Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Shockingly Reversed as MAGA Supreme Court Gets Ignored?!?

Episode Date: September 6, 2025

Trump has suffered his 3 major court losses in the last 4 days, this time in a 2-1 ruling of the DC Federal Court of Appeals. Trump’s firing of the lone democrat on the Federal Trade Commission without proper “cause” has been blocked. But Michael Popok also reports that a frustrated appellate panel in its ruling has also admonished their bosses at the Supreme Court to “do their job” and decide to keep or overturn 90-year-old precedent about who can and cannot be fired by the President! Prize Picks: Go to https://PrizePicks.com/legalaf and use code LEGALAF and get $50 in lineups when you play your first $5 lineup! 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 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

In breaking news, in just four days, Donald Trump is on an epic losing streak, now suffering his third loss, this time at the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. court. And a two-to-one decision has now blocked his efforts to fire the only remaining Democrat on the Federal Trade Commission, citing a 90-year-old precedent, which the Supreme Court may be chipping away at, but has not removed entirely, called Humphrey's executor. In fact, as noted by the two-to-one decision, of Judge Millett and Judge Pallard against Judge Rayo, a Trump supporter, a Trump nominee, the actual case of Humphrey's executor, which is the precedent going back 90 years that says

a president cannot fire anyone from the Federal Trade Commission. This is what the case says, from the Federal Trade Commission without cause, which has always been interpreted as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. all those things happening in office, the actual case of Humphreys' executor, Humphreys was a federal trade commission commissioner. I can't think of a case that's on all fours more than this case. And what the two-to-one decision was,

and they actually call out the United States Supreme Court, finally, I'm going to, they're just getting tired of getting reversed by the Supreme Court. And what the D.C. appellate panel here, two-to-one, said to the Supreme Court is, we're not going to do your job for you. You want to overturn Humphrey's executor, then you overturn it. But we see it as the precedent binding in this circuit, certainly about a federal trade commission commissioner,

and the president having illegally fired that person. And that's the precedent we're going to follow until you change it. Challenging the Supreme Court to, quote, unquote, do its job. I'm Michael Popak. I'm doing my job. I'm here on the Midas Dutch Network and on Legal AF. Let's get into the case of Rebecca Slaughter. The Federal Trade Commission, as noted by the two-to-one panel, is a commission that was formed 100 years ago, more than 100 years ago.

It's led by a group of five commissioners. And by the way that the Congress established this independent agency, no more than three out of the five can be members of the same political party. They have to be nominated and confirmed by the Senate. Right now, there are no Democrats. Donald Trump fired the two Democrats. He fired Alavaro Badoia and he fired Rebecca Slaughter. Slaughter is challenging that because Badoia apparently went off and got a new job. But right now it's an all-Republican-led Federal Trade Commission which regulates in the area of trade and business regulation here in the United States.

it's a very important thing. It investigates whether people are committing fraud in the area of business transactions. If they're running Ponzi schemes, it's often shut down by the FTC. But now we have no Democrats on here. And here's what the judges, the two judges in the majority, in their per curiam order, meaning we're not sure who wrote it. It's the opinion of both of them. Here's what they say on page two.

President Trump fired the Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, without cause. The district court ordered her reinstated. That means the trial court level. The government now seeks a stay of that decision pending an appeal. That motion must be denied. The government has no likelihood of success on appeal given the controlling and directly on point Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, 90 years ago, a unanimous Supreme Court appelled the constitutionality of the Federal Trade Commission acts for cause removal protection, meaning you can only remove a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission under Humphreys' executor case law if they have committed inefficiency, which usually means theft of honest service, you're not doing your job. You're working two hours, you're getting paid for seven hours.

