Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal AF Full Episode - 6/4/2025

Episode Date: June 5, 2025

Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back on the top rated Legal AF x Meidas Touch podcast debating: Judge Xinis about to find the Trump Administration in contempt in the Abrego Garcia case; Judge Boesberg ruling against the Trump Administration and certifying a class of all those people who were removed to El Salvador by Trump; Trump's attack on women; Trump's 96 percent losing streak in Courts and his lashing out as a result; the Supreme Court's peculiar new gun rights and voting decisions, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Support Our Sponsors: Soul: Go to https://GetSoul.com and use code LEGALAF to get 30% OFF your order! Delete Me: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join https://deleteme.com/LEGALAF and use promo code LEGALAF at checkout. One Skin: Get started today at https://OneSkin.co and receive 15% Off using code: LEGALAF Remi: Go to https://shopremi.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF at checkout for 50% 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

When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer, so download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus enjoy zero dollar delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees exclusions and terms apply. Instacart. Groceries that over-deliver.

Discover the magic of Bad MGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there with over 3,000 games to choose from including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun and make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out.

Visit betmgm.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. advisor for you charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome to the Midweek Edition of Legal AF, the podcast at the intersection of law and politics.

I'm Michael Popok. I'm joined with my regular co-anchor, Karen Friedman-Iknifilo. And we sit at the intersection of law and politics so that you don't have to, at least not every hour, every day. We do it here on the Midas Touch Network. And today's curated topics, Karen, I think we need to touch on Judge Zinnis and how she's handling the Abrego Garcia case and the fact that in particular, she is getting one step

closer. I think she's on the, I think it's 1159 and midnight when it strikes is gonna be contempt in the Ibrego Garcia case. She's had it with the Trump administration and the game playing. She's had it with her, them violating her orders. She's done it properly. She's waited a month and a half to two months

to give the other side, the Ibrego Garcia side time to put together their motion, develop their discovery. But now she's given them a week from today to file their motion. She could well be not the first judge, but the second judge to find this administration in contempt of court.

And then in continuing our sort of profiles in courage here, people fighting back, you've got the mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Shout out to New Jersey. Proud New Jerseyan, son of New Jersey. And the largest city in New Jersey is Newark and its mayor, Mayor Baraka, is running for governor. He's on the short list of people,

the Democratic party who would run for president. But Alina Haba, as political henchman for Donald Trump, forgot that she was the head of the office of the Department of Justice there, the U.S. Attorney's Office for New Jersey, and decided to make political mincemeat out of Mayor Baraka, arresting him, putting his hands behind his back,

cuffing him and taking him away when all he was doing is heading down to the immigration detention center that had been built and is operated in Newark along with members of Congress. And after she decided to dismiss the trespass case and was excoriated by a federal magistrate in doing so, because having even brought the charges.

Finally, Mayor Baraka is fighting back and filed a new lawsuit for fourth amendment violations and defamation against the Lena Habba. Cases mainly against the Lena Habba and a guy named Ricky Patel, some sort of officer with the Homeland Security. Trump is on, moving on, we'll be talking about Trump's losing streak.

It's epic, it's historic. 96% of the cases that have been filed against his administration, he has lost. I'm talking this term, we're talking a couple of hundred cases. While he's batting about 50-50 at the United States Supreme Court and every other court, he's on an epic losing streak and it is annoying him and he's getting frustrated and he's lashing out at the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo and people in his own administration and the Supreme

Court. But the reason that he's losing has nothing to do with left-wing activist Marxist judges. It has to do with the fact that his lesson that he learned from the immunity decision is that he could get away with murder almost. And we've just been lurching from one constitutional crisis to the other since the start of his administration. And the only thing that stands between us and utter chaos and tyranny are the federal judges who are doing God's work, you know, to mix up my concepts here of church and state. They're doing God's work to hold Donald Trump accountable, but he doesn't like it. So we're going to pick up with what it means and the trend lines as the United States Supreme Court starts picking cases for its next term. We had some, we're still waiting on about 10 or 15 major decisions out of the United States Supreme Court, including about nationwide injunctions and indirectly, but they did issue a couple of interesting peculiar rulings in the area of gun rights, which I think have been misinterpreted

by most of the mainstream media. We'll try to sort it out here on legal AF and then look at a new case on voting rights that the Supreme Court decided to take up in its list for the new term starting in October. Sounds like it's a long time away, but between now and October, this Supreme Court garrison is gonna be very, very busy

with emergency applications and rulings and maybe a hearing or two, which would be quite unusual, but I could see it happening before they come back. Let's bring in Karen. Karen? Sorry. Sorry. I had to find the mute button. It's all right. Hi, Popak. Great to see you. How are you? I'm doing great. thank you very much. I still try to get my eyesight lined up with my camera.

I have a new set up here in my office, but we'll get that straight. Looks like I'm not looking at you, but I really am. One of the things before we came on the air, I was kind of taking a look at is, I don't know if you've been following law firms that are being penalized by major corporations because they agreed to settle with Donald Trump.

There's at least 14 firms that got together and said, well, we better settle because we don't want to be attacked and rip away all of our profits per partner. And they ran the gamut. I mean, I worked at one of those firms in particular and they gave Donald Trump over a billion dollars of free legal service. Now, I haven't heard much about how that's going.

In other words, what cases they're handling for Donald Trump or those in his inner circle. I have heard about people leaving, including Rachel Cohen, who's gonna start doing some work for Legal AF very, very soon, associates that had conviction and courage and decided to give up their careers rather than stay in firms like that.

But what I have heard is about 14, at least major companies taking business away. And I'm talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of business like the Microsofts, the Oracles, the McDonald's taking major business away from those law firms. And it's being led not only by general counsels, and I've worked as an in-house general counsel for a major company, and was their deputy head of litigation, I get how that office directs legal

services, but by women general counsels. And it's the revenge of the women general counsels and others that support them that I find most fascinating. Did you catch that reporting lately coming out of the Wall Street Journal? It's so interesting, right? It's so interesting how some people are responding to this. There are some law firms that caved, frankly. There's no other word for it.

They caved to Trump's administration going after them. And the reason I say they caved is cause all the ones that are fighting back have won cause this is illegal to do what he's trying to do and target these law firms. And so they caved thinking, oh, it's better for business but it's interesting to see that maybe not, maybe it's not better for business. Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, one example that was in the Wall Street Journal is Latham and Watkins that I know, I know people there, I know the head of litigation there, he's a friend of mine. But they have lost the Microsoft book of business. Because of this? Yeah, because Microsoft wants a fighter. They have antitrust cases against the government and they don't want to look. Look, this is all, this was all appreciantly predicted by Judge Barrow Howell. When she wrote one of the four decisions

about the firms that you mentioned, right? Perkins, Coy, Sussman, Godfrey, Jenner and Block and Wilmer-Hale. When she wrote one of them, she said in a footnote and then I amplified it in AATIC. She said, why would you ever, I'm paraphrasing, why would you ever as a client wanna hire one of these law firms that's settled?

They have an obligation of sell us advocacy. They have an ethical obligation. How do you know that they're defending your interests and prosecuting your interests, as opposed to looking over their shoulder about trying to appease Donald Trump? Why would you ever go to a firm like that? And that was a month and a half ago.

And now you're getting like a Brooke Cucinella, who was at a restaurant you and I go to all the time. We're in New York unfortunately for these rubber circuit meetings at Chipriani's. And she said at Chipriani's and she represents and she's the general counsel in-house for Citadel, Ken Griffin's company. And she said out loud,

I'm not gonna work with any of those firms. I wanna fight her. I want a firm that's gonna fight. And so there, and Latham said the same thing and immediately directed work away from them. And Sullivan and Cromwell is in big trouble too because their head, their chairman, if you will, because you and I did reporting on this that Sullivan and Cromwell suddenly showed up and started representing Donald Trump in the appeal of the 34 felony count conviction out of your

old office in Manhattan. We were like, Sullivan and Cromwell? I mean, what is going on there? But there's a guy, Rob Jopfra, who is the head of that firm, but also like, and he started signing his name to these pleadings. Turns out for the Wall Street Journal reporting that he also brokered the deal with Paul Weiss, the first one in, to pay $40 million in free legal services, followed by $100 million and $150 million and another $150 million by all the other firms. But he brokered that deal, and it almost tore his law firm apart. And to appease them, speaking of appeasement, he said to them out loud, according to the

Wall Street Journal, don't worry, I think that the executive orders against these law firms are unconstitutional and they won't be upheld by courts, so don't worry. I think that the executive orders against these law firms are unconstitutional and they won't be upheld by courts. So don't worry about it. Well, then why are you representing Donald Trump in an appeal and why are you brokering a deal to lead Paul Weiss to the slaughter if you don't think ultimately is that good counsel? If you were represented, shouldn't you say fight this? Well, because he got how many hundred, you know, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean,

I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, why I'm so far from my microphone. I'm sorry. It's like a new rig and I'm learning my way. We like Judge Zinnis a lot, not just because she's a Democratic appointed judge in Maryland, because she has intestinal fortitude. She's got a strong judicial brain.

