Legal AF Full Episode - 6/21/2025
01:29:59 Share

Your payments are showing. But with Apple Cash, your payments are private by design. There are no public feeds. Send and receive money privately, in messages or with tap-to-cash. Switch to Apple Cash. Apple Cash services are provided by Green Dot Bank member FDIC.

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two-factor authentication, strong passwords, and a VPN, you try to be in control of how your info is protected. But many other places also have it, and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com slash podcast for 40% off. Terms apply.

The NBA playoffs are here, and I'm getting my bets in on FanDuel. Talk to me, Chuck GPT. What do you know? All sorts of interesting stuff. Even Charles Barkley's greatest fear. Hey, nobody needs to know that. New customers bet $5 to get 200 in bonus bets if you win. FanDuel, America's number one sportsbook.

21 plus and present in Virginia. Must be first online real money wager. $5 deposit required. Bonus issued is non-withdrawable bonus bets that expire seven days after receipt. Restrictions apply. See full terms at fandor.com slash sportsbook. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.

A lot of news to discuss on today's Legal AF, Michael Popak. You had the Trump regime handed a massive loss in their attempt to block international students from attending Harvard. A big victory for Harvard. What does it mean? Are there negotiations taking place?

behind the scenes to try to resolve that case. You and I will get into it. We'll also get into what happened at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that Donald Trump could indeed, in the current form, federalize the National Guard for the purposes of

guarding the federal buildings in Los Angeles. I am very critical of this three to nothing ruling. Two Trump judges, one Biden judge all agreed. What's going to happen next? Is California Governor Gavin Newsom going to seek justice

by what's called an en banc panel. Is he going to go to the United States Supreme Court? Is he going to let that ruling stand? Why did the three-judge panel rule this way? The good, the bad, the ugly at Legal AF, we address it all. While the Ninth Circuit surprised us there, I think for some people on the right wing, the Fifth Circuit probably surprised them and ruled that you cannot post these Ten Commandments in

in Louisiana. Louisiana's Ten Commandments law unconstitutional according to the Fifth Circuit, which is known as a very right-wing circuit court of appeals. Then we'll talk about some of the other developments with Mahmoud Khalil being released based on a ruling by a New Jersey federal judge, and we'll give some other updates as well. Let's bring in Michael Popak, uh,

We've got a lot to discuss right now, so we should get into it right away. Popak, how are you doing? And then why don't you just get right into talking about Harvard? Yeah, absolutely. I want to get into Harvard. I just want to touch on one thing, though, because, you know, we are sitting always at the intersection of law and politics. You know, we got a we got a war that this president's backing us into in in Israel, Iran. But the most interesting thing for me that came out of it, I did a hot take on it for Legal AF before we before we started tonight was

is the dire straits that Tulsi Gabbard has found herself in. And I'd be surprised if Tulsi Gabbard survives the month of June or July as the National Intelligence Director. He has gone publicly out against her, saying that if she believes that Iran was not close to a nuclear weapon situation,

At this moment, she's wrong adopting Israel's intelligence community assessment instead of his own national intelligence director. And she got into hot water. Ben, I don't know if you caught it. Earlier in the week, she posted on her social media post a video in which she lamented the effects of nuclear war and atomic bombs on people while she was in Hiroshima. And Donald Trump called her out and said, you are not going to run for president as our national intelligence director, my national intelligence director.

So if you want to leave the cabinet, leave the cabinet. But that was bad judgment while I'm negotiating about nuclear issues right now for you to post that video. She's in deep hot water. But what it shows me is one of two things.

You know, you and I talk a lot, you especially, about the demented state of Donald Trump, his mental capacity being so impaired before our very eyes. For me to say out loud that an American president is considering the intelligence assessment of a foreign entity, an ally nonetheless, but a foreign entity over his own American intelligence agency, he either is doing that

Or this is what we've always said it was, which is a ruse so that he can be a wartime president to try to wallpaper over all of the scandals and all of the economic, domestic, and foreign policy disasters of his 200 days in office.

