Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal AF Full Episode - 6/28/2025

Episode Date: June 29, 2025

Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok host the top rated Legal AF podcast and take on: 1) Governor Newsom's $787 million dollar defamation suit against Fox; 2) the aftermath and next steps after the Supreme Court told federal courts they have no power to issue nationwide injunctions in most cases, including about birthright citizenship; 3) the Supreme Court's siding with religious groups over the First Amendment; 4) Trump lawyers being disbarred (again) and being the subject of bar grievance complaints; and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Support Our Sponsors: Qualia: Head to https://qualialife.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 15% off your purchase! Trust and Will: Get 10% off plus free shipping of your estate plan documents by visiting https://trustandwill.com/LEGALAF Square: Get up to $200 off Square hardware when you sign up at https://square.com/go/legalaf! #squarepod Fatty15: Get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription Starter Kit by going to https://fatty15.com/LEGALAF and using code LEGALAF at checkout. Check Out The Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com/ 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

No frills delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC Optimum Points on your first five orders. Shop now at nofrills.ca. The Chevrolet employee pricing event is on now. Get a big cash purchase discount of up to $11,300 on the 2025 Chevrolet Silverado LDZR2 and Silverado HDZR2. With a factory-installed lift kit and Multimatic DSSV dampers on both the Silverado LD and HDZR2, you'll have all the capability you need to leave the asphalt behind. Hurry in! Employee pricing is on for a limited time. Visit your local Chevrolet dealer for details.

Ready to level up? Shamba Casino is your for a limited time. Visit your local Chevrolet dealer for details. We had some major Supreme Court rulings that dropped on Friday. We'll go over them all, especially the nationwide injunction case involving birthright citizenship. What are the implications? What happens next? We'll break it all down. California Governor Gavin Newsom files a massive defamation lawsuit against Fox. What are the causes of action? Where is that lawsuit going next?

I had the opportunity to speak with California Governor Gavin Newsom. He broke down the case with me, Michael Popok, and I will discuss. We're also seeing more disbarments of Donald Trump's former lawyers. Is this basically a sign that this is what's going to happen with the current band of bandits, basically, that Donald Trump is surrounding himself with. And also Donald Trump threatening to sue CNN and New York Times for defamation, for reporting on the intelligence community in the United States and in Europe, frankly, saying that these strikes on Iran were not as successful as Donald Trump claimed when Donald Trump says total obliterations.

Bringing Michael Popak from Legal AF. Good to see you, Michael Popak. A very busy week in the Supreme Court rulings with lawsuits being filed by Governor Newsom. A lot to track. Yeah, I it's a you know, there were moments in real time when you, me, and the rest of the Minus community, who does what we do, the video work, we're kind of dusting ourselves off a little bit, and a little bit of gallows humor at moments. But then once we had the opportunity

to take the plane up 5,000 feet and take a look at, for instance, the Supreme Court decisions which have all now dropped, except for a lot of things that are going to be happening over the summer involving some of those very issues like birthright citizenship. Once we got a little bit, a better lay of the land, it's not that we felt better about the decisions, but we understand what needs to be done moving forward.

And I was encouraged, and we will touch on it today during Legal AF, I was encouraged by the public interest groups and the attorneys general, who I knew, because we've spoken to them, and we had them on our respective shows, they are ready and have already drafted the papers and have already drafted the papers around the Supreme Court decisions in order to make sure that the 24, and there are 24 of them, national injunctions that have already been issued, which are all now going to have to be revisited by trial court judges based on the Supreme Court decision that you and I will talk to,

I think the second segment today. They're ready to go with the alternative strategy that was mapped out by Justice Sotomayor. We'll talk about it. You, me, and the rest of our audience are going to be talking a lot about class action as a vehicle to defend constitutional violations and abuse of power by this president in a way that we had never before, you and I have experience in class action

in our private practice, respectively. But I was encouraged, after we kind of got ourselves off the floor, with what is the strategy moving forward and how ready and at the ready, the attorneys general, public interest groups, democracy forward and the rest, are already in court hours after the Supreme Court decision.

And that gave me a lot of renewed confidence. Agree. You know, I think though we're seeing this worldview, we've known it about it, but with all these MAGA Republicans, from those in the House and the Senate, to those who have been appointed in the judiciary, that they are okay with an imperial president, a dictator.

They're okay with that concept. And in co-equal branches, they're okay with subordinating their roles to a dictator and functioning the way courts and Congresses or parliaments do where there are authoritarian regimes. Like you wanna talk about Iran, for example, or Russia or North Korea or China, like there's parliaments, right?

There are courts and judges that are there. It's just not the system that we've had in America and in Western democracies that we come to cherish. Now, you can try to give all of these parade of horribles, right? Well, I mean, and try to reverse it to scare the magas. Well, imagine what can happen now if you have a democratic president

and the democratic president goes and does all of these things with democratic policies. The issue is, is that Democrats or pro-democracy, by the very nature of pro-democracy, don't want an imperial president. We liked co-equal branches of government. And so, yes, Popak, you're right. When you actually read the 6-3 right-wing extremist order by the Supreme Court, are there ways around it? Yes. But they have a very handmaid's tale dystopian worldview that the courts should be, they should inhibit themselves in Congress. They should inhibit themselves and just allow Donald Trump to do all of these things

and then you have to find the kind of workarounds to deal with it. I also when we talk in the second segment about the Supreme Court rulings, I also want to talk about another decision regarding how the Supreme Court's been using the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to basically say that you are discriminating against religion by not allowing religion to freely exercise its right to discriminate against people if the religion says we don't like gay people we don't like gay people, we don't like black people, we don't like Latino people, we don't like the other religion. They're saying all of these laws that are meant to protect diversity and inclusion should give way if a religion has a legitimate view that they want to be discriminatory because how dare you discriminate against the religion. There's this case out of Maryland where the Supreme Court ruled that the Maryland school policy,

barring opt-outs for LGBTQ books, violates religious rights. That's part of a line of cases that you and I have been covering over the years by this right-wing Supreme Court saying there is a free exercise clause, right? And the First Amendment to allow the football coach to hold a prayer during halftime at the center of the field, which then opens up the idea of prayer in school or a private business should be able to discriminate against gay people who want to get married by not doing their wedding

cakes or not taking photographs of them. And a lot of these contrived cases have worked their way up. They've been manufactured cases where the plaintiffs have even said, I'm not even the plaintiff. I'm not gay. Why are you claiming that I'm even someone in this case? I never even went to this law firm. I mean, think about that, Popak, that one of the seminal cases, not this one, but in two terms ago involving the Colorado business that said it wanted to deny the ability for to photograph a gay wedding.

The people who were who were supposed to get married said, I'm a straight guy from Colorado. I never even used their services. I don't even know who the plaintiff is. Why are you saying this? Once it already was ruled by the Supreme Court. We'll talk about all of that. All right, let's break down though,

this Gavin Newsom lawsuit. Popeye, I had the ability to interview California Governor Gavin Newsom about the $787 million defamation case against Trump. Here's what he said to me and then let's get your take on this lawsuit. Let's play it. No, I appreciate it. I mean, I think you summed it up beautifully. I mean, they knowingly misrepresented the facts. They altered and edited statements of the President of the United States videos,

and they knowingly stated that I lied about a phone call with Donald Trump. Donald Trump, as we know, lied about a phone call he had with me the day before. That call, in fact, was almost four days prior. Trump himself went to John Roberts of Fox to show a screenshot of the call. That call was never in question. They went on then to alter the fact that the president said it was a call the day before, and then it was weaponized further on the Jesse Water show

who had a chiron saying Gavin lied about President Trump. And so look, I can take it these guys go after me 24 seven. I'm a pinata and have been for years and years at Fox. Never once did I think I had to file a defamation lawsuit. But this crossed the line, the journalistic and ethical lines, the boundaries of defamation, malice, and they need to be held to account because it's one thing to cover up the lies of a president, but the impact of covering up for these lies is impacting our democracy, truth and trust.