She is, you know, she's expert in her jurisprudence and we like the way she runs a courtroom. And if you don't believe us, it's the only thing lately that the Supreme Court agreed on, that she was right, nine-zero. I mean, I joked on a hot take. You can't get the Supreme Court to agree on their sweet, their sweet greens order, let alone nine, including MAGA, agreeing that she was right about the Abrego Garcia case and the way she's administrating his habeas corpus rights, his due process rights, his fifth amendment rights in her courtroom. And this is the case, as everybody will remember, I'll remind people due to the show.

Donald Trump, listening to Stephen Miller, invokes the Alien Enemies Act to start removing people and deporting people without due process. 250 of them are shackled to put on a plane in the middle of the night and sent to El Salvador of all places. And one of them was named Armando Abrego Garcia. But he should not have been on that plane, as admitted by the Justice Department, because he had in his back pocket, almost literally, an order from a federal judge, an immigration judge, that said he could not be removed and sent to El Salvador because he could die.

And ICE knew that, which came out in the record, and nevertheless, not on an admitted, this wasn't an error, said, yeah, we don't care what that says. Get on the plane. And it was only because his wife saw him in a video being unloaded from the C-130 or whatever in El Salvador that we even kind of knew about it. He just didn't come home for dinner. He's a married guy with two kids married to an American citizen in Maryland.

And no, for those that write sometimes in the chat, he doesn't have MS-13 tattooed on his fingers. That was a deep fake AI. If you don't believe that, go watch Mountainhead on HBO and Max, and you'll know what I'm talking about. I don't know why I'm plugging something that doesn't pay me to plug it, but okay. It's a show I'm watching.

I thought people might be interested. So you've got that, and that event, of sending people without due process to El Salvador kind of spawned two lawsuits, two cases. One presided over originally by Judge Jeb Boesberg in DC and one with Zinnis. Boesberg handled everybody not named to Braco Garcia and issued, he's the one that came up

with the first contempt order where the probable cause defined criminal contempt, because they didn't ground the planes and turn them around after he ordered them to do so. They tried to instead ferret them away in the middle of the night to get away from federal jurisdiction, and that's a problem.

The other case that came out of it filed by the ACLU is the Abrego Garcia case filed in Maryland where he lives. And she ordered, as we now know famously, this will go down in the legal textbook, she ordered that the Trump administration facilitate his release from the jail in El Salvador. And now we're off and running in the Odyssey. That's now four months in the making,

the guy's still sitting in jail, despite the Supreme Court affirming her nine zero and telling her, keep doing what you're doing, you do you, including getting to the bottom of the facts and get reporting from the Trump administration, who have refused for the last four months and have only taunted her about what they're doing, if anything, which is nothing to get Abrego Garcia back.

And she warned them last week that you are on the precipice of being found in contempt and you haven't turned over a darn thing. I feel like a cat and you're using a ball of yarn to try to snatch it away from me. So why don't you pick up from there, Karen, and talk about the new orders we just got today out of Judge Zinnis against the Trump administration. I mean, she is going to hold someone in contempt of court. That's what I think is going to happen. She is just fed up and had enough

that they are not answering any of her questions. They're refusing to talk to her. They're refusing to give her any information that she's asking for. And I think she's getting fed up with all of this. I think she is absolutely saying, look, this is ridiculous and I'm not standing for it anymore and I'm gonna hold you,

and I'm guessing she's gonna say, I'm gonna hold you in contempt. But the couple of things that she did do is, in federal court, if you want to file a motion and ask for sanctions, and that's something you can do, if somebody, if you feel, if you're a party, and you feel that the other side is doing something that's deserving of a sanction,

a sanction is kind of a really big deal. I've never had one against me. And it's a very big deal to ask for a sanction against a lawyer or against a party of the other side. And so you ask permission of a federal judge and she granted permission for them to file a motion for sanctions against, for a Breg O'Garcia to file this motion for sanctions

against the Trump administration because she is basically signaling that they deserve it. Yes, you can do it because this is outrageous. At a certain point when you realize you're being jerked around, she realizes she's being jerked around. And not only do their answers keep changing, they won't provide answers, but when they do, their reasons for not providing answers, they're always kind of changing, shifting in their seats and acting squirrely. And then, but they have no problem providing information either on social media or in the news

or making public statements. They just won't say anything in court. And I think she's getting fed up with it. That and the fact that they're not acting in good faith, whether it's the, that we talked about this a couple of weeks ago, that New York Times that New York Times article about Abrego Garcia being ordered to come back here to facilitate his return, right, they took it with red marker, basically,

exiting it all out and saying, not coming back, never coming back, like really just almost obnoxiously, like a child kind of taunting the court, that they're gonna, and then tweet that out, right? They're gonna taunt the court that, no, we're not doing anything you tell us to do. But then they come to court and pretend like they're, pretend like they're arguing the law.

So she is a human who lives out in the world, not just in her courtroom. So she is able to read the paper, read social media. She sees what they're saying on TV everywhere else, except in her courtroom. And she's had enough, right? They've absolutely had enough. Everyone from Marco Rubio saying they're not going to tell the judge anything. And so I think she's going to let them file their motion for sanctions, potentially grant it, potentially hold them in contempt. And she's also saying that they don't automatically get to put everything under seal, because the Trump administration pretends like, oh, you know, national security,

everything secret, this and that. And she's not saying no, everything's publicly filed, but she's starting to publicly allow certain things to be publicly filed. And I think we're going to start seeing more of what's been going on here, rather than being this this secrecy, you know, being have it on here rather than being this secrecy, you know, have it cloaked in this veil of secrecy, which is what the Trump administration would like it to be done. And frankly, this is a human being's life on the line,

right? Abrego Garcia is, as you said, he's not found to be an MS-13 member. In fact, he was here legally. And in fact, he was in the process of going through immigration proceedings, and an immigration judge specifically found that he could not be sent to El Salvador because he was at risk of being harmed there,

he thought, in fear of his life. And so, as a result, he was granted legal status to be here while he continued his immigration process. He got married to a US citizen. He had a business here. He had children here. So he was lawfully here. So it's just outrageous that he's been there now, you said four months. They are not making any effort to bring him back. And they're frankly making a mockery of our federal court system. So I think the whole process is playing itself out. I think we're gonna start seeing some very stern,

from some stern rulings, frankly. Yeah, I agree. She's given them a week from today to file their motion. She's given Donald Trump a week after that. I mean, federal judges, just to have a little teachable moment here, federal judges have inherent authority to find people in contempt. Lawyers generally call it

contumacious conduct. Some people slip and call it contemptuous. That's different. But it's different in the real world. But contumacious conduct, they have inherent authority that's granted to them as a federal judge. And then on top of that, they have under rule 37 on the civil side, other ways to exercise their sanctions. So federal judges always have the ability to do these things. That's why I find this fight over the language in the bill,

the big, beautiful abomination bill that was passed by the House and is struggling in the language in the bill, the big beautiful abomination bill that was passed by the House and is struggling in the Senate for Donald Trump, where they buried on like page 550 of the thousand pages that nobody read this provision that says, hey, if you're a federal judge and you get federal funding and you don't require a bond for an injunction before you issue it and we violate that bond,

you can't find us in contempt. Yeah, I don't think that's how that works. Even if you can't, the judge has to be able through inherent authority, manage that courtroom. And Congress can't cross over the line of separation of powers and tell them how to do that. Congress can do a lot of things. There's a lot of intersection between the Article 3 branch and the Article 1 branch when it comes to checks and balance. Congress is the funder. Congress is the purse strings.

