Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump in a World of Fear as Supreme Court hears Major Case

Episode Date: April 1, 2026

Will the Supreme Court and its MAGA 6 exercise any “judicial restraint” and take the easy way out by finding that Trump’s order reading birthright citizenship out of the Constitution violates both the 14th Amendment AND 2 Congressional laws from 1940 and 1952 as well. Or will MAGA side with Trump creating an existential threat to who we are as Americans? Popok provides a listening guide for tomorrow’s oral argument, with the assist of the ACLU who is arguing the case. DeleteMe: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join https://joindeleteme.com/LEGALAF and use promo code LEGALAF at checkout. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! 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 Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Judicial restraint in the United States Supreme Court, well, the Supreme Court seems to be allergic to that concept. But we're going to find out where the rubber meets the road this week at oral argument at the United States Supreme Court. First time in 100 years, they're going to be deciding whether the 14th Amendment and the Citizenship Clause says, means what it says. That people born in the United States, regardless of who their parents are, or what status they have, are U.S. citizens. It's called birthright citizenship for a reason, and Donald Trump tried to change it with an executive order just hours after taking office in January of 2025. It should be clear and simple based on the express language of the 14th Amendment. Yet here we are. How will Chief Justice Roberts navigate this?

Will they use a principle of judicial restraint? There's a 1940 statute recodified by Congress in 1952 that is right on point. And all the Supreme Court has to do is rule that the executive order by Donald Trump violates the federal congressional statute, the 1940 law, which defines citizenship directly from language of the 14th Amendment that was recodified by Congress in 1952. And you're done. You can get into the niceties of what the commas mean and the parentheticals and other things mean in the 14th Amendment.

Or you can just use judicial restraint, Chief Justice. Roberts and declare that this executive order can't overturn the will of Congress, and Congress's will has not been changed since 1952 as it relates to citizenship. I'm Michael Popock. You're on the Midas Touch Network and Legal A-F. Not only take a minute to hit the subscribe button on Legal AF, but I got great news. Legal A-F, the podcast and my podcast, The Intersection, are both up for the Webby Award for the best podcast. We made it into the final five in both categories, and down below you can hit a link to vote. It's all for free to help get us over that finish line

and be declared the best podcast in our respective categories. All right, let's get back to the Supreme Court case that will be heard. Let me read to you the 14th Amendment. It's clear, it's unambiguous, and it should control. In Section 1, it says all persons, all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject, comma, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, comma, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law.

That's, let's starting point is all persons. Donald Trump wants it to say, all newly freed slaves. Why? Because this statute, this amendment to the Constitution is part of a series of amendments after our Civil War, our reconstruction period. And yes, it was originally meant to address newly freed slaves to ensure that they had citizenship, to overturn one of the dark chapters in the American U.S. legal system

and the Supreme Court, a case called Dred Scott, that said that slaves and descendants of slaves could not be U.S. citizens. Okay, but they went further than that. Congress in 1868 weighed into a national debate, an existential debate about who is a citizen, who can be a citizen of the United States. And just 30 years after that amendment in 1898, I mean 30 years is not that far for many people. It may be your entire lifetime for other people you know what you were doing 30 years ago. I was five years out of law school.

In any event, in 1898, in a case we call Wong Kim Ark, a child of Chinese, immigrants living in San Francisco, went back to China. He had been born in the United States. When he got back to the border, they denied him entry. And he claimed, I'm a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. They said, well, we don't think it reads that way. Okay. He went and took it all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, which recognized the ancient right in the United States of being recognized as an American citizen if you were born here, regardless of whether your parents were born here. Now, Donald Trump tries to hang his hat on a convoluted, crazy interpretation of the term subject to the jurisdiction thereof, comma.

He's trying to argue that, oh, a baby born of Guatemalan parents who are here temporarily, he's not subject to the jurisdiction hereof. Well, sure he is, because if that child grows up or otherwise, he can commit murder and be prosecuted. He's subject to the laws of the United States. It's not a stateless, lawless baby. So that argument is complete BS. But the way that I would go about it, if I was the advocate at the United States Supreme Court,

and the American Civil Liberties Union will be arguing this case before the United States Supreme Court, before John Sauer, I mean against John Sauer, the Solicitor General and Donald Trump's former criminal defense lawyer. What I would argue is to focus on this 1940 law where Congress recognizing the 14th Amendment codified in a statute the exact same definition of what is a citizen. And then had another opportunity 12 years later in 1952 to say the exact same thing. What they didn't say is what Donald Trump is saying now is this has to do with slavery and babies of slaves. He literally wrote that in a social media post. He's already not only working the refs before the oral argument.