Michael Popock, what do you make of this lawsuit? Break it down also maybe in a little more detail. What's being alleged here? What do you think is going to happen? It's filed in Delaware. Yeah. So Governor Newsom, I love many aspects of the filing. First, the number, 787 million, not picked out of a hat.

It's the exact number, of course Governor Newsom knows it, of the settlement between the Dominion voting systems and Fox coming out of Delaware a couple of years ago that led to the downfall of Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs was sued, Marina Bartiromo, Fox, Fox News, Fox Corp, Rupert Murdoch, they were all sued because of the lies that were spread as the propaganda machine of Fox

for the Trump administration about the fact that Donald Trump, the lies that were spread about Dominion voting systems, that their hardware in the election process and a couple of precincts were being used by a global conspiracy involving an Argentinian business person. This was all spread by Sidney Powell, flipped votes from Trump to Biden, all a lie. They ran with it, even knowing, and we learned

about the internal emails at the time, they all came spilling out because Delaware's summary judgment process required these documents to be filed, including deposition transcripts of people like Rupert Murdoch, and that led to the $787 million defamation settlement. There's still another case, by the way, involving Smartmatic, a software company,

almost exactly the same up in New York. So that's where they got the number from. Why Delaware? Because Fox is, like many of our corporations in America, or is a Delaware corporation because it's a business court and has been a very friendly environment, or at least a one that you can rely on with very reliable body of law in the corporate world and judges that sort

of know what they're doing in the Chancery Court Division. And so that's why you sue in Delaware. And as Governor Newsom, as that clip touched on, there was a phone call many days before Donald Trump federalized the National Guard. When Donald Trump told the story, he collapsed the timeline and made it look like there was a phone call just before the federalization, as almost as if Gavin was in, Newsom was in agreement that he had lost control of the state

and the cities like Los Angeles and needed the National Guard. You got to do better, you know, it's out of control. It was almost like he was implying Trump that Newsom was in on it. When the phone call was on the 6th several days earlier, then they, on Jesse Waters, they sliced and diced it and collapsed it and got rid of the things that were sticky like facts about the timeline and made it look like to support Donald Trump that the phone call had happened just before the federalization

and almost as if he was, Governor Newsom was complicit in it when that phone call came a lot earlier and it had nothing to do with that particular, you know, that particular issue. So that is defamation. Now as a public figure, there's a higher standard even for the news media, a propaganda machine as they are, for Fox. They've got to, you know, he's got to prove actual malice, which means under a line of cases you and I refer to as New York Times versus Sullivan, that they

either knew what they were doing was false, sort of like the Dominion Voting System's case, or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of what they were doing was false, sort of like the Dominion Voting Systems case, or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of what they were putting on the air. And that Chiron, you know, that title, you know, knew some lies about phone call. If they knew or should have known, given the timeline and the reporting,

that that was defamatory because it was untrue, then, you know, we're up and running. And I think he survives a motion to dismiss in Delaware. I haven't seen the Chancery Court judge that's been assigned to it. I don't know if it's the same one, could be, the same one that was assigned for the Dominion Voting Systems case.

But that's what he's signaling. The flag that Gavin Newsom is waving is, Fox has admitted the defamation of public figures, so to speak, in the past, and has paid big as it relates to it. And he has no choice but to do that. Just as Donald Trump is, and we'll talk about it in another segment,

is running around sending threatening letters from it in another segment, is running around sending threatening letters from some local lawyer here, I live in Miami, and Coral Gables, frankly I've never heard of, that sued Michael Cohen and then lost and then sued ABC News or threatened to sue ABC News over George Stephanopoulos. So this is the guy, it's like a toolbox, tool bag for Donald Trump. Oh, who's the guy in my repertoire, in my group, that's going to send a nasty letter on media issues? Oh, Alejandro Brito. Oh, send the letter. Okay, so he sends the letter, I'm not sure he wrote the letter, to the New York Times. And David McCaw, from the New York Times, who I know, wrote back and said, we'll get to it our reporting was accurate but Donald Trump has the taste for these defamation cases because you know the

Disney is considering settling with him ABC ABC ABC did settle with him for millions and millions of dollars others are who else CBS right now is considering settle right so he's used to getting tens of millions of dollars on Others are who else CBS right now is subtle right so He's used to getting tens of millions of dollars on these things and Gavin in Newsom has a point You know what's good for the goose is good for the gander They're gonna get the famed then they need to run into court and and and use the court system to our advantage except the goose and the gander and I'm not really honestly sure and I'll have to Google what a gander is and what a goose is in this situation, but I'm also but I'll say this

Newsome and I'm not just saying this because I'm supportive of a lot of Newsome's policies and certainly more so than anything that that Trump does but California governor Gavin Newsom is saying, I did not have the phone call. I'm ready to sit for depositions and talk about this made up phone call that existed that Trump claims. That didn't happen.

I had the original phone call that I said. And you are now lying about really serious conduct that's saying I'm essentially complicit in violating my duties as a governor you're basically saying I engaged in a conspiracy and a crime and you know that's not you know that's not accurate and that's causing me a lot of a lot of serious issues on the other hand when it comes to Trump's cases let's talk about it now, the one with, you know, where he's threatening CNN and New York Times, they simply reported that the intelligence community

from the Pentagon and CENTCOM had an initial damage assessment of the strikes against Iran and found that they were not as successful as Donald Trump claimed they are. And in the subsequent intelligence briefs that got delayed but have happened before the House and before the Senate, although not a lot has actually been shared with them at all and a lot of members of Congress are very frustrated that they're not really getting any real insight or data, it seems that the intelligence was accurate. The European intelligence confirms also that what the New York Times and CNN reported,

which was just saying what happened in our intelligence reports was, is consistent with the Europeans are saying that it seems that Iran was able to move uranium out before the strikes took place, and that the facilities were not totally destroyed. They were damaged. It may set the program back a few months, but it seems that Iran will be able to, in short order, be able to develop a nuclear arsenal,

if that's what it wants to do. Those are the facts that are in the report. And also CNN and New York Times said the report was necessarily low confidence because any report that's an initial assessment without actually going into the facility can't be high confidence. But from the satellite images, from the human intelligence, that's just what we know. That's called the truth. And we know that it's the truth also because Donald Trump and the Department of Defense and Hegseth and all the propagandists like Caroline Levitt said, this was a top secret report that was leaked to the New York Times.

Right. And that we think it's treason that the person leaked it. And we're launching an investigation. And Fox, Jesse Waters, and this may be evidence, you know, as well against Donald Trump in the Trump case, Jesse Waters is saying, oh, the Trump regime should pursue the death penalty. I think he used words or on Fox in general. They were suggesting that treason is punishable by death, and therefore this could be a capital crime

if you engage in this type of behavior. Well, David McCall, The New York Times, who I've dealt with before, and I admire as a First Amendment lawyer and scholar, Deputy General Counsel at the New York Times. And he's dealt with Trump before. Every time Trump doesn't like a story, whether he was candidate Trump or President Trump the first time or President Trump now, he always writes the hometown paper, you know,

the paper of record, all the news that's fit to print the New York Times, and asks for a retraction or apology or whatever. And David McCall wrote back and said, the second word of our reporting is that this was a preliminary assessment. And we reported it that way. And we stand by our reporting.

It's not the final assessment, but it is a preliminary assessment from your own Defense Department Intelligence. This is another Tulsi Gabbard screw up, by the way. If they're looking to hang anybody, it's Tulsi Gabbard, which is the reason she's not at Camp David for any of the intelligence briefing. She's not in the war room or the situation room ever at all.

