Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Suffers Massive Loss by Supreme Court

Episode Date: December 23, 2025

In breaking news, a 6-3 Supreme Court, including 3 of the MAGA right wing, have ruled AGAINST Trump and his method to federalize and take over Blue State national guard troops, and have found, in essence, that unless he uses the Insurrection Act, and then uses the US armed forces first to quell violence, he won’t be able to breach state sovereignty and take over state militias and put them to his own use. Michael Popok also takes a close look at Justice Kavanaugh’s “concurrence” that not only reads like a dissent, but also trolls the American people with a rewrite of the history of the Jan6 attack on the Capitol to suit his pro-president/Trump jurisprudence. 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 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey Ontario, come down to BetMGM Casino and see what our newest exclusive the Price is Right Fortune Pick has to offer. Don't miss out. Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show, only at BetMGM. Check out how we've reimagined three of the show's iconic games like Plinko, Clifhanger, and the Big Wheel into fun casino game features. Don't forget to download the BetMGM Casino app for exclusive access and excitement on the Price's Right Fortune Pick. Pull up a seat and experience the Price's Right Fortune Pick, only available at BetMGM, BETMGM Casino. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly.

19 plus to wager. Ontario only, please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact ConX Ontario at 1866-531-260 to speak to an advisor, free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. The beginning of the end of Donald Trump's unconstitutional, illegal use of the National Guard in states, blue states, to federalize them, to take them over to try to embarrass governors and blue voters may be coming to an end because in a breaking and shocking fashion, in a six to three decision,

the United States Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump may not use the National Guard, take over the National Guard in a city or a state unless he's able to use the regular forces of the military, the regular forces of the military fail to allow him to execute the laws and then and only then can he take over the state militia but then only if Congress allows it restoring some semblance

of checks and balance on the constitutional system you won't be shocked in this hot take as to who the three dissenters were you had Alito and Thomas joined by Gorsuch but Kavanaugh at least in denying the motion to stay, allowing this case to proceed until they get around to

handling a full appeal. In Kavanaugh, you have a very interesting person who has now slid over to join Amy Coney Barrett and join Justice Roberts, along with Kataji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan, to form an interesting block. But Kavanaugh has a weird set of speculations that sound a lot like Jan 6th, except in his dystopic world, it's happening to the federal judiciary. And then I guess he would allow the president to use the militia, to stop forces, even though in the real life, Jan 6th, Donald Trump didn't do that at all. I'm going to bring it all together here on Midas touch on this breaking news story at the intersection of law and politics. I am Michael Popuk and you're on Legal AF. All right, let's get to it.

We've been waiting for, wow, a month and a half for this ruling coming out of one of the several places that Donald Trump has criminalized, has federalized the National Guard, this case, Illinois and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. That is separate and apart from other cases, although this will impact those other cases, that are pending in Oregon and Portland and in California, in L.A. and San Francisco, up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. So you basically have the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, all waiting around for this ruling. Now, we were a little bit suspicious when the Supreme Court asked for additional briefing on one particular term, because everybody on both sides of the case agree that what Trump was trying to do was under a very limited delegation by Congress. Because only Congress, only Congress can empower the president to use troops and forces on domestic soil. It has to be a delegation from Congress. And there is a statute. We call it 10 U.S.C. 12406.

You're going to hear me talk a lot about 12406, little three, or three in the whole, as we say, subpart three. And there it says that if there's an invasion, then you can, to repel the invasion, you could use a nationalized federal national guard. But then the last one is if the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. Those terms are very specific and very defined. Unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. But you'd think in 150 years or so they would have defined what regular forces means that we shouldn't still be debating it in 2025. But no, Supreme Court wanted additional briefing. What do you think regular forces are?

Donald Trump's administration argued that the regular forces are, if we're outmatched by using our federal security forces, the civilian forces that are around federal buildings that are employed by the federal government or get a federal paycheck, if those are outmatched, then we can tap for backup the National Guard of that state and override the governor. the states argued something different that under the long history of the term regular forces it means the armed forces the military the army the navy the marines the coast guard the space force and all of that and if that means if that's the case then even under that circumstance you can only use those things those regular forces if congress has allowed you to has delegated that power to you remembering that there's something called the Pasi Comitatis Act, which limits your ability as a president to use regular forces for domestic law enforcement purposes. So you go to your, so under the state's version, you go to your bag, if you're the president, you say, oh, I can use regular forces. No, go look to the congressional statute and see if it allows you to use congressional forces in these circumstances. If it does, use them. And if failing that, then go to National Guard. If you can't use the regular forces, then it may speed up your ability to go and tap the National Guard.

Here's what the United States Supreme Court ruled six to three against Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. But the Kavanaugh concurrence read a lot like a dissent to me, and I'll explain it to you right here on Legal A.F. All right, here we go. It says federal immigration enforcement efforts have encountered significant resistance, as well as some, violence in Chicago. According to the government, federal officers have been obstructed, threatened, and assaulted as they attempt to perform their duties. The government also alleges that an immigration and customs enforcement ICE processing facility in Illinois has been the site of frequent and sometimes violent protests. These attacks have greatly impeded the government says its efforts to

enforce the immigration laws. And so Trump pulled up 300 members of the Illinois National Guard to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois. In calling forth the Guard, the President relied on 10 U.S.C. Section 124063, which empowers him to federalize the members of the Guard if he's unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. It says in its supplemental briefs that were requested by the court, it says, we directed on page 2. We, the Supreme Court, directed, the parties filed supplemental letter briefs

on an issue that the district court. had addressed, but the party's briefs had not. What does the term regular forces mean? The government argues that it means the civilian law enforcement officers, such as employed by immigration, ICE, or federal protective services. Respondents say it's the U.S. military. We conclude, this is now the Supreme Court ruling that will impact all the other cases and all the other attempts by Donald Trump to use the National Guard against blue states. We conclude that the term regular forces refers to the regular forces of the U.S. military, siding with the states. This interpretation means that to call the guard into active federal service, the president

must be unable with the regular military to execute the laws of the United States. Because the statute requires an assessment of the military's ability to execute the law, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws. citing to the Posse Comitatis Act, which prohibits the military from executing the laws except in cases where Congress has authorized it. So it creates a little bit of a closed circuit loop that the president would have to analyze whether he's allowed to use the military, and then if he's able, then he uses the military if he can, and if he still can't execute the laws, then he taps the National Guard.