Popak, while we talk about the intersection of law and politics, I can give you the most basic piece of evidence if I were to present my case to a jury to show that both Donald Trump and Netanyahu are lying. And I'll say it very quickly. They said a few days ago that Iran was a few days away from getting a nuclear bomb and that they would immediately use it against New York and there would be mushroom clouds in New York. So if they were a few days away from getting it,

Why would then Donald Trump say he needs two weeks to try to determine what he is going to do? That would belie the few days. Also, we've been showing on the Midas Touch Network super cuts of Netanyahu saying a few days really since the mid 1990s. And I think when it comes to both

You know, you and I, and I think most of our viewers, I think as a general proposition, we support a denuclearized world generally. None of us want to see the Ayatollah to have a nuclear weapon. None of us support the Ayatollah or any of his actions. We'd love to see Iran be a democracy. We are also very wary of putting American troops

into Iran, into an endless war, seeing tens of thousands of American troops die. We don't know what the objectives are here. Is it denuclearization? Is it ceasefire? Is it now regime change? And what does that mean if it's regime change? Because there are lots of factions in a country filled with 90 million people. You know, Donald Trump over the past 48 hours,

has been making posts bragging about federalizing the National Guards and sending ICE agents, Marines into the Santa Fe swap meet in California and saying, oh, and like showing people, giving them like the middle finger and acting how tough they are. Well,

I have a feeling that the people of Iran, who may not by and large like the Ayatollah, I'm not sure they like the idea of a Donald Trump puppet or for them even probably worse, a Netanyahu puppet running the country of Iran. So then you're going to have a massive bloody civil war with regional implications. And what are we not?

talking about as a result. We're not talking about Donald Trump saying that there was going to be a ceasefire in Gaza every day. The situation there gets worse. Every day, Russia continues to escalate against Ukraine. And we have a disastrous budget bill working its way through the Senate right now, which is making it even worse and more

worse cuts to Medicaid than the House is making. So I think it is important, Popak, that we address that. And we did so, I think, judiciously and efficiently in about six minutes and 36 seconds addressing everything happening in the world. But let's talk about what's happening in Harvard, because this does impact

geopolitics as well, because I think a lot of what happened behind the scenes. Also, you had China pissed off Xi Jinping, a lot of wealthy Chinese families send their kids to Harvard and Donald Trump's attack on Harvard is impacting that. So part of, to me, the deal, I don't want to call it a deal, but the consensus that was between Trump and China is

had a lot also to deal with a lot of Chinese billionaire kids going to Harvard and them getting screwed as a result. But Harvard so far has stood their ground. They've been standing up to the Trump regime in court. They won the initial temporary restraining order. This was a preliminary injunction that a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled on. Popak, what went down? Yeah, and I just did a kind of a deep dive on it. There's a win.

Again, for Harvard with Judge Burroughs in Massachusetts about their participation in the foreign exchange program. Twenty five percent or so of Harvard, much like the rest of higher education, especially at the Ivy Leagues and the top universities in America. It's a it.

Let me start with that. Universities want foreign students for two reasons. To promote diversity. That's before it became a four-letter word under Donald Trump when you and I went to college and law school. A diverse student body was a good thing.

It led to a better liberal, and I mean that in the small L sense, liberal education. You learn from people from different walks of life, different socioeconomic backgrounds, different geopolitical backgrounds. I certainly did. My roommate in college, he was from Brownsville, Texas. His father ran the Union Carbide plant in Brownsville, Texas. I learned a lot about Mexico and Texas issues. He had never met a Jewish person.

literally when i went to college he was my roommate he and i became fast friends i learned a lot from him and i hope that he did for me but that's universities want them for two reasons one diversity two they pay top dollar to go whereas whereas in order to promote a a well-rounded

student body of Americans, they often have to compete with student aid and grants and loans and tuition reimbursement and scholarships. They don't do that with a foreign student. So that is top dollar, rack rate,

students and they like coming to United States universities because they're some of the best in the world. Harvard has, you know, the Harvard School of Diplomacy, the Kennedy School, the Business School, the Medical School, research programs that attract different percentages, but attract a fair amount of foreign investment and money. And they compete with other Ivy League and Ivy League type schools around the country for foreign exchange students.

Trump, under the false flag of promoting or preventing anti-Semitism on campus, didn't like what Harvard did. That's not the reason he went after Harvard. He went after Harvard to send a message trying to take down the oldest university in America with the biggest endowment in order to try to promote his MAGA principles of taking DEI and anything related to it and a liberal education out of universities. That's why. Just like he went after the biggest law firms.

And there's a link between the biggest law firms at Harvard I'm going to expound upon in a minute. Harvard in March.