It looks like John Ratcliffe, who used to have her job is now the CIA director, is now the chief spy master for America. She's been sidelined completely. Internal reporting about her is that Trump insiders are saying she's been wrong on every big thing since Trump's been in office. And so, the big headline completely, internal reporting about her is that Trump insiders are saying she's been wrong on every big thing since Trump's been in office,

including running a video on her social media talking about the horrors of nuclear war while she visited Hiroshima, right at the moment when Donald Trump was dealing with Iran, and which he did not like and alleged, you know, according to reporting, told her, you're not going to run for president while you're in my cabinet. So if you don't want to be in my cabinet, that's fine.

But if you think you're running for president this way, you're not. And allegedly, she's now been completely sidelined. Or as I joked, when Trump came out in the, I forget the hallway there where they do all the major briefings, when he came out for the initial briefing after Saturday night last week when they bombed the three nuclear facilities,

and I said, take a look at the photo. There's no intelligence in that photo. And I mean that literally. There's nobody from the intelligence community standing next to Donald Trump. It was like him and JD Vance and Marco Rubio and whatever. I'm like, where is the intelligence community? And then Donald Trump, of course, goes off half-cocked

and starts talking about, we did it, mission accomplished. We've obliterated the nuclear program. And, of course, he hasn't. The, if he wants to sue as a sitting president, he wants to sue the New York Times and waive his privileges and for a counter suit back because he's not going to be able to have it both ways, I don't believe, then he's free to do it. But this is the fascist playbook, right?

You sue and you can sue, you work the courts. If you don't like the result, you sue the courts. When you don't like the Democrats, you arrest and indict and sue them. And when you don't like what result, you sue the courts. When you don't like the Democrats, you arrest and indict and sue them. And when you don't like what the media is talking about, you abuse them in the press room. You bar them from the press room and then you send nasty threatening letters to them

to all in an attempt to shape the propaganda machine. That's all we're watching. And that's, I think one of the reasons people come here is so that we can use our Google Translate and our filter to call that out and keep our eye, we have to be laser focused in order to accomplish what we need to accomplish, which is to start taking down this regime beginning

with the midterms, if not before. We got a lot of work to do as a community from now until the midterms to get there. But I think the first place is telling truth to each other. You know, it's the fascist framework of the right wing, a sociopathic framework of the right wing, which is also inextricably intertwined with a fascist playbook, but it segues into our next segment on the Supreme Court saying that nationwide injunctions issued from district courts that are sought by individuals or individual groups outside of class action contexts and not brought by states are improper, unlawful, illegal, which is an interesting perspective considering that nationwide injunctions

were always the tool used by the MAGA Republican Federalist Society to try to block, and in many cases successfully so, the Biden agenda that was trying to deliver rights for the people, whether it was helping people with the burden of student loans and debt relief, whether it was Biden focusing on women's reproductive rights and trying to allow women to have more freedom over their body, whether it was Biden's attempts to try to deal with immigration comprehensively and all of these issues. You would have the MAGA Republican Federalist Society lawyers run into one court in the Northern District of Texas, Judge Kazmeric, and he would issue nationwide injunction for them and block Biden's agenda.

And you better believe that Biden and his administration would say, whoa, whoa, whoa, that seems to be a bit unfair. And the Supreme Court said, we can't have an imperial presidency. We can't allow Biden to rule like a dictator and give people all of these freedoms. Nationwide injunctions are a major protection. That's what the Federalist Society, that's what all of these groups were saying. Then you bring in the actual dictator on day one, Donald Trump, who's ruled like a dictator on day one, an idiotic one, one that's harmed our country significantly. And then notice the Supreme Court changes its framework. We're worried about an

imperial judiciary. We're worried about ourselves and we, the courts, are the ones who are the big problems here. Because when there are nationwide injunctions, this is me now speaking, it goes to the Supreme Court eventually who can rule on it. It's not like the district court nationwide injunction is the end of the story. It goes to a court of appeals and then it goes to the Supreme Court. But now the Supreme Court made this ruling in a case involving birthright citizenship.

Now it didn't reach the merits on birthright citizenship. But this was a horrific ruling, even if its reach is not quite as terrifying as the initial headlines might suggest. But I think the judicial philosophy behind it is indeed terrifying how this will impact other situations that are not like birthright citizenship. We'll talk about that and more

after our first quick break, but I wanna remind everybody about Michael Popak's substack, the Legal AF substack, which is doing absolutely incredible. Check out the Legal AF substack for the legal news you hear on the hot takes and you love. And then Michael Popok's law firm

the Popok firm is signing up a ton of legal AF listeners and viewers who have cases if you were in an auto accident a truck a truck accident the truck hit you that was really a bad accident, really serious injuries that require surgery. Reach out to the PO-POK firm. Also, if you have other cases involving negligence, wrongful death cases, sexual assault, sexual harassment cases, if you have medical malpractice cases, reach out to the PO-POK firm and the consultation is free. PO-POK, where can they reach out to you at?

Yeah, thanks Ben. And it's really rewarding. I mean, we're getting contacts from almost all 50 states, thousands and thousands a day are coming to the website. So let's start with the website, www.thepopokfirm.com, all spelled out. There it is. And then the 1-800 number, 1-877-PoCfirm.com, all spelled out. There it is. And then the 1-800-Number-1-877-PoPoC-AF.

Let's take our first quick break of the show. Let's talk about nationwide injunctions. You know, in business and in life, efficiency is everything. I remember noticing a part of our production process that was constantly causing delays. Once we sat down, streamlined it, and made it more predictable, everything ran smoother.

That's exactly what trust and will helps you do with estate planning. What's usually a drawn out stressful process becomes simple, fast, and totally secure. I've seen friends and family get overwhelmed trying to plan their estate paperwork everywhere lawyers charge them by the hour but with trust and will everything is online step by step and state specific you'll answer one

question at a time with live support if you need it it's designed by attorneys but you're in control whether it's naming guardians for your kids making health care decisions or ensuring your assets are handled your way the peace of mind knowing your wishes are clear, legal, and safely stored, that's priceless and it's affordable. Uncomplicate the process with trust and will. Protect what matters most in minutes at trustandwill.com slash legal AF. And get 20% off. That's 20% off at trustandwill.com slash legal AF. You ever notice the signs of getting older creeping in? That's 20% off at trustandwill.com slash legal AF.

You ever notice the signs of getting older creeping in? Poor sleep, low energy, maybe a little brain fog or stiffness that didn't used to be there. Same here. And healthy aging is something I've been thinking about more than ever. That's why I'm so excited to share with you guys C15 from fatty 15, the first emerging essential fatty acid to be discovered

in more than 90 years. It is an incredible scientific breakthrough to support our long-term health and wellness, and you guessed it, healthy aging. Fatty15 co-founder, Dr. Stephanie Van Watson, she discovered C15 while working with the US Navy on aging dolphins. Over 100 studies now show that C15 strengthens our cells and helps slow

biological aging at the cellular level. When our cells don't have enough C15, they become fragile and age faster. That's called cellular fragility syndrome, the first new nutritional deficiency in 75 years. One in three people worldwide may have it. Patti 15 is a science-backed, award-winning, patented 100% pure C15 supplement that repairs cellular damage, boosts sleep and brain health, and helps your body feel younger from the inside out. I've been taking fatty 15 for a few months now, and I really started noticing deeper sleep

and more energy throughout the day. I wasn't expecting much at first, but I've actually seen a difference. And that's saying a lot when most supplements don't deliver. And it comes in a beautiful reusable jar with easy refills sent right to your door. Fatty15 is on a mission to optimize your C15 levels to help support your long-term health and wellness,

especially as you age. You can get an additional 15% off their 90- day subscription starter kit by going to fatty15.com slash Legal AF and using code LegalAF at checkout. Welcome back to LegalAF. Let's talk about the Supreme Court rulings on Friday. That was officially their last day of the term