Neglect of duty, similar, and malfeasance. You do something terribly wrong in office, all within office. And in Humphrey's executor in 1935, Humphreys was a Federal Trade Commission commissioner. It's very rare that you get a case, which is on all fours, including the facts. Over the ensuing decades, and fully informed by the substantial executive power exercised by the commission, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and expressly left Humphrey's executors in place and precluded presidents from removing commissioners at will. They're addressing an argument raised by MAGA, raised by the unitary presidential model. that the president has all the power

and in that particular branch and Congress can't do anything to impede it and the bigger the agency and the more executive function that the agency or the commission is recognized to possess the more the president can fire without cause the more it's seen as an infringement

on presidential power by Congress if it is depending upon how much executive power power this quote unquote independent commission or agency exerts and so here they're saying out loud everybody knows in the last 90 years what the federal trade commission does what its powers are and yet the supreme court has reaffirmed humphrey's executor time and time again then just four months ago the supreme the ruling continues the supreme court stated that adherence to to precedent like humphrey's executor trolls in resolving stay motions. So now they're poking the bear of the Supreme Court. Let me translate that. This is Judge Millett and Judge Pallard saying, look, you just told us it's not up to the

federal district court judges to make rulings to overturn precedent. We, only we at the Supreme Court, can overturn precedent. You apply precedent. So like, okay, the only precedent we can apply is Humphrey's executor about a federal trade commission commissioner, just like Rebecca Slaughter. So we are going to apply it. Now here's the other little dig at the United States Supreme Court. They say we're not going to stay the matter. We're going to reinstate her. We're going to keep her in her chair at the Federal Trade Commission.

And she's already issued statements and saying, I'm back at work and Donald Trump keeps issuing statements that says, no, she's fired. Now here's where they poke on page three. The key substantive question presented by the government's appeal is whether the statute, providing the commissioners for-cause removal protection unconstitutionally infringes on a president's Article 2 power. The government is highly unlikely to succeed on appeal, meaning to the Supreme Court, or a substantive appeal on the matter, because the exact question was already asked and unanimously answered

by the Supreme Court adversely to the government's position 90 years ago. And then citing even in 2021, And 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed Humphreys executor. Humphreys executor controls this case and binds this court. And recent developments on the Supreme Court's emergency do not permit this court to do the Supreme Court's job of reconsidering that precedent. This episode is brought to you by prize picks. You and I make decisions every day. But on prize picks, being right can get you paid. Don't miss any of the excitement this season on prize picks where it's good to.

to be right. I'm so excited to see Sequin Barclay take the field this season. I'm thinking in that first game, he can even have more than one rushing touchdown. Prize picks is simple to play. Just pick more or less on two to six player stat projections. If you get your picks right, you can cash in. Prize picks is also the best way to get action on sports in more than 40 plus states, including California, Texas, and Georgia. Prize picks invented the flex play, which means you can still cash out if your lineup isn't perfect. You can double your money even if one of your picks doesn't hit. Prize picks is the best way to win cash this football season.

Which players are going off? Which ones aren't? Make your picks in less than 60 seconds and turn your takes into cash all season long on prize picks. Prize picks is the best place to win cash while watching sports. Join millions of users and sign up today. Download the app today and use code legal AF to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

That's code legal AF to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. Prize picks, it's good to be right. What are they talking about there? Well, in at least three different cases over the spring, the Supreme Court related to the National Labor Relations Board, the Office of Special Counsel,

and the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the heads of all of those, allowed Trump on an emergency docket without getting into the substance, allowed these people to be fired and did not find that Humphreys' executor required that a four-cause termination be the basis for their termination,

allowing Donald Trump just to whack and take out all of these commissioners and agency heads, even if Congress had said it could only be a four-cause termination. Even though they didn't reach the merits, they only did it on the emergency docket on a procedural basis. here's where there there's the dig by these these two judges which is if you want to change it even though you've made some different changes about different people national labor relations board office of special counsel merit systems protection board on your emergency docket then you

reconsider precedent we're not going to do your job for you so they don't so what does this mean they go through the analysis they affirm the stay at the supreme at this court level that was issued by the lower court, the federal district judge. And now they're setting it up for an appeal to the Supreme Court. If they want to take away Humphrey's executor, they can take away Humphrey's executor as the leading precedent in the area.