Congress is the lawmaker. So law. Congress approves rules of civil criminal procedure after they've been sort of gone over usually by a panel of judges and lawyers. And they can make changes in statute of limitations and the actual substantive law. I mean, I had a case first time, hopefully last time in my career, where I had a case, it wasn't a class action, but it was a multi-district litigation

representing kind of a mom and pop, bookkeepers and accountants and financial services people that were putting together these loan packages under the COVID loans. And big banks weren't paying their fair share of the fee for them to assemble these documents, which was provided for in the statute. We had a great case related to that. And to get these people paid hundreds of millions of dollars that they were entitled to,

that the big banks were holding onto until the big banks lobbied Congress and literally got a law passed, but almost by name that killed our case. I was like, well, it took an act of Congress to kill the case, we know we had merit. But that, and they're allowed, and they can do that. They can get entities, they can take liability away

from them, like the tobacco industry and the gun industry. But what they can't do is tell a federal judge how to run their courtroom. It would be the equivalent of Alina Haba, Todd Blanch, or Pam Bondi sitting in the back of the courtroom as the judge is making, really is going, cut, no, that doesn't work. Here's how you're gonna do it.

That's not how that works. And so that is going to fail because of this inherent, ultimately because of inherent authority. And there's no way the Supreme Court, if it ever gets around to it, would ever support that. But look, you know, listen, you gotta give Donald Trump an A for effort. I mean, he's trying every which way

to remove any guardrail against his rogue behavior. It's all gas and no breaks for this administration and no brains or morals either. And that's been the major problem, right Karen? Yeah, completely. It's just, there's no ethics, there's no morals, there's no checks and balances. There's no belief in our system of checks and balances.

It's all headed towards this unitary executive, this all powerful king-like presidency, which is what he wants. He doesn't want checks and balances. He doesn't want there to be a separation of powers. He wants to be all powerful. And that's, you know, he's not even pretending. So that's what he's trying to accomplish here.

Yeah. And thank God for judges like Judge Zinnis. Let's move on to another profile of courage. We've got Ross Baraka, who I like a lot. I'm following him at a Newark. He's running for governor. He's one of the people, I'm not sure he gets governor, but he's running for governor of New Jersey.

And he's on the short list of people that might be interested in running for the presidency in 2028, one of the leader, you know, he's on our deep bench of democratic leaders for the presidency that matter. And of course, Alina Jaba knew that, and Donald Trump knew that. And the reason that Donald Trump put Alina Jaba into that cushy position she's not qualified to handle, having never been a federal court practitioner ever in her life,

nor clerk for a federal judge, nor any of that, other than her close personal relationship with Donald Trump and being his criminal defense lawyer and his chief shill. She's a political hack of the first order and a hatchet person of the first order. And that's why he put her in that plum roll to go after all of his Democratic rivals. And she doesn't, speaking of, like you said before, you know, he doesn't hide it. She doesn't hide it. She says it on her personal, she still runs her personal social media where she talks about going after

Cory Booker and the governor of New Jersey, all Democrats, for no good reason, other than the fact she doesn't like the color of their party, where that was going, at least for Cory Booker. And she did the same thing. Then she, since she was never trained in the Department of Justice, doesn't understand

nor has she read the Department of Justice manual. She doesn't understand what it's proper and improper for a prosecutor to do. You do, having spent 30 years as a prosecutor in the state courts. She never did and never will and doesn't want to. So she brought all of these charges you and I have been talking about. The member of Congress who's still indicted by her and Mayor Baraka, all because in April, three members of Congress and the mayor went down to Newark, New Jersey where he's the mayor to go do what they're supposed to do under the law,

which is to inspect the immigration detention center that's operated by a private company that gave money to Donald Trump. So it's a private prison, and they went down to go inspect it. And the crowds were outside seething over it, and the private guards that run that detention center saw Mayor Baraka and invited him in,

that's almost undisputed, to try to quell the crowd. And he was there. And then Department of Homeland Security showed up, obviously under directions of both Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem and I'm sure Alina Haba. And they wanted the imagery of a strong black male leader being taken away with handcuffs.

And they got it. And before he was even arraigned, before his criminal complaint was even up and running, she was already, Alina Hoppe was already on her social media talking about corruption of Baraka and the fact that no one's above the law and all this other stuff. And then she did the same thing in Fox News interviews

with CNN and the rest. There's no problem with that. 12 days later, she dismissed the trespass claims against him, although she kept it against the other member of Congress. And she's still facing those couple of counts. And when she got brought before Judge Espinosa, a magistrate judge in New Jersey,

he spent a considerable amount of time with her there, chastising her and saying, and I'll paraphrase Karen, you have to do better. Your office requires you to do better. You are a prosecutor. You are not a private political hack any longer. Those are my words. And the fact that you rushed to prosecute,

you're not supposed to follow public clamor or political leanings. You're supposed to do it because it's right under the Department of Justice manual. And you failed and you must do better as he then, he didn't have to do any of that. He could have just accepted the dismissal and said, good day, but he wasn't gonna do that.

And that was an invitation, not that he needed it, for Baraka's lawyers to file their suit. You have a unique perspective as a former prosecutor and prosecutorial discretion and why that's important in our society because of the power that you yield. Why don't you take it from there and then we'll talk about the claims

that have been brought by Mayor Baraka. Yeah, well, this case is somewhat stunning to me because this case was not dismissed because of prosecutorial discretion. This case was dismissed because they had no legal basis to bring it in the first place, right? And I've prosecuted many, many cases involving big scrums of lots of people like members of Congress, mayors, et cetera, who show up at protests, right?

That happens all the time. This is not unique. That is part of their job. In fact, in this particular instance, the members of Congress showed up to this detention facility, which is a private prison, by the way, that is being used to hold these detainees before deportation, they showed up to inspect, which is part of their job. They're actually supposed to do that.

And they showed up, as did the mayor of Newark, because this is in the city of Newark. They were in a place where the members of Congress were in a place on the other side of the fence, so inside the fence, and the mayor was outside the fence and just with the protesters. Now, one of the employees actually invited the mayor onto the other side of the fence to try to stop and quell any unrest, to try to calm people. And meanwhile, the members of Congress

were just being held there for over an hour. They weren't being put inside the facility. So a lot was going on. The mayor, and the reason that's significant and the facts are significant, is he was invited onto the property. And so as a result, you can't charge someone, you can't invite someone onto private property

and then charge them with trespass. So the case had to be dismissed ultimately because it had no merit. It was legally, he wasn't guilty of the crime. Now, the reason I bring up my past prosecutorial experience is we would have never arrested someone like a mayor or a member of Congress or something like that in a case like this where it is so complicated

because so much was going on. There were so many people. There was pushing. It wasn't like one person did this and another person did that. These kinds of cases, you have to review all the video, talk to witnesses. You have to really put some work into it, normal investigative work, see if the facts actually meet the elements of the crime, and then decide whether or not to charge. In this particular instance, they decided to charge first, because this was a political show and a political spectacle.

There was no reason to arrest this guy right then and there. He wasn't a risk to flee the jurisdiction. He's the mayor of Newark. He wasn't any danger to others. You didn't have to put him in for a... What Alina Haba admitted herself was a, quote, petty crime. Because it was, it was misdemeanor trespass.

So once they stopped their political stunt and actually looked at the facts of the case, they decided we have to dismiss this case, and so we will dismiss this case. You know, I'm sure they say it's in our discretion and all that kind of stuff, but no. They did it because substantively, they didn't have, the facts did not constitute a crime.

But they weren't satisfied, they still wanted to arrest a... I mean, I hate to say this out loud, but a person of color. You know, that's what it certainly seems like. And they then arrest the congresswoman, LaMonica MacGyver, who they say she's charged with assault. I've watched that video over and over and over again. I don't see an assault, but maybe there's other videos from other angles, I don't know an assault, but maybe there's other videos from other angles.

