theme today, due process is the driver, and you are protecting due process rights of Abrego Garcia and others by ordering him, I'm sorry, ordering the Trump administration to facilitate his release from an El Salvadoran jail without due process. Keep it up, good work, you do you.

They had one little line in there about, just be careful about effectuate, because maybe you get into the area of foreign affairs, and then you got the Supreme Commander problem with Article II and the presidency, and that's all Stephen Miller heard. Whoa, we won 9-0, and you lost 9-0. But you see Stephen Miller, even in a pitch and catch with Donald Trump in the Oval Office, Stephen, Stephen, what did we do in that Supreme Court case?

Literally, Stephen Miller said out loud, we won. You didn't win, and nobody thinks you won, you won including federal judges and the Supreme Court. So you got the nine zero and then you got the seven to two which popped out at one o'clock in the morning a month ago. When does the talk about, we're talking about so many firsts judges speaking out of turn, speaking out of school during the term of the Supreme Court at conferences

where they're obviously talking about the Trump and Trump administration. Well, you know, Roberts, as he alluded to in his interview, issuing a statement from his perch as the head of the judiciary to the head of the executive branch, like pump the brakes on going after impeaching judges. And now you've got this other first, which is 1 a.m., we're not trying to commute a sentence,

you know, like the governor calling to stop somebody from getting the death penalty. They felt they had to get that thing out that day, seven to two, in which they said, ground the planes. Stop flying planes. This is why we don't talk about flying planes to El Salvador or anywhere else right now, because of that ruling.

So that is the body of work. And now the federal judges, which Boesberg and Zinnis have observed and mentioned in their courtrooms, like Hellerstein, Rodriguez, Sweeney, Trump, Biden, I mean, it's like everything runs the political spectrum have now done what the Supreme Court anticipated that they would do,

declare that the use of the Alien Enemies Act was unconstitutional and illegal and statutory violation and ultra-various by Donald Trump. So he's got that all losing streak and that all ended up in the courtroom of Judge Boesberg. Now, why are we still talking about Boesberg? Because some of you might be saying, isn't that the JGG case you just said

that he didn't have, you know, the court said, you don't really have jurisdiction in DC. We got to place this in individual courts, wherever the prisoner is for habeas corpus. Yes, except there's that other 250 people who are Venezuelans that were sent to El Salvador, who were not named to Brego Garcia. And if you take the natural good faith interpretation

of all those Supreme Court cases, they're entitled to due process too. And you can't give them due process while they've already been secreted away and hidden in a prison at CICOT. And so the question for Boasberg is, should he certify that class? And does he have jurisdiction?

Particularly the issue of joint custody is driving his decision making. Does El Salvador and the United issue of joint custody is driving his decision making. Does El Salvador and the United States have joint custody over the operation of that jail? So, Boasberg starts grilling this sock puppet, this piñata that the Department of Justice rolled out as their latest lawyer to argue with Judge Boesberg. They're hiding Drew Ensign because he did terribly. I don't even know where Drew Ensign is these days.

They tried it out this other person and the judge says, who's a skilled prosecutor, he says, all right, well, I've been watching TV. I've seen statements made by President Trump in which he said he could pick up the phone and make a phone call and get him back. Is that true? Was he telling the truth? Well, that was taken out of context and that was a political, that was really him indicating

what he feels about his powers of persuasion. So the judge cut him off and said, so that was a lie, that he doesn't have that. Because he told Kristen Welker and he told Terry Moran in interviews and that terrible, whoever let Donald Trump go out for his 100 days interviews with all, they should be fired for professional malpractice because he was terrible.

Great for us, terrible for America. But he did say to Terry Moran, Terry Moran said, there's a phone on your desk. Bukele's got a phone in El Salvador, pick up the phone, buck stops with you. Well, I could Terry, but he is a terrible person and I won't do it. So I said, was he lying or telling the truth?

Well, he said, let's talk about Christy Noem, your Homeland Security Director. She went down to Seekot and stood there. I've seen the clip, Boasberg said, and she said that by putting these Venezuelans in an El Salvadoran prison, it was a tool in the US's toolbox. Doesn't tool and toolkit or whatever it was, doesn't that imply control and custody, joint custody? Wow, that's a, I'm not gonna parse words. Okay, let me get word to advocates in front of a federal judge.