Donald Trump is abusing the refs, in this case the United States Supreme Court. It's usually a tell when Donald Trump starts attacking the Supreme Court that he knows he's going to be on the losing end of this argument. Now, in order for him to be on the losing end of the argument, it will know during the oral argument, which I'm doing a live stream on Legal AF YouTube channel, go under the live tab starting at 9.45 a.m. Eastern time on Wednesday, I'll be there doing pregame coverage. And then we'll go right into the oral argument. It'll probably last a couple of hours. and we'll hear right away whether Chief Justice Roberts is going to exercise the judicial restraint. He's exercised in the past. I mean, in the past, when it dealt with a woman's right to choose and reproductive rights, he famously said, if it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case,

then it is necessary to not decide more. Okay, don't decide more. Stay on the 1940 statute and recodified in 1952. It completely destroys Donald Trump's argument that this only applies to newly freed slaves and their descendants. It doesn't say that. It says all persons. And the Constitution and the framers and the amendment drafters, they know how to use language like, this only applies to newly freed slaves and their descendants when they want to.

They added the word slaves into the original constitution. So this argument that all persons doesn't mean all persons should fail on the spot. it barely passes the straight face test. I had the pleasure of interviewing the deputy director of the Immigration Project at the American Civil Liberties Unit, Union. And he joined me for a special interview, Cody Wafsey, about his organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, and their argument for the United States Supreme Court. And here's a clip. Which sort of shoots down the argument that this is only to free slaves. certainly the framers and founders and people that come up with amendments, they know how to write

newly freed slaves or mention slavery when they want to instead of using the term all persons, right, Cody? Yeah, that's absolutely right. I'll give you basically three reasons why this idea that it is only to protect the citizenship of African Americans is just flat wrong and it's basically just political rhetoric, not a legal argument. First of all, as you point out, nowhere in the text of the amendment. The amendment is purposefully universal. All persons born in the United States. That reflected a common law tradition going all the way back to England, that if you were born in the territory,

you were a citizen. Secondly, this question came up at the time during the debates on the clause in 1866. The question was, is this going to apply to the the children of immigrants who aren't African Americans, formerly enslaved people, and so forth. And the answer unequivocally was yes, it would. Third, that's exactly what Wong Kim Ark, this foundational Supreme Court precedent, held in 1898. And fourth, and here's, I think, in some ways, the most damning thing for this whole line of argument, the government concedes that. the government agrees with us that the children of immigrants are covered by the 14th Amendment. They just want to say, well, it's some immigrants and not other immigrants.

But that's nowhere to be found in the citizenship clause either. And so this entire idea is really just political rhetoric and a red herring. Delete me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Look, as someone with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me. There's just too much personal information floating around online, and I don't have time to track it all down myself. Delete me. Does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites. Delete me isn't just a one-time service. Delete me is always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the

personal information you don't want on the internet. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners, get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join deleteme.com slash legal AF and use promo code legal AF at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to join deleteme.com slash legal AF and enter code LegalAF at checkout. One more time. Join delete me.com slash legal a.f code legal a. So what should happen? This should be seven to two, eight to one, nine, zero.

But you know that there's at least two MAGA, at least Alito and Thomas, who will reactionary knee jerk side with President Trump's decision. The fact that they even took the case is because Trump has been banging on the Supreme Court that this is a major linchpin of his policies, on immigration and deportation. Best thing that ever happened to Donald Trump is if he loses this.

You know, if he wants to run against it on politics, he can go do it. But it will be a terrible, terrible black mark on a series of black marks against the Trump administration if he wins against the Supreme Court too. Who wants to live in a country where there's different levels and qualities to being a citizen?

Is a naturalized citizen less than a, a native-born citizen? How many generations back? Are we going to get into heritage? You have to trace your lineage back, four and five generations. Are we getting into the genetic code like we did back in Hitler's days?

Is that where we're going? I think we need to put an end to this, and it starts with the oral argument at the United States Supreme Court. I would say they're on a little bit of a run, but all right, they sided 85% of the time with Donald Trump on his show. shadow docket every time he filed an emergency, especially about immigration or firing people

at the federal government level from the executive branch, they bent over backwards and sided with Donald Trump. It seemed to come to an end with the tariff decision where they said, no, even six, even Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts couldn't bring themselves to find somewhere in the in the international economic emergency powers act language that would give the president the power to tariff. Even they

couldn't find it. I'm sure they looked. So that went down six to three. But still there were three that thought the president had the congressional power to tariff. But just as we came on the air eight to one, including all of MAGA, ruled against

limits, placed on the ability of therapist to do conversion therapy. You know, states were licensing and saying, no, you can't try to convert somebody and have them stop being gay. But eight to one, the Supreme Court said, that's a violation of the therapist's First Amendment right. So I don't know exactly where this is going to go. I will know within the first half an hour of a two-hour oral argument tomorrow, and I will report on it back here on Midas Touch and on Legal A-F. Thanks for being here. Thanks for supporting Legal A.F. and the Intersection podcast. Until my next report, I'm Michael Popak.

Can't get your fill of legal AF. Me neither. That's why we form the Legal AF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, morning A.F. What else? All the other contributors from Legal A.F are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got add free versions of the podcast and hot takes wear legal a F on substack. Come over now to free subscribe.