I don't know, but they are charging a member of Congress with assaulting law enforcement. So they just wanna go after somebody and they're going to make a statement here one way or another. It's like very interesting to me, the Trump administration, they go and do the thing, in all instances,

they go and they kind of of they do the thing that's Illegal frankly and then once they are told it's illegal they double down and do it even more It's like they it's like they have they can't they want to just keep pushing and keep pushing I like how you said it all gas and no breaks Because that's what they're doing and they're doing it here, too We've got a new ruling that we'll talk about after our first break that just came out with Judge Boesberg back to the Zinnis immigration issue that we started.

And we'll also talk about Trump's losing streak and this is part of it. We can pick up with it right there with another new ruling against him certifying a class of people that were sent to different places. And then what is the Supreme Court gonna do about all these things, Karen? Got two new gun cases that came out

about AR-15s and the like, but I'm not as encouraged as some people might be given what Justice Kavanaugh said, not in a dissent, but in a statement. And we'll cover all of that. But first, we gotta, what's the phrase they use? We gotta pay the bills. So there's a number of ways that we continue to knit together this fellowship, this group

of amazing fervent supporters of Midas Touch and Legal AF. We do it here on Midas Touch on our Legal AF podcast, which is the number one, all because of you, the number one law and politics podcast in the YouTube top 100 of their podcast rankings, weekly rankings, and we're proud of that as we continue to move that forward. We're on all the podcast platforms as well,

audio podcast platforms. To be frank, we could use a few more downloads of the audio as we like to say in-house. That would help us continue to stay in the top 50 or so of podcasts in the news arena. Because these things matter, because it signals to everybody including on our side that you're enjoying this content,

it keeps the lights on, and it brings our advertisers together. It's just something that's very, very important. We've got other ways, all for free really, that you can support what we do here in the type of reporting and analysis that we do. Over on Legal AF, the YouTube channel, Legal AF MTN, we're about to hit 700,000 subscribers.

We've got a dozen amazing contributors along with myself. We got a new podcast. It's called It's Complicated with Asha and Renato, along with Court Accountability Action and Court of History. It's just an amazing, all-inclusive, one-stop shop for things law and politics over on Legal AF, the YouTube channel.

We then take things that you and I, Karen, will be talking about today, like the orders with Judge Zinnis or the new one with Judge Boesberg, and we post them on Legal AF Substack with analysis, of course. It's come over to Legal AF Substack. If it's related to the Supreme Court, we call it SCOTUS AF.

If it's a filing something or an order coming out of another court, we call it filings AF. And then we've got some amazing writing going on there, including with contributors and guests, people that we interview, all together on Legal AF, the sub stack. So those are all the ways to support us. And then we've got this group of hand-picked,

curated sponsors. Jordy spends a lot of time with the brothers, putting it together. What I like about a lot of time with the brothers, putting it together. What I like about our sponsors is not only the products, because we've tried them and we're like, yeah, we like this one, no, I don't like that one. So, that I like.

But I do, what I appreciate is they're trying to talk to our audience and they know what our point of view is and they don't and cannot control what we're gonna say. Look, you and I don't even know what we're gonna say, let alone them. And just to be clear, other than some cleanup, when we have it for video, there's no editing. It's all in, just while, if I cough or something,

maybe we take that out, but there's no editing. Nobody says, oh, well, I don't like that comment you just made, take that out. We'll lose sponsors. Nobody ever says that here, because we wouldn't do it. We wouldn't do it. We think too highly of ourselves, but more importantly't do it. We wouldn't do it. We think too highly of ourselves, but more importantly of our audience.

We would never do that. So this is a group that we like a lot, and here's our first break. I never thought much about teeth grinding until my dentist asked me if I'd been waking up with jaw tension. It turns out I was grinding at night and doing nothing meant risking long-term damage,

but spending hundreds of dollars on a custom night guard, not ideal. That's where Remy comes in. If you're part of the 30% of Americans who grind their teeth, your smile needs protection. And there's no better solution than Remy's custom fit night guard. It's dentist recommended and trusted by teeth grinders

because a custom fit night guard is the best way to protect your teeth and Remy is 80% less than what you'd pay at the dentist with none of the hassle. Here's how it works. You get an impression kit delivered to your door. Follow simple guided instructions to create your perfect mold. Remy then makes your custom night guard in Las Vegas USA and ships it directly to you. It fits great, feels comfortable, and I can finally sleep knowing my teeth are protected. Best of all, Remy offers a 45-night perfect fit guarantee

or your money back. No appointments, no sky high bills, just better sleep and peace of mind. Visit shopremy.com slash LegalAF and use code LegalAF to get up to 50% off your night guard. That's shopremi.com slash Legal AF, Code Legal AF. Thanks to Remy 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. As someone who covers legal and political news events for a living, I'm well aware of how exposed our personal information is. From data brokers to sketchy websites, it's all out there. And that's why I use DeleteMe. DeleteMe does all the hard work for you.

You just sign up, let them know what personal info you want deleted, and their experts handle the rest. They continuously monitor and remove your data from hundreds of data broker websites. So your info stays off the grid. And they don't just do it once. DeleteMe keeps working for you, sending personalized privacy reports

so you know exactly what was found and removed. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for DeleteMe. now at a special discount for our listeners Get 20% off your delete me plan when you go to join delete me comm slash legal af and use promo code legal af at checkout the only way to get 20% off is to go to join delete me comm Slash legal af and enter code legal af at checkout. That's joindeleteme.com slash legal AF code legal AF. Thank you again to our pro democracy sponsors and your support of legal AF,

the YouTube channel and legal AF, the Substack. Let's move on, Karen. We got new reporting while we're recording or while we're on the air about Jeb Boasberg. As I said at the top, not knowing that was gonna happen today, that decision by Stephen Miller and Donald Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act to scoop up people and send them without due process rights, even notice, to El Salvador, a series of Supreme Court decisions put a stop to that. Not just the Obregó-Garcia case, but other

decisions coming off of the petitions for writ of habeas corpus, including at one o'clock in the morning about a month and a half ago. So now if you're synthesizing all of the Supreme Court decisions that have come out with Trump's name on it in precedent, to the extent it's precedent at this level, in the last several months. It is, you may use the Alien Enemies Act until we get around to telling you you can't, but while you do, you must give rid of habeas corpus rights under the Fifth Amendment.

You must give them proper notice. You must give them time to get in front of a federal judge, and the federal judge will then ensure that those due process rights are abided by and you must do that all on this side of that body of water. In other words, in the United States. And if they're already there,

then that's what courts are grappling with. How do you get them back? And Judge Boesberg just issued a ruling, which we have been waiting for for quite some time, in which he said, hey, you know those 250 people that went to CICOT, that maximum security prison, Gulag in El Salvador in a pay to play scheme by Donald Trump?

Yeah, the group that I said shouldn't go there, and I ordered them not to go there, and I ordered you to ground the planes and turn the planes back around. Yeah, I'm now certifying them as a class. All those people who were subject to the Alien Enemies Act who were sent away from federal jurisdiction who are now sitting in El Salvador, yeah,

they're now a class and they can prosecute their rights here in front of me in DC. And he's got, he is the judge. We talked earlier, Karen, about Judge Zinnis about to rule on a motion for contempt. But let's not forget that Judge Boesberg was the first judge to find probable cause for criminal contempt in a related matter to the one I just described.

It's only on hold because the DC Court of Appeals put his ruling on hold for now. But, you know, he's not a judge to be trifled with. He's close to the many of the Supreme Court justices. He was the roommate for Justice Kavanaugh in law school. He is considered to be, he was a Democratic appointee, but he was also a Republican appointee. He's considered to be very honorable,

very middle of the road. He's the kind of guy that would be on the United States Supreme Court through Biden or through a future Democratic president. And he's friends with Chief Justice Roberts. In fact, Roberts came to his aid indirectly when Roberts issued that now infamous or famous statement where he said, don't call for the impeachment, President Trump of judges, just appeal them. And that was really a direct result of the bashing that Boasberg was taking. And let's talk about Trump's losing streak. Even at the Supreme Court, have you seen the stats on the 200 plus cases and the more than almost 70 injunctions on the losing streak, even at the Supreme Court. Have you seen the stats on the 200 plus cases

and the more than almost 70 injunctions on the losing streak? Yeah, I saw that was, I think it was a Stanford professor who put some data together, which was fascinating, that showed that Trump has lost shocking 96% of rulings in federal court just this month, right? And this professor said he's lost 72% of rulings by Republican-appointed judges and 80% of rulings

by Democratic-appointed judges, which essentially means everybody's ruling against him. It's crazy. I mean, it was a great study and it's really interesting. And Trump is just basically lawless. And he doesn't care whether it's lawful or not. I guess my question to you, Popok, which I've asked this before, why doesn't he try to do things lawfully? He's just like, no, no, seriously. Like the thing with, with all, with all these deportations,

he could do it in a way that is lawful and accomplish the same thing, whether it's giving them some due process or having Congress pass a law or like, why doesn't whatever he wants to do, he controls both houses of Congress, just pass the laws that you want instead of these ridiculous executive orders and get your stuff done that way.