You are there to parse words. I'm not gonna, you know, that's our political view and you know, it's not as nuanced, doesn't mean legal custody in the judge cutoff office. Okay, so here's what we're gonna do since I can't get a straight answer out of you. This is now losing patience 101 by Judge Boesberg. Remember, this is the same judge,

and I say remember, that's just a rhetorical flourish. If you don't remember, let me tell you. This is the same judge that three weeks ago found probable cause that the Trump administration was in criminal contempt for their failure to return the planes or fly the planes over his order down there. Now that got suspended for a moment,

at least for now, by a court of appeal. But you can't undo that. I can't unsee that order. And so that's the same judge. And so he said, all right, okay. We're gonna do some discovery. Okay, I'm gonna get to the bottom of this. I want sworn statements under oath

about the relationship between the United States and El Salvador. I wanna see the receipts. I wanna know what the money was paid for. I wanna know where it went. I wanna see the contract. I wanna see whatever it is that tethers the United States to that jail.

And I want it by this date. And, you know, they can say what they want about this middle of the road judge, it's very highly respected, leftist, Marxist, whatever these ridiculous, same phrases they were throwing around against Pope Leo, by the way. They love the Marxist activist, whatever, phraseology. That'd be a badge of honor if they called me that, frankly.

But anyway, with Boasberg, he's gonna get to the bottom of this. Now, the question he's trying to figure out, not contempt this time, is whether he has jurisdiction in order to order the Trump administration to do what Zinnis ordered him to do, which is to get those 250 back. But he's trying to figure out what the strings are that the Trump administration has retained and they could pull to bring it back.

Because nobody believes in our audience, you and me, that they just dump people off without getting a receipt, and they don't know how to get them back. And when they ask the lawyer with Boasberg, what was the money for? What was the 6 million for? Well, it was a grant, and they could use the grant over here, but it's not directly to house the prisoners,

but it would support, like, all right, enough, enough. So we're gonna see what gets filed if the state secrets privilege gets invoked again, because it was invoked last time in front of Boesberg's court. And he was like, I don't think you have state secrets here. So there was a briefing that got delayed there,

which will come back, because you know they're gonna assert the state secret privilege again. Then we jump over down the street to Maryland, where Judge Zinnis, you know, times up on discovery, you got two things going on in the Zinnis courtroom. You got the press, including us, getting pissed off with how many sealed

and redacted filings are getting made in the case that we can't figure out what's going on. One of the reasons we have difficulty in reporting, it's not because we're not there, it's because we can't read anything. We're getting these blackouts, you know, like you and I were speculating two weeks ago

as to why she put a hold on Discovery for a week, because she read something in two sealed filings we couldn't read that said, all right, my gut is the Trump administration said they were working on diplomatic channels to get back Abrigo Garcia, and they didn't need the court kind of in public looking at it. And they were, all right, I'll give you a week. That failed. And another sealed filing, another sealed filing.

And so 16 or 14 news agencies has filed a motion to intervene to get the docket unsealed. And she set a briefing schedule on that for May. And then buried in that same order was a reference to a sealed document that we didn't know what it said, but she revealed it was the Trump administration trying to invoke the state secrets privilege to go tell her to, how do I put this nicely, to go tell her to go F herself

and pound sand that they were never going to tell her what they're really doing, if anything, to bring back Abrego Garcia despite the Supreme Court decision. And it all comes back to Stephen Miller and the lawlessness on display that we started off this podcast with. This is Stephen Miller worming his way as an earworm into Donald Trump and telling him that he's in the right from a legal analysis standpoint.

And when Donald Trump, I'll end it on this, Ben, when Donald Trump looks the American people in the eye and says the best that I can do is Jeanine Pirro to be the US attorney for the District of Columbia or Alina Habba to be the US attorney for New Jersey or I have the best and brightest minds working on my legal matters. That is a complete and utter lie. Just Google translate that into I have weak people who are not good at their job, who I don't respect nor will I listen to, and I'm gonna remain willfully blind about most of it

when I go on network news. And I'm gonna get all of my policy making done through being glued to cable news, where I'm also gonna pull people into my administration, like Jeanine Pirro. If I hear one more Fox and Friends, the five, whatever, going into a top leadership position, that's the best and the brightest, Fox.