If he can't use the military, then you skip that step. It's like a game, like a game trade, decision-making trade. Then you skip that step, and you go right to federalizing the National Guard. At this preliminary stage, the opinion continues of the six justices. The government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The president has not invoked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatis Act. I mean, the Insurrection Act is a exception. Is this moving Donald Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act in order to use the military as a prerequisite to nationalizing the, or federalizing the National Guard?

That's where we're going, folks. The Insurrection Act is an exception to the Posse Comvistatus Act. The opinion continues. Instead, he relies on inherent constitutional authority, according to the government, allowing him to use the military. But the government also claims that performing such protective functions does not constitute executing the laws. All right? So if that doesn't mean, thus, at least in this posture, the government has not carried its burden to show that 12406 permits the president to federalize the guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois. It's basically begging or baiting Donald Trump to use the Insurrection Act,

one of several limited exceptions to the Posse Cometatis Act in a delegation of authority from the Congress in order to do that first before you call for backup with the state militia. That's where the six to three is going. Whether Donald Trump takes the bait will be another story. But now let me turn to Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence, which is much more interesting than the three Judge Justice, is in dissent, Alito Thomas and Gorsuch.

Here's what he says. He said, he goes through a similar analysis, but he says, in my view, the statutory term, he agrees that the statutory term regular forces refers to the U.S. military, not the federal civilian law enforcement. However, he says that the court has gone too far. The court starts by concluding that regular forces means the U.S. military, from there does then a complicated and debatable statutory analysis that Kavanaugh does not agree with. So he agrees with the stay, doesn't agree with the further analysis in this three or

four page decision. Now, here's the part where the irony of Kavanaugh basically describing Jan 6th and yet not recognizing that when Trump was last president, he failed to call out the National Guard to help the metro police who are. who failed to hold the line to protect the Capitol. It's just amazing to me that the irony seems to be completely lost. Look how he describes it in such personal terms about the court being attacked. He said, the court's illegal interpretation

could lead to a potentially significant implications for future crises. Consider a hypothetical. Suppose a mob rapidly gathers outside the U.S. courthouse in Philadelphia, federal, in response to an unpopular decision or to influence the outcome of a pending matter. Sounds a lot like Jan 6, don't you think?

Suppose also that the mob is threatening to storm the courthouse and attack the federal judges, prosecutors, and other personnel inside. You mean like the legislators and their staff inside the Senate and the house? And to damage or burn down the building, like the Jan Sixers? Thereby preventing the execution of federal law,

thereby trying to prevent the certification of the election? Suppose further that U.S. military forces cannot readily mobilize to deploy to the site in time, like because the President of the United States sat in a dining room and didn't try to mobilize them and didn't try to get the military to head to the Capitol. That the local police and federal court security officers are outnumbered, like the Metropolitan Police Department

and the Capitol Police, and that the president wants to federalize the National Guard units to protect the courthouse and other personnel, except Donald Trump didn't. Under the court's order, even in these circumstances, the presidents presumably could not federalize the National Guard. It's almost like he's trolling moderate thinking and liberal people to say, see, don't you want a future president to be able to call out the National Guard

to stop the next Jan 6th? I'm just going to put it in terms of a courtroom and a courthouse. Aren't I cute? No, you're not. And you also don't recognize, even though you're willing to put a crown on Donald Trump's head and levitate the executive branch above the other. branches of government, including your own, you don't care about anything else. But the fact that you don't even recognize that that is at a front to those of us that live

through and some of us who survive Jan 6th is just beyond me. Again, another troll, I'll join in the 6th to 3 and I'll block it. But let me bring up Jan 6 for you. Don't you want a future National Guard to prevent that? The record is clear. Jack Smith gave us the record, we know it, and we know it from the speech he just gave the testimony for eight hours to Congress. Donald Trump sat in his dining room for, what was it, three hours, four hours, letting the Capitol burn, not calling the Secretary of the Army,

not calling the National Guard, doing nothing. So don't tell me about what a president should be allowed to do. How about this first line of defense is if there's an insurrection to declare an insurrection, call out the military, the standing forces of the military, and let them hit that capital to protect the people and property inside and the cradle of our democracy. How about that? That's what the new ruling says. Now, this new law, which the other courts were waiting on, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that just ordered that the troops come out of the streets of L.A. is only emboldened by this ruling. It's supported by this ruling. Judge Breyer anticipated this ruling in San Francisco. In fact, I'm going to have Attorney General Banta from California

back on with us for an interview to talk about how he sees this new ruling impacting the Portland, Oregon Ninth Circuit case he's involved with and the California case and other cases, because this will now have a domino effect. In the meantime, I'm Michael Popok. Hit the free subscribe button for legal AF YouTube and the Midas Touch YouTube channel. next report. Oh, I'll post this order, this new opinion, in legal A.F substack for paid members. Thank you. Can't get your fill of legal A.F. Me neither. That's why we formed 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 ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes where legal A-F on substack. Come over now to free subscribe.