before Clarence Thomas takes his usual trip funded by the billionaires. Maybe he's gonna go on the phone party on Bezos' yacht with Bezos' stepson. Who knows what journey Clarence Thomas will be taking this time around. But in all seriousness, this is the last day, and he's probably gonna do something like that,

but in all seriousness, it was the last day on the term. It's when this right-wing fascist Supreme Court makes its most horrible rulings, they usually save the worst for last. I've been trying to bury it on a Friday. And it's no different this time. They're nationwide injunction case and a case involving LGBTQ opt-outs

in a Maryland school district in Montgomery County where parents were saying for religious reasons they didn't want their kids to be around LGBTQ books there, under their ability to free exercise their religion inside the school. So PO-PAC, let's start with nationwide injunctions, the case involved birthright citizenship. The headline that came out and the initial reporting

was obviously, this is an absolute disaster. It's still a bad ruling. There's ways around it, but break down the ruling. And it was, by the way, in terms of the drama in the Supreme Court, like all hell was breaking loose inside the Supreme Court where you had the justices, I guess it was the equivalent of like a Supreme Court rap battle, if you will. They read opinions that they feel strongly about. So you would have the different justices like read their opinions,

and then they would go back and forth with each other, like staring each other down, and Alito would stare down, Katanji Brown Jackson, and she would read these points, and Sotomayor would step in, and Kagan would say, you know, you've just thrown our country into, anyway. That was basically what's going on. But Popak, tell us what happened in the ruling. Well, yeah, we're fighting for the soul

of America and democracy. Unfortunately, we're doing it through a Supreme Court that is divided. And divided, I mean, not equally divided. It's six to three MAGA right wing on issues that matter most to our audience. Yeah, you can get Amy Coney Barrett occasionally to like slide over to the other side on a matter that's less important,

and Robert's the same. But on things that fundamentally involve our separation of powers, the co-equal branches of government, the presidency, the ability to control the presidency, we're outnumbered. And they are using their and pressing their advantage in a way that I've never seen, I've seen

it last five years. And just to put it in context, I've been alive for 59 years. For more than 50 years, the United States Supreme Court has been dominated by Republican appointees. I have never known in my lifetime, and neither have you, a a Supreme Court that has been run by the moderates to the liberals at all. So it's not about that because I was okay, I mean, I would agree with every opinion, but I was okay when we had Republicans

like Sandra Day O'Connor or black or others that Kennedy even, that I could find some common ground with, that's over. And so we were concerned, you and me in Legal AF, when they took nationwide injunctions, meaning does a trial court level federal judge have in their tool back something called the ability when he only he or she only has a couple of parties in front of them or 19 or 20 states

in front of them the ability depending upon what is the violation on the other side is it a nationwide violation that impacts everyone equally the way a constitutional violation or abuse of power does? Because if Trump, as president with the executive branch, is creating nationwide harm by an executive order attacking birthright citizenship, an executive order taking billions of dollars away from the states because of DEI nonsense,

taking billions of dollars away from foreign policy and humanitarian aid or social security or Medicare, things that have nationwide implications. Why shouldn't a federal judge who is declaring that unconstitutional be able to fashion an appropriate remedy that is symmetrical, that matches the nationwide impact without having to have 50 or 50,000 lawsuits having to be filed with individual judges

or a class action. And class action is not, we're gonna talk about what a class action is, but class action is not a proper vehicle for every type of case that involves trying to rein in Donald Trump. Because not every state has the same policies, not every state has the identical claims,

which are necessary for Rule 23 class action. Under typicality, we'll talk about that in a minute. So using this callous comment that Kavanaugh made in this new decision we're gonna talk about, in which he said, well, just do a class action with an injunction, and that's the equivalent of a universal injunction. It's not, because of the hurdles that are baked

into class action as a vehicle, and the elements of it don't fit every type of constitutional violation. The 6-3 Supreme Court said only, effectively, only the United States Supreme Court has the ability to enter a universal declaration about an abuse of power or constitutional abuse by a president. Not at the lower level. That's our job.

You do your cases. you do your cases in controversy of whoever is in front of you. You fashion a remedy that's no larger than it needs to be to address that case and those facts. And then the underlying constitutional issue, it'll get to us eventually. And we will be the ones to declare that it is unconstitutional.

What happens in the middle? The babies born in the meantime in states that are going to recognize the executive order? That's none of our concern. And they went after, Amy Coney Barrett went after Katanji Brown Jackson, not just on the dais or on the bench, but in her written order, basically calling her an idiot. I mean, I've seen, you know, Scalia used to go after his brother a lot, but I've never seen Amy Coney Barrett or anybody go after Katanji Brown Jackson the

way they did. And what they're, the six to three MAGA majority's view is. And they left open the issue about whether state, if the states are involved, whether like 19 states get together, like you and I report on a lot of these things, like led by Letitia James and Rob Bonta, the California, New York, all these state cases, there's about 50 to 100 of them, whatever it is, whether this ruling applies to them, whether a judge is precluded

from using nationwide injunction if there is a state or states that are bound together. Leave that for another moment. But in general, they have now ripped away the ability of any individual federal judge to not only declare Donald Trump's actions rogue and unconstitutional, but to do anything about it from a nationwide perspective. Now, they're saying, well, do it by class action.

All right. So how do you do that? Well, there's a rule, and you got to make sure you comply with the rule. And you have people like Alito and his concurrence going, and make sure there's no abuse of class actions. We don't want wanna see that either. So which is it? So now every time the attorneys general

or the public interest groups, or we'll talk about that in a minute, run back into court, they already have, and said, all right, we want a class action. Class action certification, we have our class plaintiffs, we wanna certify a class as everybody similarly situated who's being abused by Donald Trump's constitutional action. And then issue an injunction off of that.

Then the Trump administration right on cue is going to attack the class action vehicle being an appropriate vehicle. And just a quick teach out moment, there's two ways to bring a case into court. Either an individual case, which is one to, you know, could be a couple of hundred plaintiffs, but not large enough to satisfy collective

or class action status. So you have an individual case involving those parties only and the relief the court can grant to those parties only and no more. And then you've got a class action, which is a few plaintiffs and plaintiffs' lawyers come into court and say, this is an injury that's happening around the country

or among a group of people that are all similarly situated with typical type claims and with a very numerous amount and it's better to be a class action vehicle. But then you have to have the fight over whether that's appropriate or not. Now, both Sotomayor and Kavanaugh gave the roadmap for what happened several hours later after the ruling on Friday, which was, you're now, if you are representing people whose children are born or about to be born and the 14th Amendment citizenship is ripped away from them by the executive order, you need to go back into court quickly with a class

action and a temporary restraining order and then get this case as quickly back to the United States Supreme Court as possible. Within three hours the same case, this the same group CASAA Inc., that brought the Supreme Court case, ran into court in Maryland in front of Judge Bowman and filed a motion for class action certification and an emergency motion for temporary restraining order, which is up for grabs and we'll have to report on it off of this show as as the next few days move forward. Here's what the Trump administration had to say about the ruling. And there are 24 different national injunctions which are now all imperiled. They're done. They're going to have to all be revisited by judges who are going to have to figure out how to narrow

this down to the parties and or consider class action certification. That includes birthright citizenship which we just talked about, which is the subject of three different birth nationwide injunctions, but also includes immigration issues, deportation issues, funding issues, state funding issues, education funding issues, and the list goes on. Here's what Donald Trump's view of the case. Now, birthright citizenship itself was not decided.