So, Boasberg, we're gonna see new filings coming up. Zinnis, she's set a briefing schedule about these things as well. And by the end of May, after a hearing, she's gonna make briefing schedule about these things as well. And by the end of May, after a hearing, she's going to make a ruling about the state secrets and about how much you and I are going to be able to see in the future of things. I'll just end it on redaction. The reason redaction is important is because in our public justice system, the people have a place at the table. It's the prosecutor, it's the defense and the defendant,

it's the judge, but it's the public because we don't do star chambers, despite what Donald Trump and Stephen Miller would have you believe, we don't do things in the dark. And you have to bend over backwards and that's what judges will tell you, to make sure that everything ends up on the docket so the public can see, you get charged in the public,

you get tried in the public, you get tried in the public, and things along the way are public. Now, sometimes they're temporarily sealed. Eventually, all those ceilings come off, and then you and I end up reporting about things six months later. Let me just briefly break down when we talk about state secrets privilege, just also what that means. So the state's privilege state secrets privilege was first recognized in a 1953 Supreme Court case called United States versus Reynolds and this was a case involving a military plane top secret plane crashing and the widows in a lawsuit for the pilots wanted to get discovery and information about

what happened to see if they had a lawsuit or a case. The government invoked the state secrets doctrine and basically said, we can't give away the military secrets about our bombers. So we can turn it over and the Supreme Court recognized this doctrine. State secrets refers to military secrets that if they were to be disclosed in a litigation would be harmful to the national security interests. You have to establish the predicate that there is a secret here and then that is in the interest of the national security in order to not disclose the information.

So here, what would be the state secret? That's the issue if you think about it, because we know about CICOT, right? We know where it is. So another time where the state secrets doctrine was actually allowed to be invoked in a Supreme Court case was an area that during the kind of Guantanamo Bay CIA post 9-11, the black sites that were being kept, the Supreme Court there said, well, you know, the CIA was still able to block the disclosure of where the CIA bases were physically located because if they revealed it, that could at least show where CIA assets are. So they didn't have to actually disclose where certain things were.

It's a relatively controversial decision. But here we know where CICOT is, number one. Number two, the Trump regime has done what I like to refer to, I don't like to, but I don't know how you'd call it, ISIS style propaganda videos from Zikot. The politicians, the MAGA politicians go there with their thumbs up. We see the people, Trump posts videos about it. He had Bukele in the Oval Office where they bragged about it. So there's nothing secret that is there. They've said all of the things

and certainly not in the national security interest, but what the Trump regime does in these litigations is they will, and this is by the way, similar if you remember our reporting on how Trump would litigate his own personal cases, delay, delay, delay, and then try to create some conflict and then not turn over the documents by just delaying, delaying, delaying. As a private litigant, you have less ability to do that, although rich people tend to have more resources to

delay more than other people. But now that they can declare these privileges that have been based on good faith that we would actually have presidents who are who are good and decent individuals, which we don't have one now, he they abuse it, they'll drag it out. Then right when the discovery is due, they'll then invoke state secrets, then they'll try to litigate that because the name of the game is delay, delay, delay, not turn over anything, and then try to distract with a million other things.

So hopefully that explanation is helpful. When we come back, I wanna talk about finally, the Supreme Court case, the cases next week, May 15th. So it's coming up, big oral arguments there in the birthright citizenship gates. court case, the cases next week, May 15th. So it's coming up. Big oral arguments there in the birthright citizenship case. I wanna draw a distinction what that case is about and not about.

So people aren't shocked when they go, but why are they talking so much about national injunctions? I thought they're gonna talk about birthright citizenship. It's possible that the issues will be inextricably intertwined in the oral arguments, but we'll see. I want to remind everybody about the Legal AF YouTube channel. Make sure you subscribe.

They're on their way to one million subscribers on the Legal AF YouTube channel. Pretty, pretty incredible stuff right there. Also Michael Popak's new law firm is doing great. I'm so proud of Popak for starting his own firm. And a lot of people who listen and watch who have cases, whether it's them directly or a loved one or a friend, they've been referring you cases. That's pretty cool. So Popak handles wrongful death cases, people who are injured and die, sad, tragic cases. But you need a great lawyer like Popak. Catastrophic injury, like trucking accidents and bad car accidents, sexual harassment cases, but you know, you need a great lawyer like Popok. Catastrophic injury like

trucking accidents and bad car accidents, sexual harassment cases, negligence, malpractice cases. Popok, where can they reach you? Yeah. 1-877-POPOKAF and the popokfirm.com on the website. A reminder, everybody, Legal AF has its own sub stack as well. Everybody make sure you check out the legal AF sub stack. Pretty great work you're doing there. You're a busy guy, Popeye. Check out legal AF. All right, last quick break.