I don't, I'll never understand why it is that if he really wanted to do these things and win, he could but he hasn't. Well, I got two answers that one is, it's like telling the scorpion to stop stinging the frog. That's not gonna happen. And the second is, he can't Congress no matter, no matter that it's in his control. Can't move with the velocity and the ferocity at which Donald Trump wants to operate.

He could never get, he issued 150 plus executive orders. He could never get 150 plus laws passed in Congress to match the executive orders, especially on some of the topics that he's raised. So he has to operate by way of executive order in order to pay his debts with those that bought this president bought and paid for this president. He owes a lot of debt. But don't they want results? Or do they just want these executive orders and you know, this blustering and you know, tough guy and he gets shot down ultimately,

they don't care that they don't really want results. They just want the- They're getting results until the, time is on their side. I'll give you an example. We can touch on it as well. When the Dobbs decision came out taking away a woman's right to choose, first time in history, a right constitutionally granted by the Supreme Court

was taken away by a later Supreme Court. Taking away a woman's right to choose, of course, in the Roe versus Wade. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris scrambled to try to figure out in federal agency law statutes and the like how they could salvage something of reproductive rights for women. And one of the main ways they did was to look at federal funding for Medicare and Medicaid and hospitals and say, all right, well, we have the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which we call EMTALA. And why don't we put guidance in EMTALA that says that if you, doctor, implementing your

Hippocratic oath, if the life of the mother is in danger, and abortion is the answer, you are to give her an abortion, regardless of the federal, whether it's a constitutional right or not a constitutional right. Now, the 23 red states all got upset about that. Oh, and there was a challenge to the United States Supreme Court that sort of punted on the issue and sent it back to the states to sort of figure out EMTALA as emergency care, the way a woman's pregnant and the life of the mother is in danger. A trumped up, no pun intended, Catholic doctor group, not together, Catholic doctors

for who knows what. It's artificially made. They're not a real group. I mean, they're really, I assume they're really Catholic, but they're not a real group. I mean, they're really, I assume they're really Catholic, but they're not, they're not a real group. They got together, they filed a suit in the middle district of Tennessee recently, in which they wanted to challenge Joe Biden, Biden administration's guidelines about EMTALA and to say that EMTALA and allowing abortion, conflicted with their religious rights, whatever it was. But they had a coordinated and orchestrated attack against women with the Trump administration because yesterday he sent out new guidelines to the doctors telling them, no, the prior guidelines are wrong.

You are not to use an abortion to save the life of a mother. You are, that's not your ability, especially in states where it is illegal under DOBS and the state, and you were to abide by the state, whatever you wrote. And right on cue, after the American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of another group of doctors, intervened in the case, they dismissed the case because they didn't want to make bad law. They got what they wanted because they got an executive order or guidelines out of the Trump administration because they're happy to play the long game. You know, they're like the Putin's of the, because they're happy to play the long game. You know, they're like the Putin's of the world.

They're willing to play, well, we'll worry about next year, next year. We'll worry about 2027 and 2027. And if the executive order gets overturned by, and we'll count on the Supreme Court, because we're doing 50-50 there, then we'll go to MAGA Congress. Because they just couldn't,

you couldn't, you couldn't pass this many bills. Given the close, narrow margins in the House, a little bit bigger in the Senate, but in the House, it's so narrow that Hakeem Jeffries is basically the co-speaker of the House. Yes, the big, beautiful abomination of a budget bill got passed. But that's a heavy lift,

and you couldn't do that 150 more times. So this was their plan. This is their Project 2025. This is pages out of Project 2025. This is issue executive orders, use the power of the executive orders until you're told to stop. By some, keep going until the Supreme Court tells you to stop.

And even then, and what we've now watched with this losing streak, is Donald Trump attacking the Federalist Society. Talk about biting the hand that fed you. Yeah, what's up with that? That's it, because they, the conservatives, who are embedded within MAGA, are now attacking Donald Trump and some of his picks. Like they don't want Emil Bové to be the Third Circuit judge. They think he's unqualified both temperament-wise

and otherwise, that he's a political hack and they don't want to see him. And they wrote a whole thing in the National Review about it that pissed off Donald Trump. And also he's blaming the loo- he can't- he doesn't want to blame the losing streak on what you said, which is that he's lawless and that he's taking totally nonsensical and upside down positions that are easily refuted under the case law. Although he wins, he also wins occasionally, including at the Supreme Court.

He can't blame that or his legal guidance around him or Stephen Miller, who's not a lawyer, but plays one in the Supreme Court. He can't blame that or his legal guidance around him or Stephen Miller who's not a lawyer but plays one in the White House. So he's got to blame the judges and to blame the judges because everybody would say, well, you nominated them. You picked them. Are you saying you picked radical judges? Oh, no, not me.

They were hand delivered to me. I outsourced that to Leonard Leo, the shadowy figure. I don't even think he's an American. That's what that's the guy actually said. So what happens? Are they going to turn on him? I mean, are they going to change? But but in the long game, like, is this going to help? Is this that? That's my question, because he I think he's really starting to I always think this cross cross a cross a

red line. But he never seems to write. I mean, I always think this, cross a red line. But he never seems to, right? I mean, I am loving the Elon Musk is finally waking up and seeing what a disaster this whole situation is. It's a combination. I know, I know. Plus there's new reporting, we were going back and forth on another chain

about apparently Musk, we already had reporting that Musk got into almost a shoving match with Boris Epstein before they went into the White House. Then Marco Rubio almost came to blows. Apparently, Scott Bessent, of all people, the Treasury Secretary, got, according to reporting in the Daily Mail, which has got a 50-50 there, he got shoved by Musk during an argument. This is what's going, that's why this is the leakiest presidency I've ever seen and they can't control it. And the more they can try to control it,

the leakier it gets. And these are all things that help us, I always like to have a positive note. These are things that help us get ready for the midterms. And now is the time to make sure your mail-in ballot's gonna work, that you're complied with, especially if you're in a red state, that you comply with all of the new rules

and regulations for voting, that you work on voter registration, that you work against voter suppression. Because that is our number one, you wanna know what your sledgehammer is in your tool bag as a voter and as a legal AF-er? It's that, it's voting and working towards voting. Because midterms are notoriously low turnout affairs. It's the super voter, it's the one that, it's voting and working towards voting because midterms are notoriously low turnout affairs.

It's the super voter, it's the one that, and a lot of that's Trump, but who's more motivated to go to the polls? MAGA who's having an independence, who are having major misgivings and second thoughts about the Trump administration, or the Democrats who are watching this fascist play, you know, play out and we, and this is the

only way we can do it, return the House and the Senate to the Democrats, both to stop federal judges from being appointed that are outside the mainstream, stop Supreme Court justices that he'll ultimately be allowed to appoint if required by giving us back the Senate, and set us up, set up the Democrats for the 2028 presidential election. This is about as simple a formula as you and I can talk about. That's it. I think people should try to vote in person

because it's the mail-in ballots that continuously get criticized by MAGA. And so we have to take out any room for them to complain. I really, I think obviously if you can't go in person, don't. But I think I'm going to go in person, that's for sure. Yeah. And when we come back from our second break, we'll talk about a case that the Supreme Court took up to look out whether a state law that on the books allows,

as long as they're postmarked, the day of the election, the ballot to show up plus 12 out, 12 days out, whether that is constitutional or not, I guess, is the right way to put it, even though states are allowed, that's one of the things they're empowered to do, which is determine how they're gonna comply with federal law and how they're gonna run federal elections. That's a state issue, not a federal issue,

but there are constitutional implications. And I am always concerned, and I get like an itchy feeling when the Supreme Court starts taking cases like this about what they're going to do. There's a series of cases about, because Donald Trump's, again, the vote's not in, if you don't mail in vote, it doesn't show up the day of the election, it shouldn't count. That's the Republican suppression movement at play.