They made a point of saying, we're just here on nationwide injunctions. And we're telling you how to get back to us on birthright citizenship and how quickly to do it and what the procedure or the order of operation is. Now, the minority here, Katanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan, mainly Sotomayor and Katanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan, mainly Sotomayor

and Katanji Brown Jackson said, we are watching a court complicit with allowing and promoting an imperial president that cannot be checked by the judiciary. Amy Coney Barrett said, no, you're wrong. It's not that we don't, we're not going to check it. It's that we're not going to allow a potential abuse of power by the president to be matched by a potential abuse of power by the judiciary. That's not the two wrongs don't make a right either. And just get the case up procedurally the right way

and we'll take care of it from here. Thank you very much. Birthright citizenship, even the Trump administration doesn't believe, was ruled upon on Friday. Here's what Bondi said. Payam Bondi said. Payam Bondi said, yes, birthright citizenship will be decided in October.

Now she's controlling the court's docket. In the next session by the Supreme Court, even though the high court has not accepted the case and it's not procedurally right. So for right now, from now till October, we're in, and the babies are in purgatory. Because you know the red states, the parents are like, hey, here's my birth certificate, my child was born here,

I'm applying for aid, you're not a citizen. I need a passport for my child, she's citizenless. What do you mean she's citizenless? I need to go travel to somewhere. Who's gonna issue me the passport? Well, the executive order says, and we don't have a ruling definitively, and we're not subject to any of the any of the injunctions,

that is what's going to happen between now and the time the Supreme Court gets around a ruling. It may be earlier than in October. It may be an emergency application more quickly than that over the summer with this ban getting back together again and setting oral argument. But here's one of the most, two depraved things by an alternative act that Donald Trump did. This shows you the mental depravity and the mental decline of Donald Trump. When reached for comment about the decision on nationwide injunction, he made a comment about birthright citizenship. He said that the 14th Amendment, that was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation. This is how the executive branch thinks that the amendments post-reconstruction in this country are only to be applied to people

who were slaves or the descendants of slaves. Which I don't even think this United States Supreme Court is gonna go along with that. And then lastly, on the day that they announced that their hand is strengthened to try to rip away birthright citizenship for the 14th Amendment, Donald Trump announces the gold visa,

the $5 million buy a US citizenship program. So if you're born here, he's not recognizing your citizenship. But if you want to pay $5 million, he'll put you on a fast track to citizenship. Disgusting. So let me just present this case to our audience as I would to a jury as it relates to Katanji Brown Jackson and the liberal justices fear of an imperial president violating the law and then using the inability now of district courts to potentially issue nationwide injunctions to kind of very rapidly push forward the violation of law until you have you know

hundreds of lawsuits filed in every corner and in every district based on the potential confusion caused or do you think the big concern here is an imperial judiciary you go back to the ruling on absolute immunity with the same six to three right wing Supreme Court dynamic giving Donald Trump absolute immunity. And we saw in the oral arguments and in the questioning by the judges, the liberal justices, although I don't like that term, the pro democracy judges, the ones who were appointed by the Democrats, they said you can't give the president absolute immunity.

We're not worried about a president feeling that their executive actions are going to be chilled because they should just follow the law. This has never been an issue by any other United States president who's claimed they want to commit crimes, no one is above the law, including the president, and there should be checks on that. If a president commits a crime, they should be held criminally accountable, to which the

six right-wing justices says, no, no, no. Unitary, executive, special, we can't chill. We can't have someone like a Trump get worried that everything they do could potentially be criminal. We gotta make sure that their deliberations are not impeded by even the thought of being brought up on crimes if it could anyway be construed in their official capacity. It's that same kind of logic here in a way

of the liberal justices saying Federal courts have a role in this to check Executive power if the executive is not following the law Not saying that you know district courts are just gonna start making crap up if there's a violation of the law, for example, if birthright citizenship is in the Constitution and Trump says by executive order, not even legislation, by executive order, I'm declaring people who are born here not citizens and I'm going to deport you by executive order, a district court should say no. And especially in a case like birthright citizenship,

a nationwide injunction makes a ton of sense because what, if you're now born in Kentucky, you're not a citizen. If you're born in New York or Massachusetts or New Hampshire, you are a citizen based on where the district court sits. And then even more than that within, you have to be within, if you're in the central district of California, you may be this.

But if you're in the eastern district of California, Bakersfield, Fresno, you may not be a citizen. That doesn't make any sense. So now everybody has to file lawsuits everywhere. That's what Katanji Brown Jackson's saying. And this is what Amy Coney Barrett said in her opinion, we will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. And do you see that Amy Coney Barrett there's not only just dissing Jackson,

she's dissing the court. And if you want to take her word for it right there, the way the Constitution's been for two centuries, then why Amy Coney Barrett has this, has nationwide injunctions like this, always existed and always been allowed until you've just declared otherwise the same way you've overturned all these other precedents. She goes on to say the following in Amy Coney Barrett's decision.

No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law, but the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation. In fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so. Let's pause there. So yes, there are workarounds to this ruling, right? Class actions can be filed to seek nationwide injunctions on that basis. States likely can seek nationwide injunctions on that basis as states likely can seek nationwide injunctions.

But what I say is most disturbing is what I just read for you. Saying that no one disputes that the president has a duty to follow the law, but the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation. Like, do you realize what she just said right there? That the judges do not have unbridled authority.

If the judges see the president violating the law, that judges have to be like, well, nothing we can do here. If the police officer is watching the murder, nothing I can do here, just I guess go do it. See you later on your way because you have special significance. To me that strikes at the exact opposite of what our country is built on. And if you want to know whose fears are right, the imperial judiciary fears of Amy Coney

Barrett or the imperial executive fears of Katanji Brown Jackson. Just watch what Donald Trump did right after this ruling, where in fact, Donald Trump said, as a result of this ruling, we're coming for everybody. We think that we should be able to buy executive order. We're going to send our military and our troops like we've done in California and I said, we're coming for you all. Listen to him. This is what Trump said. Let's play it. So thanks to this decision, we can now properly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly

enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries and numerous other priorities of the American people. We have so many of them. I have a whole list. I'm not going to bore you and I'm going to have Pam get up and say a few words, but there's really a she could talk as long as she wants. going to bore you and I'm going to have Pam get up and say a few words, but there's really a she could talk as long as she wants.

So whose concerns there are more justified. And the reality is, my view is if you break the law, I do think the judiciary, if you see the legal violate, you'd and you're a federal judge, you're an Article 3 judge, call me old-fashioned, but I do think that you have the authority to say, no, I'm not going to allow that subject to the safeguards of our system, which is the district judge doesn't act as king. The district judge makes a ruling, then there's a court of appeals, then it goes to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court already, PO-PAC, has been staying or pausing

district court rulings that involve nationwide injunctions to begin with. So it's not like it's without a safeguard. But when we come back, let's talk a little bit more about that. Let's talk about the other ruling in the case involving LGBTQ opt-outs and the free exercise clause. And then let's conclude with talking about a Trump lawyer disbarments and a state bar complaints. Let's take our last quick break of the show. A reminder, everybody check out Michael Popak's new law firm. You all may have a case that you that you've been injured, whether you've been injured in an auto accident, a trucking accident, sexual assault, sexual harassment. Maybe you know somebody, a friend, a family member who's got a case as well. Catastrophic injuries, medical malpractice,

a wrongful death, wrongful death cases. Give Popak's firm a call. The Popak firm has free consultations. Their cases are done on contingency, meaning that they only recover if you recover. Popak, where can they reach out to your firm? Start with the website, www.thepopokfirm.com or if you prefer it ends up in the same type of place with talking to a live person call 1-877-POPOK-AF. Check it out also Michael

Popok's Substack. Subscribe there. It's the Legal AF Substack and also help the Legal AF YouTube channel get to one million subscribers. They are on their way to one million subscribers. Let's take our last quick break of the show. We'll be right back. Support for today's episode comes from Square, your all-in-one business partner that helps keep things running smoothly,

whether you're at the counter, on the go, or online. From point of sale and payments to inventory and customer tools, Square keeps your business organized so you can focus on what matters. Listen, I see it every week at my favorite coffee spot in Coral Gables. They use Square, and I always appreciate how quick and easy it is to pay. And the staff isn't stuck behind a clunky register, they're connecting with customers. That's the Square difference. Whether you're just getting started or looking to grow,

Square has you covered. You can even set up an online store in just a few clicks. And the hardware, sleek, modern, and easy to use. No tech degree needed. Here's the deal, Legal AF listeners can get up to $200 off Square hardware when you sign up at square.com slash go slash Legal AF. That's S-Q-U-A-R-E dot com slash G-O slash Legal AF.