Let's talk about the Supreme Court. Big, big stuff to talk about when we come back from our last quick break. You know those little moments in your day that matter more than they seem at the time? You know, the coffee walks, the quick grocery runs, the school drop-offs, surprise rainstorms. Yeah, that's where Vessi shines. that matter more than they seem at the time. You know, the coffee walks, the quick grocery runs, the school drop-offs, surprise rainstorms.

Yeah, that's where Vessi shines. The weekend sneaker from Vessi is my go-to for real life. It's waterproof, ultra comfy, lightweight, and easy to slip on so I can keep moving, rain or shine. What I love is how Vessi keeps up without me even thinking about it. Whether I'm walking the dog, heading into a casual work day, or just running errands, they've got me covered. Literally. The waterproof

tech means no more outfit changes or soggy socks, and the clean minimal style works with whatever I'm wearing. They're my all-day, everyday shoe. One pair that takes me from morning to night without missing a step. I can't leave the house without them. Make every day a little easier. Visit Vessi.com slash LegalAF now for 15% off your first pair at checkout and start exploring with confidence.

Your new everyday favorite, Vessi is waterproof, comfy and ready for your life. Grab your pair at Vessi.com slash Legal AF to stay comfortable and get an instant 15% off your first purchase at checkout. When it comes to spending, sometimes it's out of sight, out of mind. That daily coffee habit, those streaming subscriptions,

they add up fast without you even noticing. Rocket Money helps you spot those patterns so you can do something about them and keep more money in your pocket. Look, I've been using Rocket Money myself and within minutes it found a subscription I had totally forgotten about, something I hadn't used in months.

It would have been a hassle to track it down and cancel it myself, but Rocket Money handled it in just a few taps. Total game changer, Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps you find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors, your spending, and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings.

I love how the dashboard shows all my expenses across every account. I've set up custom budgets and I even got an alert when one of my bills quietly increased. Without Rocket Money, I never would have noticed. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster with Rocket Money. Go to rocketmoney.com slash legal AF today.

That's rocketmoney.com slash legal AF. Rocketmoney.com slash legal AF rocketmoney.com slash legal AF. Welcome back to legal AF. Thank you to our pro democracy sponsors. The discount codes for each of those pro democracy sponsors is in the description below. Um, my face is very close to the camera today, but let me be very clear with the audience. The fact that I've even been able to set this camera up, bringing it from everything is just falling here as I was saying that right. The fact that I was able to even set this up with like a tripod and the microphone is

a pretty impressive personal accomplishment, if I may add myself. But we were set up right now in the hotel. We've got the Webby Awards coming up thanks to all the Midas, Mighty and Legal efforts. We were named podcast of the year. Such an incredible, I almost thought they were punking us. You know, I mean, I, I was like the number one of everyone, like every single one in the world. They're like, yeah, I'm like, okay, thank you.

I was so grateful for that. And it's great to know that we're having an impact where we're beating Fox News. We're getting more downloads than Rogan. And it's so incredible that the Midas Touch family of podcasts, Legal AF, the Legal AF Substack, Adam Machler, our Gen Z host, the Tennessee Brando. And I mean, just so great to see all these channels thriving. But, you know, I have a soft spot for legal AF.

It's the beginning. It's copac. It's the genesis. I have a soft spot, though, but I have a question. You did that all on your own or did your wife, who normally helps you contribute to that rig today? No, I mean, she deserves a lot of credit. She sets you up. Let's be clear, she deserves a lot of credit for dealing with me and putting up with me.

So lots of credit. This right here is me. Happy Mother's Day though, to my wife. Who may or may not be sleeping two feet away. I'm in Happy Mother's Day to my mom and Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there. And I mean this look. We as brothers, me and Popak, the whole Midas Touch, we as humans are nothing without the mothers in our life and the women in our life.

And dare I say the world would be a much better place if the mothers and the women in our life and the women in our life. And dare I say the world would be a much better place if the mothers and the women in our life were probably running the country and other countries as well. So I'll leave it at the happy mothers. They are right. Supreme court, Michael Boback. Michael mother.