After losing $3 billion in grants, that actually just hurt you and me because it goes for research grants, medical research, scientific research that helps Americans. Donald Trump didn't care about that, so he took the $3 billion away. They filed their lawsuit. Also, Donald Trump retaliated against them by going after their ability to have foreign students come to Harvard.

which hit them in their balls and in their purse for very, very quickly. Harvard fought back.

hired a couple of lawyers that one was a Harvard grad, the other one that Donald Trump knew well, Robert Herr, who was a prosecutor, U.S. attorney under Donald Trump, also infamously the prosecutor, special prosecutor against Joe Biden for the document issue. So Robert Herr comes in to join a guy from Quinn Emanuel, Bill Burke,

who used to represent the Trump Organization as the Chief Ethics Counsel about three months ago. So those two joined forces, and they sue on behalf of the Harvard faculty. They get Judge Burroughs, and they start winning. We like winning. They win on retaliation related to the foreign program. And then when the temporary restraining order comes out a couple weeks ago, Trump...

goes nuclear, continue the theme today, against Harvard and says, well, all right, well, we'll go after the students and we'll deny them the visas that they need to attend Harvard. And the judge says, that's like the same thing. I'm not going to allow you to do that either. That is arbitrary and capricious. That is Fifth Amendment due process violation and the rest. Then we fast forward to what this hearing was supposed to be about. But right as they're coming into the hearing,

Donald Trump starts spouting off in social media posts about a mind-boggling, his words, settlement that's in the works with Harvard that's going to be big and beautiful. You know, these are Donald Trump-isms. And I'm like, what is going on there? How is that happening while they're winning? I guess they're getting some leverage, so maybe they're cutting a deal. But why are they cutting a deal? I think it's important not just existentially to Harvard, but to higher education that Harvard, like, doesn't cut a deal.

And so then I go look in some of the reporting and I see at the end of May, there is got little fanfare, but there is a new person who's appointed to the board of trustees or the board of governors for the Harvard Corporation, which runs Harvard. That's chaired by Petty Pritzker, a Democrat, whose brother is J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, and she was used to be Commerce Secretary.

And I see this guy who is a Paul Weiss partner who is the head of their Supreme Court practice in Washington, having come over from Williams and Connolly.

And he is an arch conservative. He is right right wing. He's argued 40 cases for the United States Supreme Court, worked under Ken Starr, worked in the solicitor general's office. Very well respected and Indian American guy. He was also top top at Paul Weiss. What's the link with Paul Weiss and Trump? Paul Weiss was the first firm law firm to settle with Trump.

Donald Trump and pay him $40 million in free legal services or $45 million, which set the blueprint for dozens of other law firms to come in and settle at much higher numbers. So you got a Paul Weiss settler guy who gets added to obviously appease Donald Trump. This is my reporting, my analysis. At the end of May, he's now working, this is my analysis, he's now working behind the scenes to cut the deal because they've got an appeaser who's going to appease Donald Trump, who's now been appointed to the Harvard board.

So that's going on behind the scenes. It's not going to be. And if that happens, even though Judge Burroughs just yesterday granted Harvard a preliminary injunction to keep them in the game for the foreign exchange program for the upcoming year and the foreseeable future until she's done with the merits of the case, unless it's settled. And if it gets settled.

And this is the part that I hate. It's going to be by consent decree, which is going to almost be an admission of liability by Harvard and turning over the keys to certain aspects of Harvard faculty, students, curriculum, student life over to the Trump administration, which is why Linda McMahon is rubbing her hands in glee. And Donald Trump wants to make this announcement. But it sends, if this happens, and I'm managing expectations here, it's going to happen.

It's going to send a terrible message to the other Ivy League schools and it'll give Donald Trump that taste of blood that he loves, just like in the law firms, to go after higher education and try to reshape the face of it before he's done. Popak, do you think that's going to happen? Because you and I may have a disagreement here. You believe that the consent degree is going to be entered into? You mean as opposed to a settlement agreement?

Regardless, you think that Harvard's going to enter into a deal that's going to give Trump pretty much all of what he wants? I didn't. I'll tell you what, Ben. I didn't until I researched who they just added to appease the Trump administration. And I'm sure he's working as a board of governor to try to get a settlement.

