Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Whoa! Trump Judges make Shock Ruling and Block Maps

Episode Date: May 26, 2026

In breaking news, in response to instructions from the Supreme Court, a UNANIMOUS Alabama Federal Judge panel —majority Trump appointees” has found, again, that Alabama and its Legislature has committed “Intentional Racism” in eliminating black representation in its Congressional Delegation, and blocked the use of the racist map in the upcoming election, setting it on a fast track to the Supreme Court. Popok explains what this means throughout the South for the Democrats as Judges struggle to search the record for intentional racism under the Supreme Court’s new Callais decision, and explores new reporting that Justice Alito cooked the books on voting data to support his gutting of the Voting Rights Act in the decision. Pocket Hose: Text LEGAL to 64000 for your 2 free gifts with the purchase of any Pocket Hose Ballistic hose. Message and data rates may apply. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! 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

In response to Supreme Court instructions to consider whether Alabama's congressional maps remain unconstitutional and illegal under the new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, a three-judge panel in Alabama of all places has said that map is too racist even for us. And intentional racism having been found at the highest levels of the Alabama legislature, the three-judge panel has said, you're not using the racist map for the midterms and has struck it down, despite a month ago the United States Supreme Court doing everything it could to gut the Voting Rights Act. They left one pin standing. It's like bowling except racism.

The one pin standing is if a court finds intentional racism by the mapmakers, then they can still use the Voting Rights Act. And there we have a three-judge panel has found intentional racism in this breaking decision. This is a boon to the Democrats and the democracy and to black empowerment in the South, which is being picked off one by one by legislatures. I'm Michael Popak. You're here on the Midas Touch Network, and let's get down to the new result. Supreme Court sent back to various states like Alabama and said reconsider whether you would strike down this map under our new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act in Section 2 issued by Judge Alito.

In a moment in this hot take, I'm going to explain to you why Judge Alito's premise is based on faulty data and false statistics and should never have been issued. That's for later in the hot take. But let's talk about Alabama. Three judge panel, two of them, Trump appointees in Monasco and Moorer and Senior Judge Marcus. So the three M's got together for the second time related to these maps. And here's what they had to say about the legislature trying to put some sort of sheen or imprimatur over blatant racism. Quote, from the order, which will post on legal AF substack. These events, along with the legislator's contemporaneous statements about race, meaning in the House for Alabama, they talked openly about getting rid of black representation.

Support only one inference the panel ruled the purpose of the 2020. map was to distribute black voters across districts to dilute their votes, to crack the black districts, right, and to spread them out among, and then to pack them into one. The panel wrote, counsel argues mightingly that the legislature's partisan motives drove the creation of the map. In other words, they did it because of trying to get more Republican seats, not to eliminate blacks, but this erroneous record contains. no evidence of a partisan motive, and the only evidence on the issue cuts against one, Alabama's legislative leadership testified that overtures from national party leaders

did not affect their work. So it wasn't about make more Republicans, it was about eliminating black people. They say further in their order, which the Alabama governor has already said she's going to appeal. The panel led by Judge Marcus said, we reject in the strongest possible terms, the state's attempt to finish its intentional decision to dilute minority votes with a veneer of legislative regularity. You're not going to get away with, oh, you pass the law, and therefore your racism's okay. Now, this is all that's left to federal courts under the Calais decision from a month ago, which said under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, only if there's intentional racism reflected in the record.

can a map be struck down? Well, now federal judges, even in the South, are on the hunt for just such record evidence. That's all they're left with, you know? Just as now legislatures are trying to hide behind the veneer of, we're just trying to make more Republicans, we're not trying to eliminate black people who all happen to be Democrats in the South. No. Now federal judges are going to have to look carefully in the record to determine whether intentional racism exists. And they found it in Alabama for the second time. So it's,

hats off to this three-judge paddle. I mean, Manasco and Moore are Trump appointees. Marcus comes from the Neiman Marcus family, fortune, I believe, the department store fortune been on since Clinton. Now, this is the second time they ruled these maps were wrong. In 2022, they said that eliminating another black district was clearly racist. The Supreme Court supported it, but then came out a month ago, 6 to 3, alt-right MAGA majority, 6-3, written by Alito in the Calais decision, that left standing only intentional racism as a ground to strike a map.

Oh, I'm very excited to tell you about the world's number one expanding garden hose and their brand new product, the pocket hose ballistic. I used to have to buy a new hose every year due to kinks and tangles, but the pocket hose ballistic is the upgrade I've been looking for my entire life. It's the toughest pocket hose ever built. Reinforce with a liquid crystal polymer used in bulletproof vest.

Pocket hose is the number one expandable hose in the world. Super lightweight, easy to manage, easy to store. Turn the water on and it grows. Turn the water off and it shrinks back to pocket size. Comes with the pocket pivot, which gives you a total freedom of movement at the spigot with 360-degree rotation. You move it, it follows, and the water flows.

and now for a limited time when you purchase a new pocket hose ballistic, you'll get a free 360-degree rotating pocket pivot and a free thumb-drive nozzle. Just text legal to 64,000. That's L-E-G-A-L to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase. Text legal to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply. Now, let's talk about Calais for a minute, shall we?