Supreme court, big oral arguments coming up. Talk to us about it. Oh yeah, and great news too, because it's an opportunity to come over at Legal AF, MTN, our YouTube channel, because we are running the live feed of the oral argument. I'll do some commentary. I think I might try to get Dean Attal to join me as well.

Maybe a little pregame show. And then this should be the last oral argument of this term, save for some emergency applications. And we know this administration loves emergency applications. There's been 13 of them. As the Trump administration figured out, there's a loophole to pressure the court to ideologically vote immediately,

almost benefiting the Trump administration. Although they are on a losing streak, as I outlined earlier, a three zero, a very important losing streak at the United States Supreme Court when it comes to immigration, showing where the boundaries are for the Supreme Court, at least when it comes to immigration.

This one harks back, it's hard to believe, it's only been 110 or 112 days, whatever it is, of this administration. But the first, speaking of firsts, the first temporary restraining order and then preliminary injunction under birthright citizenship was Judge Kofenor in Seattle,

who said in his 40 years of being on the bench, it was the most blatantly unconstitutional thing and the easiest case he'd ever have to decide. That's where it started with the first injunction, I don't want to get lost in the sea of 150 other injunctions, came out of there. And then other courts around the country. And they all issued nationwide injunctions.

Because the injunction has to fit the crime. The injunction has to fit the injury, or the remedy. And so the argument that the Trumpers make when they don't like nationwide injunctions, when it's not to their benefit, is a judge should only deal with the parties that are in front of them. That's what Judge Gorsuch has said in the past.

They shouldn't give a remedy that's any broader than the relief that's being sought or the parties that are involved. Maybe. But what do you do when the fundamental issue is about something as constitutionally important as a 14th Amendment provision that provides who is and who is not a U.S. citizen. And Donald Trump wants to rip the beating heart

of birthright citizenship out of the Constitution by way of an executive order. And there should be no argument, even at the Supreme Court level, even with the way it's stacked to the right, that that can't be done. And again, they are misinterpreting some language that's already been interpreted over and over again by the United States Supreme Court going back to 1898

about who is subject to the laws of the United States and who isn't. Well, if they're illegal, they're undocumented. They're not subject to the laws of the United States and who isn't? Well, if they're illegal, they're undocumented. They're not subject to our laws. So therefore, a baby born is not really a citizen. That's not how the interpretation is ever called. Now, has this Supreme Court shown a penchant for overturning super precedent, precedent that's been around for 50 years, 100 years?

Of course. I mean, the very foundation of legal AF has to do with calling out their destruction and lying during the confirmation process of Supreme Court justices of precedent like Roe versus Wade. And that's not the only one, the Chevron decision. I mean, you and I could just do a show for a year about the precedent that they've overturned. So that could happen. I just don't see it

happening here. But when the injunction is, are you or are you not a citizen? I defy anyone with a straight face, although we will see it with John Sauer on the 15th, argued to the Supreme Court that you can have a non-nationwide injunction related to a fundamental constitutional right. Meaning what? That only in Alabama is a person a birthright citizen, or only in New York, but not in Alabama, because the nationwide injunction doesn't apply to them.

So we're just gonna have babies born all around America who are gonna fall into different categories of citizenship depending upon which federal judge was able to issue a ruling in time to cover that. This is no way to run a baseball team. And this is no way to run a democracy or a constitutional republic. So even if you are against nationwide injunctions, you have to recognize, if you're being honest and intellectually honest, you have to recognize, if you're being honest and intellectually honest, you have to recognize that in certain circumstances

that go to the heart of the constitution, for instance, there's no other way but to have one judge issue a nationwide injunction. Because until, now their argument would be, well, we'll just let these individual injunctions and then it'll eventually get to the Supreme Court and then we'll make a decision and then that will be the law of the land. Well, but in the meantime, since you're not issuing stays like that or at least as regularly as you should, then what do you

do with all the babies that are born now? So that's the fight. So it's a proceed, it's a major, it's interesting though, I don't want to get your opinion when you get it back Ben, as to why the Trump administration chose this particular constitutional challenge as the vehicle to argue to the Supreme Court that judges don't have the right to issue universal or nationwide injunctions. I'm not sure that's the right winning hand for them because it will I believe get intertwined with the merits. Now technically we're not there, although the judges could go in a different direction

as they've been want to do, we're not there on the substance of the birth rights and citizenship versus executive order, however we are. And so there's three cases that are joined together. It's gonna be like an hour and a half long. What we've done on Legal AF for the live feed is that we have a trigger mechanism that will actually put up the picture. So people in the chat, I'm usually in the chat too, people in the chat will be like, who is that talking?

