Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Sent Dire Warning by SCOTUS Ahead of Troops Ruling

Episode Date: October 30, 2025

Michael Popok explains why a 1 paragraph order in the last few hours from the Supreme Court may spell disaster for Trump’s plan to continue to attack Blue States and Blue Cities with federalized National Guard. That one question could signal that there is at least 1 MAGA Supreme Court justice who may be willing to rein in Trump and his abuse of the National Guard. Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  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

Peramount Woos. Check out the big stars, big series, and blockbuster movies. Streaming on Paramount Plus. Cue the music. Like NCIS, Tony, and Ziva. We'd like to make up for own rules. Tulsa King. We want to take out the competition.

The substance. This balance is not working. And the naked gun. That was awesome. Now that's a mountain of entertainment. You know what's better than the one big thing? Two big things. Exactly.

The new iPhone 17 Pro on TELUS' five-year rate plan price lock. Yep, it's the most powerful iPhone ever, plus more peace of mind with your bill over five years. This is big. Get the new iPhone 17 Pro at TELUS.com slash iPhone 17 Pro on select plans. Conditions and exclusions apply. Well, we got an order in the last few hours from the United States Supreme Court. a curious little order, but I think it signals to Donald Trump that he may be in trouble with his continued bid to federalize the National Guard, embarrassed blue state leaders,

blue state mayors and blue state governors, which is all he's really doing. And I think the Supreme Court may, may be trying to find a way to put a stop to it. It's all buried in a paragraph from the United States Supreme Court in the last few hours. I'm going to break it down for you right here on the Midas Touch Network and on Legal A.F. We've been waiting for about 10 days for the United States Supreme Court to make a ruling on an emergency application from the ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which sits over Illinois, which blocked Donald Trump's use of the National Guard, deployment of the National Guard in Chicago and in Illinois, finding that he was not properly exercising power, didn't have the right to exercise power under 10 U.S.C. 12406. a statute, that there wasn't an invasion of a foreign country into America, that he was trying to stop. There wasn't a rebellion. And it all came down to whether Donald Trump, as the language of 12406 lists out, whether Donald Trump and any president through the use of regular forces

could not execute the law, the federal law. And so looking at facts on the ground, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the judges in Illinois and said, that doesn't seem to be the problem in Illinois. You don't get to just take over the National Guard when you feel like it. That went up to the Supreme Court on an application by the Trump administration on an emergency app. We've been waiting 10 days. Now, I speculated at one point that we were waiting on not the decision, that the decision has already been made in some combination five to four, six to three. something like that. But we were waiting on the writing of the dissents. See, when you issue a ruling on an emergency order, it usually is only a page, as opposed to the hundreds of pages sometimes on

Supreme Court decisions on the regular docket, but that you get with it eight or 10 or 12 or 20 pages or more of dissents or maybe concurrences. Concurrents means I agree in principle with most of the majority decision, but I want to be heard separately. A dissent is, I don't agree with any that the majority just did, and I want to register my dissent. And usually that takes a minute. It doesn't take a minute to collect the votes to figure out whether we have five votes to make a ruling at the Supreme Court level, but it takes a while to write these other companion pieces of paper. I don't think that's what's happening any longer, because we got an order in the last few hours from the Supreme Court that said that the emergency application was originally went to Amy Coney-Barrett,

who sits over the Seventh Circuit as the first judge. It got referred to the full bench. That was all normal for a decision. But they want additional briefing through the month of November. And I was like, well, that's interesting. What's the issue? Well, here's the problem. Here's the red flag for Donald Trump.

The issue they want briefed. And the only additional issue they want brief, and they'll take briefing from friends of the court briefs as well, strangers who are filing briefs, is whether the term regular forces, as is used in 1240. encompasses the U.S. military. It's a very interesting question.

I think any fair reading of that statute is that using local law enforcement and using federal officers, not militia, not military, can Donald Trump, in that combination of regular forces, execute the law? In other words, can he continue to grab people off the streets

in his immigration removal and deportation program, get them to the ICE detention center, and have them processed. Yes or no? I mean, protesters in front of the ICE detention center, I mean, is that really stopping the movement of human beings through this immigration and removal program? Doesn't seem to be. In fact, there was citations in the record by the Seventh Circuit to bragging by Homeland Security and bragging by the Department of Justice that nothing was going to stop them and they were very successfully processing thousands of people off the streets of Illinois. Okay. The statutory language talks about regular forces. I've always interpreted that to mean local law enforcement,

cops on the beat, ICE, Customs and Border Patrol, whatever the regular forces of the president are. And that's why regular forces. and not, of course, not the military. Because the military would then move into the Posse Cometatus Act, which says, and you have to read these things in parallel and try to reconcile them. And it looks like that's what the Supreme Court's trying to reconcile. The statute that allows the commandeering

and deployment of the National Guard by a president with another statute that says he can't use the military on domestic soil for law enforcement purposes. And so how do you put those two things together? That looks like what they are struggling with, and they don't seem to have the votes. I don't, I mean, you have to read the two things in harmony. You can't find them violative.

I mean, you can take a statute and say it, the way it's being read, violates the Constitution and Article 2 powers, because this Supreme Court is always concerned with Article 2 powers of the President under the Constitution. So what they're really reading is Article 2 powers on domestic soil without a war, so he's not Commander-in-Chief, This isn't a war.

This is just domestic disturbance, First Amendment expression at best. How do you read Article 2 powers in conjunction with Posse Comitatis powers in conjunction with the statute 12406 that allows under limited circumstances, three circumstances, to take over the National Guard if you're the president? That's what they're struggling with. And that's interesting that they don't have the, that Trump does not have the votes right now to give him the power to do what he's done. And they seem to be hung up on this issue.

My interpretation would suggest that there may be five votes to block Trump on this particular area. Because they'll have to go back and look at the legislative history. They'll have to go back to these late 1700s and 1800s to see what regular forces meant in history. Because that's how the Supreme Court operates with historical precedent. but I don't think it's the military because the rare circumstances when the presidents have used the military including like Abraham Lincoln

you know we were talking about rebellion and therefore sending in the troops so that was a different section of the three-part test for 12406 we're not under rebellion we're under regular forces or incapable of allowing the president to execute his law

the fact that they're hung up on that I think is a terrible sign for Donald Trump. Now, we'll see as we see the further briefing over the course of November. And then, of course, I don't think there's going to be oral argument. I think we're just going to get a ruling that pops out. Sounds like one or two, including a MAGA, is on the fence about Donald Trump

and giving him this presidential superpower. And we'll continue to follow it all right here on Legal A.F and the Midas Dutch Network, the way to help us continue to bring you this type of honest commentary, is to hit the subscribe button to Midas Touch, slide over to LegalAF YouTube as we march towards a million. It's a million subscriber march over on LegalAF YouTube.

We're going to hit it in the next month or so with your help. And that's that subscriber base, to put it bluntly, is what keeps us on the air. It's what keeps the content coming to you. And then, of course, we've got LegalAF substack as well where you can become a paid member. and now you're a card-carrying member of the legal a.F community. So until my next report, I'm Michael Popak.

Can't get your fill of legal A.F. Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal A.F. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or an 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've got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes. Where Legal A-F on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.