And when I see a case get to the Supreme Court, it always gives me a lot of concerns. And then we'll also talk about the two gun cases, one coming out of Maryland, the other one coming out of Rhode Island, which on their face, you know, I was cheering it. I was like, all right, well, at least for now, they supported Maryland's block of AR-15s

and Rhode Island's block of high capacity magazines. But there's something afoot and I wanna talk about it with you, Karen. And we'll touch on all that and so much more here. You're here on, pardon me, Legal AF. I don't remember where that came from. Came from, you're on Legal AF at the midweek with Karen Freeman-Iknififlo and Michael Popok.

We've got some amazing sponsors and ways to support us. Go over to Legal AF, the YouTube, hit the subscribe button. Come over to Legal AF, the sub stack, and hit the subscribe button there as well to get all your reminders. We got a Patreon that's still going strong. Come over to Patreon for Legal AF. And these are all the ways, and listening to our audio, downloading our audio,

listening to our video, downloading our video, and helping us grow. But it's a complete word of mouth. We don't have a marketing department. Like, what are we? We have no marketing. We are the marketing department. And so we really appreciate you being here.

Some from the very, very beginning, like day dirt, and some just joined us tonight. But we appreciate each and every one of you because you all contribute to this amazing audience that we have. So let's take another break, Karen, and when we come back, we'll finish up with the Supreme Court. Are you sick of drinking your calories, of waking up hungover? Having some drinks can be fun, but I'm glad I found an alternative that lets me feel great in the moment and the next morning. Out of office gummies from Sol. I've used Sol's out of office gummies and what stands out is how they offer a pleasant

mild buzz without any of the downsides of alcohol. No hangovers, no added calories, and no interference with my workout routine or focus. It's an excellent option for anyone looking to maintain wellness while still enjoying social moments. Soul is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be both accessible and enjoyable. Their hemp-derived THC and CBD products are thoughtfully crafted to enhance mood and promote relaxation. The out-of-office gummies, their best seller, provide a gentle relaxing buzz that supports creativity and calm. These gummies come in four different strengths, so you can easily find the right dose to suit your mood from a light micro dose to a fully lit experience.

All of Sol's products are made with organically farmed USA grown hemp and are vegan, gluten free and low in sugar, ensuring you know exactly what you're putting into your body. Bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to soul today. Right now soul is offering my audience 30% off your entire order. Go to get soul.com and use code legal AF. That's get soul.com promo code legal AF for 30% off. It's almost summer, my absolute favorite time of the year. And everyone knows you've got to wear sunscreen in the summer. But what your sunscreen could do more than block UV rays is what the scientists at OneSkin have always wondered. And so they made a whole family of mineral sunscreens that target UV rays, free radicals,

and cellular aging on top of it all. The best part, unlike other mineral SPFs that feel heavy and chalky, which I personally don't like, these feel like actual skincare. It's lightweight, breathable and super hydrating. And now their award-winning OS1 face SPF comes in two new deeper tints formulated with non-nano zinc oxide. OneSkin's patented OS1 peptide

is also part of this SPF as well as potent antioxidants that scavenge free radicals four times better than the so-called anti-aging SPFs. This sunscreen is one you'll be wearing all summer long just like I will be, but that's not all OneSkin has up their lab coat sleeves. They're launching an all mineral lip SPF that provides instant hydration and protection with a smooth texture you've got to feel to believe. I can't wait for this. And just like OneSkin's other sunscreens, it's scientifically proven to decrease key aging biomarkers and increase other markers like elastin production for visibly healthier, more resilient lips. Try their family of sunscreens with 15% off your first purchase using code legal AF at oneskin.co. I love Oneskin. They've been a longtime sponsor.

And I'm so thrilled that they keep sponsoring me. Everybody asks me, how is it that you look so young given the fact that I am a grandmother and I am approaching another decades very soon. No one can believe my actual age and I think it's largely because of my skin and my skincare routine that has included one skin now for over a year. It was founded in 2016 by an all-woman team of scientists and after testing more than 900 so-called anti-aging peptides, they developed this proprietary OS1 peptide which targets the accumulation of these senescent cells which is a key driver of skin aging. So I'm a big fan,

it's the world's first skin longevity company and by focusing on cellular aspects of aging, one skin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer, and for a limited time, you can try OneSkin with 15% off using code LegalAF at Oneskin.co. It's not.com, it's.co. So that's 15% off Oneskin.co with LegalAF code after you purchase and tell them we sent you,

please support our show, and thank you, Oneskin. Welcome back to the midweek edition of Legal AF. Karen, let's round it out with the Supreme Court. They're trying to go on holiday and get everything issued before the end of June. They're running late with issuing their orders primarily because of all these emergency applications that they're entertaining,

they could fix that by stop entertaining them, but they never saw an emergency application they didn't like and they keep taking them, but it's delaying them from issuing these 30, 40, 50, 100 page decisions that we're used to. Just as a reminder or new knowledge for people, we have tens of thousands of cases, state and federal that happen every year.

A very small percentage, very, very, almost infinitesimal, end up at the United States Supreme Court. They only take about, it seems like more, but they only take about 60 or 70 cases for full blown decision making. I mean, there's- That's out of seven or 8,000 applications. They take 7480.

Oh yeah, even when they get there. But there's tens of thousands of lawsuits in the country. So by the time it gets there, it seems like more, because there's other things like making decisions by not making decisions, like refusing to take up a case, refusing to block a case. So if you add in, maybe we make it a couple of hundred lawsuits that they weigh in on during a given year,

as you said, against eight or 9,000, seven or 8,000 that are actually filed. So justice in this country at the federal level, primarily in the state court, is done at federal appellate courts, if it gets there, trial court levels, and state supreme courts, or the equivalent of lower level appellate courts in states. That's where justice is done.

On some key constitutional issues, or something where the supreme court now run by the MAGA side are trying to make new law, you'll see a couple more cases taken, but that's it. And so they owe us a lot of written orders and we're waiting on pins and needles on some of them. And we just, and so end of June, hopefully they'll have them all out.

That's the plan anyway. Then they all go away. The Republicans all go to these, used to be Federalist Society paid junkets. That's the weird thing about the whole thing, because every one of those MAGA Wright are Federalists. They all go to the George Mason, Anthony and Scalia School of Law, supported by Leonard Leo, and they go on these junkets

and hunting trips and fishing trips and Europe trips and golf trips paid for by MAGA money by Federalist Society money. They do that all summer, and they do some writing and speech giving and all of that, and then they come back in September to get ready for the first Monday in October, which is the start of the new term. Along the way, this is gonna be a busy summer,

because we're already up to, what are we up to now? Almost five months of the Trump administration, and we already have 17 or 18, let's say 20 emergency applications. So for a month, that's gonna be unabated. We're gonna have for a month through the summer, another 12 or so that they're gonna have to decide on. Generally without oral argument,

that's the problem with emergency applications, as the judges have often said in their own decisions. It short circuits their process. It short-circuits their process. It puts a skeletal record in front of them without improper briefing or insufficient briefing, no oral argument, and no time to deliberate. And that's why we get these paragraphs where the dissents and the concurrences are longer than the opinion. And so we had one of those or two of those in Rhode Island about high capacity magazines, you know, the thing that feeds into weapons

that fires off lots of bullets. And then we had a same day ruling by the court. And it looks to be to me seven to two on both, which is very, very interesting. What did you make of the Maryland AR-15 block for now, Kavanaugh's statement, and then we can just touch on the Rhode Island matter as well? Yeah. I mean, there's a lot going on in the Supreme Court, right?