And Trump announced, I mean, Trump effectively announced it, which he rarely does unless he thinks it's true. Let me disagree with you here. Trump lies about everything. So the fact that Trump said there was going to be a deal with India in two weeks and there's a deal with Japan in two weeks and that all these great, the guy lies about everything. So to me, the fact that Trump posted about something to me actually shows that it's probably not

happening. I'll usually take the opposite of what Trump says. Now, do I believe that there are efforts going on behind the scenes to try to deal with this? Because yes, it is damaging to Harvard as well. Even if they are standing up and have a big endowment, it's not helpful for them to have certain federal programs be cut. So if I was running Harvard, I

I would probably want to have a multi-pronged approach. Ultimately, I would stand on business and I would make sure that I did not sacrifice. I would have bright lines that I would have to draw when it comes to academic freedom, academic integrity, diversity of the student body. To me, those were lines that you would never cross. Knowing that Donald Trump capitulates and sometimes Donald Trump just really wants a press release.

and ultimately does not care about the substance of the deal so he can go out and brag, would it be part of being a fiduciary to Harvard to at least have somebody explore what the contours of a Donald Trump taco could look like? Trump always chickens out. And what that means, a

face-saving thing for Trump, but while not sacrificing anything in terms of what the institution is. Because I can assure you, Popak, I mean, that president of Harvard who got a standing ovation during the commencement speeches, the student body there, you would see, if you wanted to see Harvard get really destroyed,

Harvard enter into a deal with Donald Trump. That would be the undoing of Harvard very, very quickly. What I think is happening here is that I do think, to your point, that Harvard has appointed a human being to reach out and to explore with Linda McMahon what a taco could look like. A Trump always chickens out. Can Trump post something and say he did it, but nothing really happens?

But then Donald Trump, in Trumpian fashion, knows how to scuttle deals by acting like an asshole. That's a legal term. And so Donald Trump then goes, oh, they're talking to me? Okay, I'm going to make this post and then make – on a day when Trump loses big in court to Harvard –

Trump wants to make himself feel big and not like a loser. So he posts, I'm winning this negotiation. And here's the thing, as you and I know, as people who have negotiated deals, you don't really win a negotiation. A good negotiation very rarely produces a clear winner.

and a absolute loser. In negotiations for surrender, that's what takes place. But often in negotiations, both sides leave a little bit on the table that you try to find opportunities that both sides can save face, can move on and find. That's not how Trump negotiates. And by the way, that's why Trump's businesses have gone bankrupt in the past.

because he negotiates zero-sum games. And oftentimes, you know who the zero is in those zero-sum games? It's Donald Trump. He often comes out as the zero because the other side sees what he's doing. They find alliances. They build support structures.

They think through the issues. They analyze the data. And Trump doesn't. Trump's done that his whole career. Popak, I want to throw it back to you. I want to get your take on that. But I want a brief rebuttal, Judge Bacelis. You get a brief rebuttal. But first, I need to plug your law firm because your law firm is doing such an incredible job. And the Popak firm has signed up so many new cases over the past week. You and I were talking about this. You know, it started off strong, but over the past week,

I think we've been better messengers about what the firm does and what it handles. And just letting people know, first and foremost, the consultation with Popox Firm is absolutely free. You don't pay anything. If Popox Firm ends up taking the case, you don't pay anything unless there's a positive outcome in the case, in which case it's called a contingency fee in terms of the

costs and all of that, that Popox firm deals with that. And they'll speak with you regarding all of those types of things. And so if you have a catastrophic injury case, so if you were in a bad car accident or you have a family member or friend or a trucking accident or something

something involving serious negligence, wrongful death cases involving people you know who died because of the negligence of other people. - Medical malpractice. - If you have sexual assault and sexual harassment cases, a dog bite case, you know, things like that, reach out to the Popak firm. You know the Popak firm is trusted in this space and let them review your case and see if you have one. Popak, where can they reach out to it? - Yeah, thanks, Ben, it's easy.

There's a website which will lead you right there. It is lead you right to a free consultation form. And that's at www.thepopockfirm.com. I know I don't want to take for granted people know how to spell my name. It's the P-O-P-O-K firm.com. And then a 1-800 number that I also made really simple, really for me, 1-877-POPOCK-A-F. Make sure you reach out. Also subscribe to Michael Popock's YouTube channel.

Legal AF on their way to a million subscribers. The Midas Touch YouTube channel just hit five million subscribers and I wanna make sure Legal AF hits one million by this summer. So go subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel. Legal AF also has a Substack now. Check it out as well, substack.com/legalaf. Search it, check it out. Popak, you get your rebuttal, but first we take a quick break.

