Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Handed Major Loss by DC Circuit… Trump Judges Pissed

Episode Date: April 9, 2025

In a stunning and breaking news, this morning in a 7-4 decision the full en banc panel of the US Court of Appeals for DC — with 3 Trump appointees dissenting — has ruled against the Trump Administration and reinstated the two Democrats fired by Trump from independent boards formed by Congress, Gwen Wilcox to her position on the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris to her position, finding that he violated 90 years of Supreme Court precedent. Michael Popok explains the en band process, and the fast track to the Supreme Court this case is now on, as we enter yet another Constitutional crisis of Trump’s making. Head to https://manukora.com/legalaf to receive $25 off your starter kit today! 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

Rider, wave, step, walk on it. Riding a bike in the Ride to Conquer cancer is like being part of humanity's greatest. The money you raise, the time you spend, the energy that you give is helping people live. It's giving people hope and that's just so beautiful. Care of the fire for cancer research. Join the ride at ridetoconquer.ca. Now streaming on Paramount+. My name's Conrad Harrigan, family man. And if you cross my family, well, you'd better pray.

From the underworld of Guy Ritchie... We shake the right hands, break the wrong ones. ...comes the next great crime series. And when someone forgets their place, I've got a man for that. For himself. Starring Tom Hardy, Pierce Brosnan, and Helen Mirren. We've got everyone where we want them.

Mob Lad, new series now streaming on Paramount+. Okay, Martin, let's try one. Remember, big. You got it. The Ford It's a Big Deal event is on. How's that? A little bigger. Ahem. The Ford It's a Big Deal event. Nice. Now the offer?

Lease a 2025 Escape Active All-Wheel Drive from 198 bi-weekly at 1.99% APR for 36 months with $27.55 down. Wow, that's like $99 a week. Yeah, it's a big deal. The Ford It's a Big Deal event. Visit your Toronto area Ford store or Ford.ca today. Okay, flights on air Canada. How about Prague? Ooh, Paris, those gardens.

Gardens, Amsterdam, Tulip Festival. I see your festival and raise you a carnival in Venice. Or Bermuda has carnaval. Ooh, colorful. You want colorful. Thailand, Lantern Festival, boom. Book it. How did we get to Thailand from Prague?

Oh right, Prague. Oh boy. Choose from a world of destinations, if you can. Air Canada, nice travels. We got a startling and breaking news story to start this week. A big loss for the Trump administration. The full panel of the Court of Appeals for DC has ruled against the Trump administration, seven to four, the four judges, three of them being Trump appointees. I'll

talk about that next. But the seven majority found that both Gwen Wilcox and Kathy Harris need to be immediately reinstated into their positions at one, the National Labor Relations Board, the other at the Merit Protection Service Board, because they were unconstitutionally and illegally fired by Donald Trump because he says he claims he was exercising his Article II power. But these are bipartisan, congressionally created bodies, National Labor Relations Board and Merit Service Protection Board to protect workers and federal workers. And he's not allowed to do that under a long line of cases going back 90 years called Humphrey's executor.

That case is still good law, is still what the Supreme Court relies on and recently reaffirmed it in 2020 in a case called Celia Law. That's what the majority says. I'm gonna break it down for you now about what happens next. Here's how we got here. These came up as individual cases. They were consolidated for appeal. The case of Gwen Wilcox before Amy Berman Jackson, the case of Kathy Harris in front of Raul Contreras, two judges at the trial court level in DC. They ruled based on the same case law, it was a very similar order, based on this law,