Square keeps up so you don't have to slow down. Get started today. So I went to my 40th high school reunion recently. While many of my classmates were excited about retiring or have retired, well, I brought my infant daughter to the reunion and I won the youngest child contest hands down. But that means that when most people's working

is winding down to match their body's energy levels, I need to ramp up to keep up with my baby daughter. I believe one of the best aging breakthroughs of the last decade is qualicentelitic, and here's why. Qualicentelitic is at the frontier of what is currently possible in the science of human aging. Centelitics are a science field revolutionizing human aging. A big culprit behind that middle-aged feeling

can be senescent cells, aka zombie cells that linger in your body after their useful function, wasting your energy and resources. Let me break it down. The accumulation of zombie cells can lead to less energy, slower workout recovery, joint discomfort, and basically, well, feeling old. Qualicetalytic is a groundbreaking, clinically tested supplement with nine vegan plant-derived compounds that help your body naturally eliminate senescent cells,

helping you feel years younger in just months. Here's how it works. You take it just two days a month, helping your body naturally eliminate zombie cells to age better at the cellular level. And Qualia's breakthrough formulation is vegan, non-GMO and tested by leading scientists. Since taking Qualia's centolytic, I felt like I've turned back the clock. I got higher energy, less soreness after exercise, and a big boost in productivity.

It's made me feel more youthful and energized as I have the energy level to nurture my baby daughter the right way. Experience the science of feeling younger. Go to qualyalife.com slash legal AF for up to 50% off your purchase and use code legalAF for an additional 15%. That's qualyalife.com slash legalAF for an extra 15% off your purchase.

Your older self will thank you. And thanks to Qualia for sponsoring this episode. Welcome back to Legal AF. Thank you to those pro-democracy sponsors, by the way. We don't have outside investors on Legal AF, so the show grows, thankfully, to those sponsors. Also, the memberships here on these YouTubes help a lot as well. But those pro-democracy sponsors go and they really help. Check them out. Jordy negotiates the discount codes. They're great stuff and great discounts as well.

Popak, before we took the break, I was talking about Amy Coney Barrett's basic attack on Justice Katanji Brown Jackson in the opinion of the court on nationwide injunctions. And whether it's Coney Barrett who, her background is kind of being in a handmade's tale type of religious community, everybody can go and check that out, you know, what her background is. You know, whether it's naivety or whether it's just an outright open hug and embrace of fascism, it's, it's, it's baffling to me that the world exists as it does right now with masked agents who may work for ICE, who knows where these people work for, the deputized by ICE, you know, walking around and disappearing humans off the streets and Donald Trump using the Marines and the National

Guard as props in front of federal buildings and, you know, and shutting down key portions of the government that are needed for us to live. And then the Supreme Court is like, but I'm worried about what happens if the judiciary becomes an imperial judiciary. We do not want to, we think that the president will faithfully execute the laws. I'm like, what world are you looking at right now?

And Katan, even Amy Coney Barrett's not in that world. She actually quoted the one part of Barbary versus Madison to prove her point, which is the leading case that gives the Supreme Court its power, to say, well, even in that case, they found Madison had violated, you know, he'd done something wrong, and they also found they didn't have the power to do anything about it. Great. So now we've got a feckless Congress, a limp noodle doormat of a Congress.

No internal, nothing internal to the executive branch that provides any guardrails in this second go around for Donald Trump, right? No, I mean there's some resistance, but no real resistance. He's only brought in with him bootlickers and sycophants. So he's got nothing that stops his outrageous overreaches of presidential power, imperial power.

He's got no Congress to do their job until the Democrats get it back in another year and a half or whatever it is. And now you've got Amy Coney Barrett declaring for the rest of the court that there's only one court in the land that can declare it, and that's us. And even then, we may not be able to stop an out-of-control imperial president that we created a year ago

with our immunity decision. And so this battle of the imperialists and suddenly Amy Coney Barrett becoming an originalist textualists. You know, she stepped out and took on Clarence Thomas when he started talking about, when it's about guns, right? Like, and his constant look for historical antecedents.

Like, well, the old timey times, there wasn't a regulation that an 18-year-old couldn't carry an AK-47 down the streets of his city in old timey times, AK-47. And she was like, there's limits to the ability to use historical antecedents in precedents. And now, she starts off with, in the history, I've done a full survey. And in the history of, since 1787,

with the Judiciary Act, which was soon after our nation's founding, when lots of things were different. And she got history wrong. She said, well, then you have to go back to Britain. We're like, oh, now we're going back to London? And in the British area, there wasn't a notion of a national injunction either.

Stop. We left Britain, we formed a new country that went through a number of permutations before it became a union of states under a constitution, and back in old timey times, courts were divided into two different courts, courts of equity and courts of law. We don't have that in our country. In the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years,

in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last few years, in the last 100 years, and especially about civil rights. There have been nationwide injunctions issued without comment and supported and defended by the Supreme Court without commentary until now.

And so what we are watching, though, is, as you said at the top of this entire Legal AF today, is this jurisprudential philosophy that is pro-tyrant and pro-imperial president, even if it means that we've lost the three co-equal branches of government and checks and balance. And as you said, we should not worry about an out-of-control federal judge who's ultimately supervised by an appellate court, who's ultimately supervised by a Supreme Court with all the checks and balances along the way. We shouldn't worry about that.

We should worry about what we're watching, which is a Leviathan, a Frankenstein of the Supreme Court MAGA's creation that is running roughshod over constitutional rights. And when I hear Donald Trump in that clip that you play, say, well, it's all gas and no break. It's just green light all the way down for all of our imperial fascist policies and he starts reading them off and then he gets bored halfway through. What I hear is, no, redouble our effort. We're at

200 lawsuits in the courts. We're at 24 injunctions. We need to convert those quickly into class actions or argue to the federal judges. This is the last argument here. Argue to the federal judges that because states are involved, they are entitled to a nationwide injunction. Put that back up before the United States Supreme Court and at the same time this class action

methodology and continue because underlying it, I don't want anybody to lose sight of this, we have 24 federal judges who have declared that Donald Trump's actions are unconstitutional in 24 different topics effectively, at least in 200 overall cases. And that doesn't change the substance. The Supreme Court still jerking around, dicking around with procedural problems and kicks the ball down, even though the human lives are at risk,

whether it's immigration, deportation, jails in foreign countries, third world jails in foreign countries, or babies born who are nationless or citizenless, which is what we just created with this decision, and then stand on high ceremony about, oh, heaven's a Betsy that we, we, a nationwide injunction should go the way of

who knows what, ridiculous. All right, that's it for me. Well, let me ask you this, and let me prove the point to our audience this way. In history of humankind, was the norm a democracy with a co equal branches of government? Or was the norm kings and authoritarians and royal families, right? The latter. The kings, authoritarians, and royal families. So what sociopaths do and what sometimes children do as well, no offense to children, is if you can create a framework

for your argument that no matter what happens, you win the argument. And it doesn't matter if you flip-flop. The outcome is already decided by the very nature win the argument. And it doesn't matter if you flip-flop, the outcome is already decided by the very nature of the framework. And so the right-wing justices over the past several decades have gaslit the entire nation with their frameworks. And they teach this to you at law school.