You've got the Boast versus Illinois State Board of Elections case that they are going to take up, which has to do with election officials who want to be able to count mail-in ballots that are received two weeks after election day, as long as they're postmarked. But Boast is a member of Congress, and Boast, along with a couple of electors from Illinois, are challenging that, saying, you can't do that. You can't make a law in Illinois that says that.

It has to be by that date. And I think it's gonna be very interesting to hear where the court stands on this, because as you said earlier, it's really up to the states to determine the time, place, and manner of federal elections. It's actually a doctrine written in the First Amendment. It basically says that governments can regulate the when, the where,

and the how of expressive activity, but not the content of the speech as well. So it'll be really interesting to see, I mean, I've always interpreted that to mean that it's really states get to determine that completely, right, and so if they wanna be able to have mail-in ballots as long as they're postmarked by a certain day, as long as they are received by a certain day, et cetera, that that should be perfectly fine.

And in fact, that's what's been going on all across the country for decades. You've got military people overseas who are doing mail-in ballots. You've got students who are in school and other states who do mail-in ballots. You get all kinds of individuals for whatever reason, people who live in red states who are are afraid to go to the vote, to a voting poll,

they would prefer a male in ballot. I mean, there's many reasons why someone might want to do it that way, or vice versa. You live in a blue state and you wanna vote red. I mean, there could be many reasons why someone, someone just, or whatever, you're unable to actually go in person for any particular reason. You could have a physical reason, et cetera. So it'll be interesting to see what they do with this and why they're taking up this case, but this is going to have huge implications for elections going forward,

potentially, on whether states can regulate this, because for whatever reason, mail-in ballots have typically been gone blue. And that has been, that's why this is so on the radar of MAGA and Trump, because it's the mail-in ballots that tend to be more Democrat voters and less Republican voters. And so it's hard to call elections on election day

because some elections that are close might go, look like they're going red, but they haven't counted the mail-in ballots yet. So this is sort of a bee in the bonnet of MAGA and something that they would love to be able to, be able to chip away at, frankly, and get the Supreme Court to rule in their favor. Now, the question I have for you, Popak,

is do you think the court here is going to rule on the merits or on just the issue of standing? Because I know the issue in the lower court was whether or not the Congressman Boast had standing to bring and challenge this suit. And that was the issue that they ruled on on appeal. Or are they going to resolve the bigger question

about mail-in ballots? What are your thoughts on that? Well, it's a good question. I mean, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Ho and Oldham have been pushing for the Supreme Court to make a ruling in their favor the way they see the law that would deny the ability to have mail-in ballots come in after, certainly that far out after, the actual election.

Remember, this is the postmark date that matters. This means that voters' intent is clear, they voted, it's in the envelope, the envelope is marked the day of the election or before, it just shows up late. I mean, does anybody really trust the US Postal Service? Especially in the hands of Donald Trump and the Trump supporters. And so this was a reflection of that

in rural areas and mail issues, mail gets stuck in a sorter, gets stuck in a bag at that letter office and your right to vote has been compromised or undermined. Part of me thinks they're taking the case because they want to say, even in the case of a 12-day-out deadline, we're okay with it, as long as the voter's intent is clear and he voted effectively by envelope before the election. So if they get rid of it on standing ground, they don't want to touch

the issue and they're ultimately okay with the plus 12, at least in terms of the voting. If they... But then why take the case, right? Yeah. Well, that's a good question. I mean, sometimes they take the case even when standing is poor to signal to the rest of the world that they want a better case brought to them. Which brings us, right, that they're not going to overlook standing, because it's important to them that there be Article 3 standing for somebody. Why don't you just tell me what standing is for everybody?

Yeah, well, in order for you to prove to a court that there's a live case of controversy, because they don't make advisory opinions. Like, hey, I wonder if, I'd like to get an opinion from a judge about this, if I dispute with my neighbor, or the neighbor across the street, like, well, how are you impacted by that?

Well, no, I'm just curious. Courts don't do that. They don't scratch your curiosity itch. There has to be what's called, and this is a term of art, a live case or controversy. And one of the ways to ensure that there's a live case or controversy, that it's not an advisory opinion, is to ensure that the people before them have standing,

or the plaintiff has standing in particular, to prosecute the case. They have unique injuries. They have a unique claim against them, whether it's a constitutional breach or it's a breach of contract or it's a tort, a defamation, personal injury, whatever it is, that they're not so attenuated.

They're not such a drive-by plaintiff that they don't have the ability to properly bring this live case or controversy in front of a judge. He has to have, he or she has to have in front of them two competing parties that are adversarial system of government, both advocating and then when the judge rules that there be a real result, that's why you also need the party, you need all necessary and indispensable parties in front of the judge.

Because if he or she's about to make a ruling that's gonna impact somebody's rights, they need to be in front of the court. That's another kind of flip side, a flip coin of the standing issue. And it's a way procedurally for courts who, especially the Supreme Court, which considers itself a court of limited jurisdiction,

to, as you said, to take those 9,000 cases and get it down to like the 60 or 70 they're going to rule on. A lot of the times they just they do it by way of standing. They're like, well, it's interesting what you're bringing up, but you're the wrong party to bring that up. Because if we know you're the wrong party, because if we rule in your favor, while it may be a declaration of rights, they're not your rights. We want, because the underlying theory is, the person who's really being injured and has unique injuries is going to be the best person

in our adversarial process with their lawyers to advocate for the position. Because if you're just sort of weak need about it, because it's like, well, it's not really my issue. It's really like, you know, like the noisy neighbor that's 16 blocks away, you know, the neighbor next to them. That's the one that cares about the ban in the backyard. Yeah, you could hear it down the street,

but is it really, are you really gonna be vociferously prosecuting your case unless you are, if you're the neighbor next door? And that's sort of that standing issue. So we'll have to see. I don't know enough about it from the briefing standpoint. I think there may be a split vote about how to resolve this particular case.

But often cases come back around. But let's, you know, I let off with the, I don't want to confuse people. We let off with the gun issue. We quickly jumped to the ballot issue. On the gun issue, what did you make of Kavanaugh's statement which kind of dovetails with our standing issue, about or having a live case or controversy in front of them

about whether AR-15s are gonna be protected by the Second Amendment or not? Yeah, I mean, this was a weird one, because I didn't know Supreme Court justices issued statements like that. I thought they either give a concurring opinion or a dissenting opinion, or they join the majority opinion.

I didn't know there's something called a statement and what impact does that have, right? Why is that? I don't know, it just seemed weird. I've seen them make statements from the bench, but to put a written statement that's part of the decision, I just haven't seen that before. But I thought that was kind of interesting.

But what essentially this case is about, it's Maryland has a law on the heels of the Sandy Hook terrible shooting in Connecticut. Maryland passed a law a year later, essentially saying AR-15s that are illegal, we're banning AR-15s and any automatic, semi-automatic rifle can't have more than 10 rounds in their magazine, right? And a majority of the judges just all said, essentially, we're not taking the case, we're not gonna hear it, and didn't give a reason.

Which was interesting though, because as you said, there was this statement that was given that essentially said, well, Thomas dissented basically, of course, because Thomas has to dissent. But I thought it was weird that Alito and Gorsuch didn't join Thomas's dissent, although they did say they would have heard the case. Like, it's just weird, you know?