I just told you about Humphrey's executor, which says that if Congress creates a body and it doesn't exert too much executive power and has independent functionality and they've created it a bipartisan way for a purpose, the executive branch cannot fire any of the people on there unless it's for cause, unless it's for a malfeasance or neglect or wrongful conduct. And Donald Trump doesn't argue in any of his papers that any of these people did anything wrong. He just doesn't like the color of their party, doesn't like their gender, doesn't want them there

any longer. But that's not what the statute says in creating those two bodies. And if it's that kind of body, Humphrey's executor, that case law I'm telling you about, says you can't just fire them without cause. He's saying, I can fire them because that law that's been on the books since the 1930s is unconstitutional because I have the power, the ultimate power over the executive branch, okay? That's not what the case law says. And so we have a constitutional crisis

that's gonna get resolved one way or the other by the United States Supreme Court. But for now, this is what, let me read to you from the order. The judges that joined in the order are Judge Srinivasan, who's the chief judge, Judge Millett, Judge Pillard, Judge Wilkins, Judge Childs, Judge Penn, and Judge Garcia. Wilkins, Judge Childs, Judge Penn, and Judge Garcia. The ones in dissent are Henderson,

Walker, and Rao, and Katzis. Three or four of them are Trump appointees. Two of them were on the original panel that voted two to one to not reinstall them, not issue the stay, not, you know, they were in favor of blocking the injunction from the trial court level that would have required these two people to go back to work. They said, well, no, we don't wanna disrupt the status quo. It's extraordinary. We, you know, the executive branch fired them. We shouldn't be rehiring them, you know, like that.

Here's what the majority decision has said that is now going up to the Supreme Court. Order that the motions for en banc reconsideration, that's the entirety of the group I just told you about, and vacatur be granted, that means vacating, and the government's motions for a stay pending appeal are denied. In other words, we're not gonna stay our order, get back to work, Ms. Harris and Ms.

Wilcox, and they can litigate in the meantime, which means the Trump administration is going to have to run now to the Supreme Court to try to get an emergency stay. In Humphrey's executor, which is from 1935, and another case called Weiner from 1958, this is from the decision on page 2. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld removal restrictions for government officials on multi-member adjudicatory boards. While two laws governing removal restrictions for single heads of agencies exercising executive policymaking and enforcement powers have been held unconstitutional, see Celia Locke a case

from 2020, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that it was not overturning the precedent established in Humphrey's executor for multi-member adjudicatory bodies. That's what we have here, multi-member adjudicatory bodies. Instead, the Supreme Court has in its own words, left that precedent in place,

Instead, the Supreme Court has in its own words, left that precedent in place. Quoting from the Silya case, Silya Law case from 2020, recognizing that Silya Law did not revisit prior decisions. Are you looking for something simple and delicious to add to your wellness routine? Look, I'm a honey guy instead of artificial sweeteners. So I put regular honey in my salad dressings and hot drinks. But then I found monocora that put all other honey to shame. It has a certain creaminess and complexity of flavor that is unmatched,

not to mention the health benefits. The best way to use monocora is straight from the spoon first thing in the morning, letting the creamy texture melt in your mouth and coat your throat. Monocora honey is rich, creamy, and the most delicious honey you've ever had. It's ethically produced by Monocora's master beekeepers in the remote forests of New Zealand. Monocora honey contains powerful nutrients to support immunity and gut health. The bees collect the nectar from the Manuka tea tree in New Zealand. The nectar is packed with bioactives and the honey that is produced, well, it has three times more

antioxidants and prebiotics than your average honey. A special antibacterial compound called MgO also comes from the nectar of the tea tree. Manukura third-party test every single harvest for MGO and makes these test results available through their QR system. It's a game changer. And all you need is one heaped teaspoon each morning to get the most out of the amazing bioactives in Manuka.

Additional usage through the day is completely fine, especially helping to cut out other sweeteners. It's a honey with superpowers. Now it's easier than ever to try Manakora honey. Head to manakora.com slash legal af to get $25 off the starter kit, which comes with an MGO 850 plus Manuka honey jar, five honey travel sticks, a wooden spoon, and a guidebook. That's monacora.com slash legal AF for $25 off your starter kit. The Supreme Court has repeatedly told the courts of appeals to follow extant Supreme Court precedent on the books unless and until the court itself changes it or overturns it.