It's all bullshit, it's total bullshit, made up. So they'll say, oh, you know, there's a whole doctrine called being a strict constructionalist and a textualist. bullshit, it's total bullshit, made up. So they'll say, oh, you know, there's a whole doctrine called being a strict constructionalist and a textualist. Every word in the Constitution has a meaning, and the best way to determine how to rule the case on constitutional issues is you got to analyze each word, where the words fit next to the words. And you don't need to really even dig deep into the statutory history. The words are it.

That often takes place when the statutory history rebuts what the words say. Then you have something like the Second Amendment, which talks about a well-regulated militia before it talks about the right to bear arms. And then they'll say, ooh, ooh, we don't want to talk about the text there. We're not strict textualists there.

We, let's dig a little bit deeper right there, you know, or they'll talk about states' rights and how important and robust states' rights are, okay, until a unitary executive comes along, an imperial president, and says, you know what? Nice national guard you got there, state. They may be doing the things that you want in your state

because the governor controls the national guard, but you know what? Give it over if the president wants it, even though the law says that there has to be coordination with the governor, the president can just send you a letter that's fine so we're actually no longer states rights there and they would talk about when they didn't want to address Republican presidents who would violate the Constitution oh we're just gonna do a doctrine called constitutional avoidance, constitutional avoidance.

And now they're big one, whether it comes to firearms, whether it comes to a case like nationwide injunctions, what do they do? They re all those frameworks that they've taught you in law school that were the orthodoxy of the Federalist society and that they were acting like they were so academic, their new one is we gotta go back in history and really have a historical understanding of what took place. Now that's kind of like arguing sometimes who's a better basketball player,

Michael Jordan or LeBron James, right? You see those debates on ESPN, but it's really meaningless who's a better basketball player, LeBron James or Michael Jordan. But the telling of history sometimes has different interpretations. So basically, remember that movie 300, where they then like, where the guy from Sparta,

he like then climbs up to the top and then the oracles of Delphi basically hand down what the ruling is going to be by engaging in their weird rituals and they go, oh, let me see, let me figure it out. That's kind of where we're at with the Supreme Court right now, right? Like at this point, they have a point of view leaning towards dictatorship in a handmaid's tale world. And they're gonna find that. And they're gonna go back and they're gonna find their own

selective interpretation of history. The law be damned, the present be damned. And that's what they're doing on all of these cases now. That's their new framework. And I want you to educate yourself on it because these people try to come off as academic in their presentation, but they're con artists, they're grifters, they're scammers.

And that's why they align with Donald Trump as well. Okay, enough of my rant right there. Let me quickly discuss the ruling regarding these LGBTQ opt-outs and the implication there, because that was another big ruling before the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that a Maryland school policy

barring opt-outs for LGBTQ books violates religious rights. The First Amendment talks about the separation of church and state. The First Amendment, of course, also deals with free speech, and it also has a statement about the free exercise thereof relating to religion. And the separation of church and state was usually viewed throughout our history, if we want to talk about historical interpretation, as a given, as an anchor. But religious groups over the past few terms have come in and they've said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, we want to freely exercise our religion where we want to. And if that happens in the public square,

if that happens in schools, we wanna do that. And not only that, our free exercise of our religion goes beyond even, you can't justify discriminating against races, discriminating against minorities, discriminating against minorities or marginalized communities in business based on the First Amendment. You can express heinous views about marginalized groups,

but you can't say I have a First Amendment right to exclude certain things, remove certain things from like, because that's, we have anti-discrimination laws and those emerged wholeheartedly, like in the 60s and the 70s and the Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Movement. But now the religious groups are saying,

we want to discriminate. Our religion says, thou shall discriminate. And we want to freely exercise that. So can you stop discriminating against us as religious groups for wanting to discriminate? Your secular anti-discrimination should be trumped, pun intended, by our religious right to discriminate against who we want to. And so we're seeing a lot of free exercise clauses. So, you know, why did they pick this case? Salty, throw up that headline again right now.

Because it involved, not to say it was a sympathetic case, but it was a case where the Montgomery School District in Maryland basically said, you can't opt out. Your kid has to go to the library where these LGBTQ books are. So the Supreme Court was saying, you shouldn't be forcing parents to send their kids into the library basically where the LGBTQ books are.

And it's like, what do you think is gonna happen with, do you think the books are gonna turn your kids gay? I mean, what do you think that the books are on the, you think the books are going to turn your kids gay? I mean, what, what, what, what are you, you've given them that the books are on the shelves are going to make your children gay. Is that, is that what you're afraid? Like seriously, that's, that's your thinking, but they brought it in and say, oh, all we want to just do is be able to opt out.

So the Supreme court acts like, come on, just let them do the opt outs. But there's a broader principle, right? Pope Oc and that's how the Supreme Court acts like, come on, just let them do the opt-outs. But there's a broader principle, right, Popak? And that's how the Supreme Court moves. And what they're doing is augmenting the free exercise doctrine to promote discrimination against gay people, against races, against marginalized groups. And so that's what really was going on there. Popak, I think I saw as you... Yeah, that one's fine, but one other one. They say the Planned Parenthood case also came out,

also on a religious right, allowing a state to deny Planned Parenthood funding. Primarily because, you know, Planned Parenthood has as part of its protocol that it will provide appropriate counseling and services for the life of the mother, including about abortion. And so states wanted to cut that out, especially the red states. The Supreme Court said that was fine to put Planned Parenthood effectively out of business for funding in those states because it's inconsistent with that state's view on abortion. And so, you know, it just goes to show you with this,

as you said, this last gasp of opinions dropped, just like, you know, the Dobbs decision on ripping away a woman's constitutional right to choose on the last day of the term, the immunity decision, last day of the term, the immunity decision last day of the term. Same thing, that's why we were really on pins and needles waiting for this last group to come out, because it was on the most fundamental issues

that were before us, and we had a sense, having watched it closely, that things were not gonna go the way of a fair democracy. Popak, talk briefly about Chesborough being disbarred and then the bar complaint against Habba. Sure. Ken Chesborough, one of the architects of the stealing the election for Donald Trump,

came up with the fake elector scheme as a lawyer, indicted in Wisconsin, convicted, pled guilty in Georgia for his role in that. You know, it went from, you know, well, I'll just give advice to him telling the fake electors what their certificates needed to look like, what their signatures needed to look like, when they needed to meet, when the certificates needed to be delivered, you know, through Mike Roman, the election day coordinator for Donald Trump, to try to get to be delivered, you know, through Mike Roman, the election day coordinator for Donald Trump, to try to get to Mike Pence, who is presiding over the Senate during the certification,

in order to either recognize the fake elector certificates and or throw up his hands and say, well, I got this one slate over here that came from through the governor, but I got this other slate that says their electors, oops, what can we do? Let's throw it over to the House and let the House pick the president. And the House's delegations are dominated by Republicans. And so it would have been a Trump victory. He came up with all that. There were others involved.

Sidney Powell and Peter Navarro, Mike Roman, as we've talked about, Jenna Ellis, Jim Trupis, there's a lot of people. He played guilty, along with Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis in Georgia. But he forgot to report it to places where he was admitted to the bar, like New York. That's a problem. When you are convicted of a crime, you need to report it promptly to, you know, we're a self-regulating profession. And we, every state has a code of professional responsibility or code of professional conduct. It's based coincidentally on the American Bar Association model rule. And then that state determines who is going to regulate

and police those ethical rules. It's either a unified bar like in Florida, which is run by the Florida Bar, or a state allows its Supreme Court or some version of their court system to administer that set of rules and suspend, disbar people based on investigations that are opened either anonymously or through a grievance that's filed

and the like. So they opened up an investigation against Chesapeake and they did a full, a referee did a full investigation and I'm a member of the New York Bar, not of the department that he's a member of, but that department with three judges in the Appellate Division, took a look at all the evidence,

and said, yeah, you're disbarred. We're striking you from the roles in New York, much like Rudy Giuliani was, and you can't practice the state of New York any longer. And he now has the opportunity to appeal that to the Court of Appeals in New York, the highest court. He's going to lose. And he is disbarred.