Sometimes Kagan and Sotomayor are a little bit hard to discern and even among the judges, I mean, but we're good at it. So we'll put up who's up at the right time. We participated in the chat at the time. Usually get about five or 10,000 people at that moment. It's a big one. What do you think about what's gonna, first of all, why do you think they took,

the Trump administration decided to challenge nationwide injunctions by way of birthright citizenship? Well, it kind of ties this episode nicely and neatly together with a bow. It's like the ending of The Sixth Sense. That's what you get when you watch Legal Air. Riveting. I see dead people. Right, Michael Popok. I mean, at the end of the day, is the goal to win

or is the goal to destroy the Supreme Court is is the goal to have a showdown as quick as possible. No matter what the outcome is. Remember what Stephen Miller said to remember that? Remember how they end the six ends, Pope, back to two? And then it's like, oh, that's why. Let's play that clip of, let's play that clip. Well, no, I don't want to ruin the ending. Let's play that clip of Stephen Miller again.

And I think it'll answer your question. What's really going on here? Here, play this clip. Well, the constitution is clear. And that of course is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So to say that's an option we're actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not. You see the guy in the back with the red, that was also one of the signs.

Remember, that was part of it. Every time the person was actually dead there. Remember from the sixth sense? Yeah. They would actually be like the red. So it turns out that Stephen Miller actually was never alive the entire time. And he's actually, he's actually a ghoul and he sees dead people. That's it. Thank you for watching legal. I know. I mean, Thank you for watching Legal Aid. No, I mean, look. But there's truth to that in the sense that they better do the right thing. You heard what he said. So you bring a case that's outlandish, that in and of itself would turn the Constitution upside down because it's very clear what the outcome should be. You know, you frame it as an issue of national and of nationwide injunctions

as the subterfuge for your broader objective here of tearing the Constitution to shreds. And you push that one. That's why I think they're doing this. And by the way, I think they were open to doing other ones. It was just one of the first ones right away that they were able to push and they were fine with it to have this show down with the Supreme Court, where I think they will eventually remember their audience. Remember that

35% question you asked me also, why are they doing this? Because they want to go to their 35% of proud boys of oath keepers of people who like the cruelty who no matter what Trump does will always be there, you know, and they want to go. We tried. We wanted to do all of these brutal things. The Supreme Court wouldn't let us. So we got to take it into our own hands right now. That's what I think is happening here. Popak.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think that's a great way to also tie it all together. I wish I could be with you really proud of being a part of Midas Touch the network. And maybe people were shocked, who don't know the hard work that you and your brothers have done in forming the channel or the podcast. But those that have been with you from the beginning are not shocked, we're delighted.

But we're not shocked at it all. And it's certainly hard earned. And to have your peers and those in the community even outside our universe, our Midas universe, is so rewarding and I'm just so happy for you, for the brothers and for us by extension. Well, I appreciate that. Oh, I just, I mentioned it earlier,

but just in case people were saying, tell us about that district court case in San Francisco. It was basically a federal judge in San Francisco who said, look, if the Trump administration wants to make these sweeping cuts across the 20 agencies that had filed this lawsuit before her, she goes, great, do it. But go to Congress because Congress has already passed legislation that supports these agencies. If you want to do an RIF, a reduction in force, go to Congress, get their permission, and then I'll allow you to do it.

I mean, you control the Senate, you control the House, so go to them, let them rubber stamp it, and then come back to me, and then I'm fine with it. But as it relates to these 20 agencies, she's issued probably the most sweeping injunction. We've seen this, it's not like this is new. You probably like, didn't you guys report on this before? This has happened in lots of other courts, but this one with 20 and as sweeping as it is, you know,

or yeah, was, was, was. You know what I liked about it? And I did a hot take on it that's up on Legal AF this morning. I like the fact that the judge, again, San Francisco, we're looking for the base camp of democracy saving, the base camp of firewalls protecting our Constitutional Republic.