If a precedent of the Supreme Court has direct application in a case, lower courts should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions. That's from a Supreme Court, Mallory v. Norfolk, 600 U.S. 122, 2023. The rule governs even if the lower court thinks the president is in tension with some other line of decisions. In other words, we don't have a choice. Supreme Court has directed courts of appeal to apply the precedent and let the Supreme Court fix it if there's a problem. And that's exactly what they did. The Supreme Court, they then go through the orders,

the Supreme Court, they then go through the orders, they then go through the standards for blocking the order, which they're not going to do, and the request for the stay being denied. Judge Henderson, in a one paragraph dissent, because she had ruled, her ruling is what's being overturned here, she said, we do the parties, especially a functioning executive branch,

no favors by unnecessarily delaying Supreme Court review of this significant and surprisingly controversial aspect of Article II authority. Only the Supreme Court can decide to dispute, and in my opinion, the sooner the better. She thinks she was right, in other words, with her two-to-one decision. She thinks the decision, the appeal, should have been taken directly to the United States

Supreme Court and skipped the en banc part. But look, it's a stronger case now on appeal with seven judges. If you add in Judge Millett from the lower court, eight different judges have looked at this and have said, Humphrey's executor controls, you can't fire these people without cause, you don't have cause, get back to work. I think it's a stronger case and that's why they did it. Not to delay getting to the Supreme Court. Now, the road divides here. Technically, procedurally, it goes back to a three-judge panel. I think it may be the existing three-judge panel of Walker, Henderson, and Millet, and

Obama, Bush, and Trump appointee. And they have to make a decision about the legality of what happened, given the new precedent that's been, or the extension of the precedent that's been set here. We know what they're going to do. It's going to be another two to one against Willcox and Harris. Then, but right now, without waiting for that procedure to happen, the Trump administration on the losing end of this can take an emergency appeal, first stop Chief Justice Roberts, end of this can take an emergency appeal, first stop Chief Justice Roberts to decide whether the stay is going to be given. We just saw recently, there's a series of things sitting with the Trump administration,

with the Supreme Court about stays. Sometimes the Supreme Court moves fast and issues stays or doesn't issue stays like they just issued a stay to Effectively approve Trump cutting off 60 million dollars worth of teacher funding through teacher grants Unilaterally, they just did that a couple of days ago with Amy Coney Barrett joining the majority But there's other things they're sitting on like birthright citizenship being denied by executive order. They haven't ruled on that We're still waiting around for whether Judge Boesberg on the Alien Enemies Act case, if whether he's right or wrong to find that Trump did not properly exercise his powers under the war powers to deport people without due process to El Salvador, still sitting with the

United States Supreme Court. I mean, look, I could come back here in a few minutes and tell you they finally ruled. But these things sort of pile up at the Supreme Court, usually because they either can't get their votes together, or they really are not that interested in moving quickly on something. They'll just let it go through full appeal. Here, there's going to be this application, we'll follow it. If I was making a prediction, it's hard to predict with the Supreme Court lately. They're so tied up in knots with each other and themselves.

We're gonna find out what their view is on this Humphrey's executor law and whether they think the firing can happen. I think the four votes of the Supreme Court that will find that Trump can use his Article 2 powers to fire whoever he wants in the executive branch, regardless of how it was created, I think exists. It's Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch.

The question is going to be again, Amy Coney Barrett, and this is Amy Coney Barrett's court, we're just living in it, or John Roberts. You know, if they side with the other three, it's going to be five to four to affirm this decision and to put Wilcox and Harris back in their job. If they slide over, if one of the two slide over to the other side, they're going to block this again and Wilcox and Harris can unpack their boxes again because they're not going to work. And I'll continue to follow it right here on the Midas Touch Network at Legal AF. So until my next reporting, this is Michael Popak.

In collaboration with the Midas Touch Network, we just launched the Legal AF YouTube channel. Help us build this pro-democracy channel where I'll be curating the top stories, the intersection of law and politics. Go to YouTube now and free subscribe at LegalAFMTN. That's at LegalAFMTN.