And Thomas's dissent essentially said, I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America, he wrote. That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR-15 owners throughout the country. We've avoided deciding it for a full decade, and I doubt we would sit idly by if lower courts were to so subvert our precedents involving any other

constitutional right," he wrote, until we are vigilant in enforcing it, the right to bear arms will remain a second class right. So we all know based on that pithy, essentially one paragraph or two paragraph dissent that where he falls, right, he wants to take up the case and say, sure, go ahead. Anyone can carry an AR-15, you know, and basically anoint themselves as a militaristic, you know, military grade weapon themselves. I mean, it's just, he thinks the right to bear arms means

anyone should be able to own an AR-15 and the states should not be able to regulate that, which is clear. But it was weird that Alito and Gorsuch didn't join that. Instead, they said we would have heard the case, but didn't give a reason why they didn't join the dissent. And Kavanaugh issued the statement, and Kavanaugh could have been the swing vote, right, and making it so that they did take up the case, but instead issued a

statement saying, this is a significant issue and we want to take it up soon, but I want more cases, more lower court cases to interpret this issue. And I don't know if he was looking for there to be a conflict in the circuits or if he just wanted more lower court case law to have bubbled up and more courts to consider all the issues before the Supreme Court takes it up. So that's where that was. Yeah, Cavanaugh basically said and signaled that when the case returns to the Supreme Court, he said either in this next term or the one after it, they're going to rule that AR-15s, which are in the hands of millions of Americans, unfortunately, AR-15s, which are in the hands of millions of Americans, unfortunately, has crossed the threshold

of being, not being a military armament. See, all the courts, like Rhode Island and Massachusetts, they take the position that the AR-15 is the equivalent of an M16, which is a military-grade weapon, and the courts have been clear, including the Supreme Court, that you don't have a Second Amendment right to have military grade weaponry. But you hear Thomas and Kavanaugh saying, no, an AR-15 is a sporting weapon, even though it's the one that's used mostly

in mass shootings, including in schools. And Kavanaugh basically inviting the next case, he said there are at least six cases, percolating through other federal courts and appellate courts that will make their way to the Supreme Court. His position is I would take it up now. And that's Thomas's position. And if they do, the question is do they have five votes? Can they count the five?

They can count the four. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas, that's for sure. But to make AR-15s a, to make it declared a bearable weapon, right, to bear arms, a bearable weapon, under the Second Amendment and protected by the Second Amendment. Because they always go back, the reason that Thomas, of course, dissented is because he wrote the leading

decision, the Bruin decision out of New York, finding a personal Second Amendment right. And the only way that right could be regulated by the states is if you go back to old timey times in the 1700s and early 1800s and you find an historical antecedent and analog for that. Then if you find the match, then you could go, oh, all right. They kept it out of the hands of the criminally insane? OK. But if not, despite the fact that women were not full citizens, despite the fact

that Black Americans were not full citizens, and often both that black Americans were not full citizens, and often both treated as chattel, as property, we're still going back to, you know, beyond the wild wild west for gun control. And so Kavanaugh is going to find an AR-15 to be able to be owned and not outlawed. He keeps pointing to the 15 million or whatever people it is that have AR-15s. And the question is Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett. and not outlawed, he keeps pointing to the 15 million or whatever people it is that have AR-15s. And the question is Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett. Amy Coney Barrett, if it was a religious issue,

I'd say we're sunk. If it were a reproductive issue, I'd say crap. But guns, she hasn't been that, she sided with the majority about the Second Amendment. But AR-15s, I don't know, we'll see. She certainly didn't side with him this time, she could have given him a vote. And Roberts is like a weathervane.

Like whatever he thinks is politically expedient, at the time the case comes around, depending upon what happened before and what's gonna happen in the future, that's where flip-flopper Roberts is gonna be. Because he has no, he's lost his moral compass if he ever had one. And he's just struggling to try to hold on

to some vestige of legacy. And he's just making it worse. He's just making it worse. So that's what I think is going to happen there. But- You know what I recently learned Popov? Speaking of women becoming full citizens and being treated like property, et cetera.

And I had no idea. Do you know that women couldn't carry credit cards, couldn't have a credit card until 1974? In their own name. Yeah. Yeah. Even if they worked. Yeah.

Like that was like, I was a human at that time. Like, I was... I was, you know... It's just crazy to think that it wasn't that long ago when a lot of these things happened and are still happening in certain other areas. But the fact that that was not that long ago, it's just crazy to me. Well, think about when we were kids and you got an invitation for something in the mail

for a bar mitzvah or a wedding. And it was, if they were being really Emily Post formal, it would say, for my mother, Mrs. Morton H. Popock. Not Mrs. Gloria Popock. It would say Mrs. Morton H. or my wife would be Mrs. Michael Popock. Uh, let me tell you something. That still happens today. Yeah.

That is not as unusual as you think. In this whole world of, you know, traditional wives, traditional, you know, there's a whole movement, and that is still very much done today. Yeah. I mean, that was so powerful. I wouldn't even have blinked on that when I saw that in the mailbox. And today, if I saw that in the mailbox, I'm like,

is Emily Poe still pushing that? Is I mean, I mean it's one thing You know you can have your own internal discussions with your your bride or your your your your whoever you're engaged to about If anybody's taking anybody's name, that's fair game today My wife decided on her own no pressure for me that she wanted to take the Popak last name. That was her choice. I honored it. If she told me she didn't, I'd honor that too. Well, I wanted the same last name as my kids. Yeah, I'm sure that went into it. But it's also, you know, speaking as a person who supports women, not as a woman, it's weird that the woman gives up, you know, a name she's been

known by her entire life. Um, you know, some, most women, a lot of women, have close relations with their fathers. And, and, you know, yet, now, society sort of encourages them to take another name, or as you said, to support the family or whatever. But the guys rarely do that. It happens. But the men rarely do that.

I don't know. Nobody, I mean, I love my father more than anything. Like, nobody can. Nobody, I mean, I love my father more than anything. Like nobody can love their father as much as I love my father. So, but for me, you know, at the time I thought, what's so great about my last name that came from the same sexist tradition. You know what I mean? Yeah, I see it.

And so, and I thought, you know, growing up, it's like, oh, can I go play at the Popox? Or you wanna have dinner with the, you know, I didn't wanna be the only one in the family who didn't have the name, you know? I wanted our house to have the name. So I was very proud. I have a close friend, she's a lawyer,

won't name her here though. She's a lawyer in the Midwest, phenomenal trial lawyer. And for years, I knew she was married and she had a kind of a unique last name I'd never heard before. And I thought it was Greek or I thought it was this or I thought it was that. And one day over a couple of cocktails

at the end of a trial day, I said, we got to talking. And she said, oh, that's not anybody's, that's not my husband's last name. I said, whose last name? It's not mine either. I said, who's last name? It's not mine either. I said, who's that? He said, we picked it out of the dictionary. That was a name that we chose.

I know a few people have done that. It's pretty cool. In our marriage. Yeah. It's kinda cool. I love that. So they both took a new name. Yeah. Yeah, I love that.

I wish I had been that creative. Yeah, and I liked that a lot. I don't know how we got there, but we're there. And I'm glad we are. And I'm glad everybody's with us here on Legal AF. I know you might have tuned in late and said, what is happening over there? This is, we've known each other for years.

This is what happens. Are you mean we're still recording? I thought we were just having a conversation. I went to New York recently. I was trying to get together with a couple of people during a very short window of time. And one of them was a fellow podcaster with this Michael Cohen.

And I texted him and I said, hey Mike, I'm in town trying to grab a drink or something and stay in midtown, like where he lives. And he got back to me kind of late and I kind of missed my window of when I had time. And he sent me a sort of a little bit chastising text message. Hey, what happened? You blew me off. You know, as only Michael would say. And I said, yeah,

you missed my window, but I'm coming back. And I just, I tell that story because it's no joke that whether it's the Mycelus brothers and Karen and me and Michael Cohen, and we are very collegial and downright friendly and friends on this network. And I think it shows in the reporting, in our love and affection that we give to our audience, in the love and affection that we get back from our audience. And that's all we're trying to do.

We're trying to just continue to grow and expand that and give people a safe space, where they can feel comfortable to both hear unmitigated information without smoke or sunshine, but also in comments, and when we have the commentary and the comments here, feel, you know, we have a troll here and there, but feel safe about talking aloud

and saying these things out loud to understand them. As you debate these issues around the kitchen table in the public square. If you want to do social media, good luck to you. And all that. So it's important that that's really what we've built here. And we do appreciate everybody for being here. Karen, we've reached that time of the show everybody loves. The end. Stump Karen Freeman Agnifilo.

Karen gets the last word. Yeah, it's great to be here. And I love Wednesdays. I love being with everybody here at Legal AF. And I'm gonna start doing more of hot takes, Popok. I promise you that. I know I said that last week and I am going to do more this week. Good, good. No I promise you that. I know I said that last week and I am going to do

more this week. Good. Good. No, you did. We just had a technical glitch, a little snafu, but we are going to onboard you. I assure you. If I have to come there and record you myself, we will get you on. No worries. It's all good. All right. Thank you all for being here. Michael Popok, Karen Freeman, and Nick Nifilo, midweek edition of Legal AF. Shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal AFers.