Then I'll talk about what happens in the intersection of law and politics. Calais, the new reporting is that Judge Alito relied on false data, or at least false data analysis to reach the conclusion that we can get rid of Section 2, because in the 60 years or so since the Civil Rights Act in 1965, that we've become a post-racial world, everybody, good news, no more racists. And he used data that he got wrong. In particular, relied on data that said that there was, let me read it to you from page 26 and 27 of the Calais decision. Section 2 does not require abandonment of the framework, but we need to update it. First, he says on page 26, vast social change has occurred throughout the country and in the South.

The Voting Rights Act led to great strides in the ensuing decades. voting tests were abolished disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race were erased, and African Americans attain political office and record numbers. Yes, all being picked off now under the guise of, we're just doing it for partisan reasons. And here's the lie about the data. Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate, even turning out at higher rates than white voters in two of the five most recent presidential elections, citing the Commerce Department, the Census Bureau, and tables. Those are all wrong because they take as a percentage the total number of 18 years or older people,

regardless of whether they're citizens. If you just take registered voters every year voter registration and participation by the black community has gone down and widen the gap between white participation and black participation. You can only make this conclusion, which is the premise of Sam Alito's decision in Calais to destroy Section 2. You can only reach that conclusion if you fudge the numbers and cook the books and you use as your denominator total 18-year-olds instead of 18-year-old voters. In reality, voter participation by the black population,

black Americans, has declined every year. year. It hasn't outperformed whites in two of the five presidential elections, only one since 2015, the one involving Barack Obama. So this, again, is the fraud. It's not the first time that Alito has been accused of cooking the books on data or using fake data or fake historical references in order to support his opinion. Look at the amount of plaintiffs, appellants that come to the Supreme Court who are fraudulent. And that's never ignored by the Supreme Court. And that's never ignored by the Supreme Court, who just wants any old case in front of them so they can make a ruling that supports Trump. I mean, you have the phony baker who said that they didn't want to bake a cake

for a gay family, and that led to a destruction of gay rights in America. The baker didn't bake cakes for weddings. Or the phony website designer who said they didn't want to design a website for a gay, for a gay couple, for a gay marriage. They don't design websites either. And how about Calais himself? Bert Calais of the namesake of the case? He's an election denier and a MAGA MAGA. But the Supreme Court doesn't care. The MAGA 6 don't.

Fortunately, the three-judge panel in Alabama at the trial court level do. See, this was not an appellate panel. This was a three-judge specialty panel put together to review maps. And when they, based in a hundred and two-page decision, when they find in the record that there is this level of actual racism, you know it exists. Here's what it means for the Democrats and those that protect the democracy going forward. After the Calais decision, Tennessee immediately got rid of its black representation.

Louisiana, the same thing. South Carolina, on Tuesday night, is going to decide whether to get rid of Jim Clyburn, the civil rights leader and the sole black in Congress, the congressional delegation for South Carolina. Missouri and Georgia say they're going to do the same thing in 2028. We got to win in Alabama. And these are the arguments that have to now be raised by advocates like democracy docket and Mark Elias and the ACLU.

They've got to argue intentional racism. They've got to look hard in the record. They've got to find those statements. they've got to search social media to see that these have nothing to do with trying to make new Trump Republicans, but have everything to do about eliminating black empowerment in the South, plain and simple. So we're going to continue to follow it. And now it's going to land on the doorstep of the United States Supreme Court on some sort of emergency docket. I'm sure I'm going to be back here.

I might as touch a legal a F reporting about a shadow docket emergency briefing coming up through probably, Sam Alito or Clarence Thomas out of Alabama, you know, as they take the appeal. This goes directly now to the United States Supreme Court. It skips the 11th Circuit for Alabama, and it's on a fast track to the Supremes. The question is, is it going to be an emergency docket with just two briefs and no oral argument and some sort of ruling, or is it going to be on full briefing and an oral argument over time? Given the fast approaching primary season, you know they're going to take it on a fast, short-circuited track with an improper record and then make whatever decision reflexively, ideologically, that the six who control the Supreme Court want to make. How far will John Roberts go now that he's been called out for his own racism, how far will he go to destroy black empowerment in the South and have that be part of his legacy?

He's already gotten rid of women's rights. He's already gotten rid of reproductive rights on his watch. He's already given a presidency criminal immunity, and we see what's happened with that, with Donald Trump being out of control. Will he go so far as to take away black empowerment and send us back to the Jim Crow era and the South? We'll be watching carefully here on Midas Touch and Legal AF. Take a minute, hit the free subscribe button over on Legal AF as well.

Until my next report, I'm Michael. Hopak. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscribers for our substack at Midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Philikowski, add three episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at Midasplus.com.