But they need to do it. And now it's set up for that. Now, Judge Rayo, who is a Trump supporter, so far I've watched every one of her cases over the last two years. you know, she's a Trump appointee. I've read every one of her decisions. I think, except for once,

she's always sided with the Trump position, always. So in her order, in her dissent, she effectively says, well, this is something that should go to the Supreme Court. And in the meantime, we should block the stay and allow her to be fired and let it go up to the United States Supreme Court. this is this is how they operate just let just let her be fired we'll fix it later here's what she said in her

dissent on page one of her dissent this case presents a now familiar set of facts president donald trump fired a commissioner of a so-called independent agency you see where this is going already without cause the district court held that such removal was unlawful ordered reinstatement and entered a permanent injunction um while while it is true that the removed officer here is a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and the Supreme Court appelled the removal restrictions of the commissioners in Humphrey's executor in 1935. A stay is nonetheless appropriate. So wait till you see how she gets there. The commission unquestionably exercises significant executive power and the other equities favor the government. Because we are required

to exercise our equitable discretion in accordance with the court's directive, the district court's order must be stayed. She basically relies on a ruling from the Wilcox case from this summer in May in 2025 by the Supreme Court, where in Wilcox, they said that the government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power that are wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty. In other words, the harm to the executive branch and having an officer exercised his power, Trump's power is more than the harm to the officer being removed. Now, this is now going to go up at the United States Supreme Court level.

It's hard for me to actually, I'm going to try it here, but it's hard for me to actually predict what's going to happen. For the, they would have to make the ruling that the Federal Trade Commission has gotten so big for its britches, has outgrown Humphrey's executor, has taken on responsibilities and roles that impinge on the executive branch in ways that it didn't in 1935 in order for it to overturn Humphrey's executor. It could do that. I just don't see there's been a major change in how the Federal Trade Commission operates.

And they've known about the Federal Trade Commission and whatever its growing powers have been. And they haven't reached out and try to overturn Humphrey's executor in the last 35 years. Sorry, in the last 90 years. Certainly not in the last 20 years. So I think the argument here is that they should keep Humphrey's executor in place and that treat the Federal Trade Commission the way they treat the Federal Reserve, which is to put a ring fence around it, to protect it, and to make sure that people don't get fired from those positions unless there is proper cause, which again is inefficiency, neglect of duty, and malfeasance in office. I mean, one of the big debates that's going to go up to the Supreme Court this term is going to be about Lisa Cook. who's on the Federal Reserve, which they also said has to be a four-cause firing. Now, Donald Trump says, whatever I say it is, is the four-cause firing, and she committed

mortgage fraud. I'm not sure mortgage fraud rises to the level of inefficiency, neglect of duty, and malfeasance in office. She didn't commit that alleged fraud in office, and that's not the four-cause termination grounds. But that's for the Supreme Court to decide about that federal reserve. Federal Trade Commission, we now have an all-Republican Federal Trade Commission in violation of the statute creating it by the by Congress. I mean, Supreme Court is just letting Congress create executive branches, executive agencies, put limits on Trump's ability or president's ability to take away their independence, allow them to take away their independence and say, yeah, it's still good.

Well, it's not, it wasn't the basis for what the, what the Congress did to create the agency. So why should we allow the Supreme Court to alter the term? of the creation of that agency or commission. It is outrageous. But we'll continue to follow it. You're here on the Midas Touch Network. Take a minute. Hit the free subscribe button.

Slide over to Legal AF, the YouTube channel. Do the exact same thing. And then cases like this and orders like this, I put up on Legal AF Substack so that you can read them for yourself as well. And we do lives on LegalAF substack all to help you learn more about law and politics. So until my next report, I'm Michael Popuck.

Can't get your fill of legal A.F. Me neither. That's why we form the legal A.F. 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 in 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 ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes. Where? Legal. A.F on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.