Another lesson to those lawyers that want to represent Donald Trump and push the limits and beyond of their ethical obligations, you too could be disbarred. Now, I'll make one contrast that was something else. Pam Bondi, just as Alina Habba, the acting interim US attorney for New Jersey, both got hit with grievances in the last couple of weeks, grievance letters.

Bondi, because she's violating left and right, the Department of Justice manual, and trying her cases in the public with propaganda, leaking perp walks of judges that they've arrested, making extra judicial statements outside the courtroom in order to influence what's happening inside the courtroom with judges and juries, all the things you're not allowed to do,

and it's unethical. Lack of candor to the tribunal, lying to the courts, you know, those types of things. Florida Bar said, we have a policy about Pam Bondi particularly. We're not going to, if she's a federal officer, even though she has a bar license, we're dismissing the grievance until she's done being a federal officer. I don't know what they're talking about.

And I doubt that New Jersey, which is where Alina Habba just got a grievance against her, brought by a public interest group, because she similarly has violated about six rules of professional responsibility in the short time that she's been the U.S. attorney for the entire state of New Jersey, including everything she did with arresting, indicting, and dismissing the indictment of Mayor Baraka of Newark, indicting LaMonica McIver, a member of the House of Representatives in New Jersey who just pled not guilty, all because she had the temerity to go down and take a look as a member of the House of Representatives in New Jersey who just pled not guilty, all because she had the temerity

to go down and take a look as a member of Congress at a federal immigration detention center operated by people who donated to Donald Trump, and she gets arrested and has to continue to stay in charges. Also threatened Alina Javva to investigate and open up a criminal investigation against the New Jersey Governor, Governor Murphy, and a friend of yours, when I say a friend of yours, he's been on the show with you a number of times,

the Attorney General for New Jersey, Matt Plotkin, because they're not enforcing immigration policy as Donald Trump sees fit. And that is again another violation of ethics rules, threatening a criminal prosecution in order to gain an advantage in some other civil matter. So New Jersey is not Florida. I'm a New Jersey boy.

It's a pretty powerful grievance against her. I don't get the argument that Florida made, which is, well, they're feds, so we're not gonna deal with it. If you're going, you do not... Let me make this clear to our audience. You don't have to be a lawyer to be a judge. If you're going you do not let me make this clear to our audience You don't have to be a lawyer to be a judge

You don't you don't have to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court It helps you don't need to be a lawyer to be an attorney general You don't you Donald Trump could have picked X Y & Z guy woman whoever that's not a lawyer to be the Attorney General of the United States There's nothing in the Constitution that says the judge or those people have to be. And if you, and I know there are people who are on the Supreme Court of some states who have never been judges before, and you don't necessarily have to be a lawyer, but if you are a lawyer and you have your bar license until you turn it back, you are subject to the regulation of your bar

for your ethical conduct. Even if you're not operating as a lawyer. I know CPAs that have a law license. They screw up as CPAs, they could be disbarred. Because as long as they're holding themselves out and they have that credential, they are subject to the ethical investigations and regulatory powers of that profession.

If you don't want your license, Alina, and if you don't want your license, Pam, then turn it back. Then you won't have to worry about the bar investigating you for ethical violations. But if you're gonna hold yourself out as a lawyer and pay your dues and whatever, an officer of the court,

and practice in courts as a lawyer, not sure you can practice in courts without being a lawyer, but maybe you can, then you need to be subject to this investigation. So, Chesboro disbarred, started the process right now for Alina Haba. I'm sure wherever Pam Bondi is also a member of the bar, maybe she's a member of the DC bar, they can open up investigations related to her.

But I don't think, Ben, you don't think they get a pass because they're in the federal government, do you? Well look, I think when it comes to Haba, I think that you know, I don't think she's gonna be confirmed, right? I think, I think that, you know, I don't think she's going to be confirmed, right? I think that her time will end once her special session and that deadline passes. So, you know, she's on a time clock. So for her, it doesn't really matter. You know, look, with respect to, you know, Bondi and the complaints against Bondi as the attorney general, you know, my view is that any action against Bondi will happen after she's attorney general and I think

after the nation has a deep reflection about the moment that we're living in which is past a constitutional crisis. It is a dictatorship in the United States of America. It is a cacostocracy, a dictatorship of idiots and some of the least qualified people. But America's, like let's not try to ignore the reality here. America now has a Congress the way North Korea has a Congress. America has a judiciary the way Iran has a judiciary, you know, with the Supreme Judicial Council or whatever it is there.

And, you know, the midterms are going to be critical. It's gonna be critical that we fight to have a midterms. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that there will be midterms. I think as the dictatorship escalates, they're going to try to pull more stunts together. But I leave you with hope. And the hope is, is that Americans hate this stuff

right now. Even conservatives, even right-wing people. Yes, there's 30% or 35%. You're never going to move them away from MAGA and Trump. They call him daddy. I mean, Trump sells daddy merch to them. I'm not going to convince someone who refers to Donald Trump as their daddy, not even jokingly, like they seriously refer to him as their daddy. I'm not going to convince those people of anything logical or constitutional, so I write them off. I don't even care about them.

I speak to the rest of the country right now and the tens of millions of people who did not vote. Donald Trump did not get a majority of votes of American voters in the election. His approval rating is the worst ever, worse than his first term. The disastrous budget bill has even a worse approval than Trump's approval, which is horrific. And the people are ready to take to the streets again and continue to peacefully protest. We saw that with the no kings protest, which was huge, but to me it's an appetizer of what's to come.

Part of the authoritarian playbook is to crush the resistance and opposition and I think the resistance and opposition is actually stronger than ever but we can't rely on the courts, we can't rely on politicians, we have to rely on ourselves. And now is a time to be fearless and courageous. And I know it could be scary, but we have each other. We have each other and we'll on the show. Don't be shy. Look, if you've been in a car accident, if you've been in an accident where a truck or a car has hit you and you're injured, reach out to the PO-POK firm. Don't be shy. Don't be, oh.

By the way, motorcycle, ride share, Uber, Lyft, those types of things too. Sexual assault, sexual harassment, medical malpractice cases, wrongful death cases. Obviously, if you know somebody who's been killed in an accident, reach out to Popok. You see him here. You know, he and his firm are happy to do a consultation.

If there's not a case, there's not a case. And he has lawyers across the country who can take a look at these cases for you. So reach out to him. Popok, where can they reach out to you? Easily, www.thepopakfirm.com. It'll lead you right to a free consultation form. And then ultimately, you'll talk to somebody about your case.

Or you can skip that step, go right to speak to somebody at 1-877-POPAK-AF. Everybody check out the Legal AF YouTube channel they're on their way to a million subscribers this summer let's help them hit 1 million by the end of this summer and check out the legal AF sub stack legal AF sub stack check it out everybody thank you so much for watching enjoy the rest of your weekend remember we're in this together. We ain't going anywhere. We're fighting together. Our democracy is ultimately going to be reclaimed. I make you

that promise because that's where the people are. That's what the people want. And this fascist regime right now that is in charge, I think it will ultimately inspire generations of change in a positive direction, moving us forward in the direction of a stronger democracy. We'll be fighting for that every day. Thanks for watching. Hit subscribe here, help us get to 6 million subscribers. That's it for Legal AF. I'm Ben Myselis, joined by Michael Popak.

Shout out Midas Mighty. Shout out LegalAEffers.