It's the courts of Northern District of California, Washington and Seattle. It's the courts of Northern District of California, Washington and Seattle. It's the courts of New Hampshire and Massachusetts and New York and D.C. and Maryland. That's why we talk about these courts so often. And then there are appellate courts just above them. What I loved about it is it was so, I mean, I read all hundred and whatever pages, but it was so simple in the analysis,

which was handed to her, I thought, well, by the AFL-CIO, the labor union and some public interest groups, including Democracy Forward, in their original complaint, where they said, you can do what he wants to reorganize the federal government and the agencies, but you can't do it without congressional approval and authorization, because these agencies are creatures of statute and you can't be the legislator and the executive branch at the same

time citing to James Madison, otherwise you just have fascism and tyranny. And so you have to owe, that's the separation of powers argument. And I saw a lot of different courts sort of get into it, but she got to the heart of the matter so quickly in her opinion about you can do what you want. And I'm not, she literally said, I'm not going to micromanage the how you operate the federal government, but you are going to do it through the proper method. And nine prior presidents, not named Donald Trump, including Donald Trump, actually once, including Donald Trump, went to Congress for a recommendation and authorization

to do certain restructuring. Not what he's doing, which is using, you know, if you opened up Donald Trump, I joked earlier that if you looked at Donald Trump's copy of the Constitution, it's just Article II and Section II. If you open up Donald Trump's tool bag, speaking of tool kits, it just has sledgehammers.

And there's three sledgehammers that he's used to do what he's done. One is the Office of Personnel Management. One is the Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE. And the third is the Office of the Congressional Budget Office, which is run by who? Mr. Vought, Russ Vought, who is the architect of Project 2025.

See, we're bringing this full circle, and those are the three ways he has used the sledgehammer to try to destroy the relationship between America and its government, meaning services, meaning things that we rely on, meaning things that make our life better. And that is what the judge said, you know what, let's take 14 days out, you're not doing that anymore.

We're gonna do full briefing by the end of the month, by the 21st or something. We'll do preliminary injunction briefing, but your TRO, it's more likely than not, you are going to win under the standards for an injunction. Now Trump didn't like that, and so he's already taken an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. And the Ninth Circuit's gonna have to decide

whether this is the type of order that is appealable as of right now. I don't think it is. I think they should wait for two weeks or so for the preliminary injunction, but they've rushed in, as they always do, because they're trying to do that two step to get on an emergency application

to the United States Supreme Court. And I'm gonna say this one more time. I'm talking to you, Justice Kagan. A lot of these are coming up through you. You don't have to turn these over to the full nine for a decision when you get an emergency application. You have the right, and we'll support you here on Legal AF, to rule against it if that's your decision

without consultation to anybody else. So the next time you get an emergency application that is blatantly either without jurisdiction or on the merits is wrong, just deny it and let them go scramble and try to get to the full panel and all of that. But we have to start taking a stand. There you have it, everybody.

Thank you for watching this episode of Legal AF. Subscribe right now to our YouTube channel here. We're on our way to 5 million subscribers also, if you can. Subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel. They're on their way to 1 million subscribers. I think that they'll hit that in no time. Just think about it, everybody here subscribes there and you tell five people to subscribe,

we'll hit a million pretty quickly. Also, Michael Popak's law firm, reach out to him. I mean, a lot of people who watch and listen to this call if they have a case. So if you've been involved in like a catastrophic injury and I know these are very difficult situations, or if you know someone, friend or family member

who has like a bad trucking accident where you were a victim or a car accident where you were injured or a case like that. If you know someone who's been the victim of like a wrongful death case and you know, and they have family members who don't know what to do or anyone involved in like sexual harassment or sexual assault cases from say like a boss or an employer or from a figure of authority or cases like that. Reach out to the Popak firm. Where do they reach out to you, Michael?

Yeah, 1-877-POPOKAF of course, and then the website, www.thepopakfirm.com. Thank you everybody so much for watching and listening. Make sure you subscribe to the Legal AF Substack as well. Check that out and thanks for watching. It's been a good one. Sorry, the lighting is usually not as good as it usually is, but we got the Webby's, so I'm going to be here in this hotel at least for the next day or so.

So thank you everybody for watching. Have a good one and shout out Midas Mighty and shout out legal a efforts shout out to my In-laws who are watching the dogs at the house the shout out to everybody. Happy Mother's Day everybody. We appreciate