You know how this time of year goes. One minute you're sweating through your shirt, the next you're wishing you had on a jacket. Especially if you're outside mowing the lawn, grilling, running errands, whatever the weather, just can't make up its mind. That's why I've been living in my Mack Weldon gear lately. Their new tech linen line is a game changer. It's got that classic relaxed linen vibe, but upgraded with cool Mack's technology.

So you stay cool, dry, and comfortable no matter what the forecast decides to do. I've got the Tech Linen Polo and Hoodie, and honestly, the fit is spot-on, tailored without being too tight. It's one of those outfits where you look good without even trying. The material feels super breathable, and it's lightweight enough to layer, which makes it perfect for this rollercoaster weather. Personally, I got my eye on their Tech Linen Crew Neck next.

And if you're more of an understated style guy like me, Mack Weldon really gets it. Classic clean lines, nothing flashy, just really well-made clothes that feel like a serious upgrade to your wardrobe. Give your closet a breath of fresh air for spring. Go to MackWeldon.com and get 25% off your first order of $125 or more with promo code LEGALAF. That's M-A-C-K-W-E-L-D-O-N.com. Promo code LEGALAF.

Before our next sponsor, Laundry Sauce, I thought, well, I don't really have a choice other than ocean breeze or meadow spring laundry detergent for my clothes.

And let's be real, guys. Doing laundry, well, sucks. But what doesn't have to suck is your laundry detergent. That's why Laundry Sauce has created the world's best-smelling laundry pods, so your clothes don't have to smell like your grandmother's perfume anymore. Imagine stepping into a room smelling like Australian sandalwood. This rugged, warm, earthy scent is guaranteed to get you compliments with every hug. And warning...

Using laundry sauce will cause you to be known as the guy who always smells amazing. And I hope that's okay with you. Don't stress about remembering to put on cologne because everything you run through the wash will now have a cologne quality scent. Each laundry sauce pot is highly concentrated with more advanced cleaning power than traditional liquid laundry detergents and is enriched with bioenzymes.

They don't just smell incredible. They tackle the toughest stains while also reviving fabrics. For a limited time only, our listeners get 20% off your entire order when you use code LEGALAF20 at LaundrySauce.com. That's 20% off your order at LaundrySauce.com with promo code LEGALAF20. It's time to get saucy.

LaundrySauce's jumbo-sized laundry pods are ultra concentrated with more cleaning power per ounce than typical watered down laundry detergents. They don't just smell incredible, they also tackle the toughest stains without harsh chemicals that degrade your fabrics.

Look, Laundry Sauce just launched their newest expertly crafted set, Oregon Mint. The Oregon Mint is sourced ethically, sustainably, and transparently through Essex Mint Farms in Oregon. One of the largest mint farms on earth. Feel transported to an herb garden by the sea and have distinctly clean and refreshing laundry like never before with this one-of-a-kind limited release scent.

Put your new luxury laundry obsession on autopilot and save an extra 15 to 20% off every order when you subscribe. Maybe the best part about Laundry Sauce, they offer a full money back guarantee. If you don't get better smelling cleaner laundry, you get a full refund, no questions asked.

For a limited time, our listeners get 20% off your entire order when you use code LEGALAF20 at LaundrySauce.com. That's 20% off your order at LaundrySauce.com with promo code LEGALAF20. After you purchase, they're going to ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show. Tell them we sent you. Smell good. Look good. Feel good with Laundry Sauce.

Welcome back to Legal AF. During that commercial break of our pro-democracy sponsors, I could see Popak itching for the rebuttal to my view of what was happening behind the scenes. Thank you to those pro-democracy sponsors, by the way. The discount codes for all of them are in the description below. All right, Popak.

i know you've been waiting for your rebuttal you get your rebuttal but then let's pivot right into i think this horrible ruling by the ninth circuit court of appeals i want our audience to understand it because knowledge is power we can see and i want to talk about who this affects what can be done about it but you get your rebuttal michael all right thank you canon canon shanmugam canon shamugan who's going to be joining the harvard corporation board is this paul weiss lawyer

He was, there it is, obviously done to appease Donald Trump. He is a rock star in the right-wing world. He clerked for a friend of the pod, Michael Ludick, argued 40 cases for the Supreme Court, always on the right, right, right, right side. I am sure, because he worked also at Paul Weiss, I am sure he is working a deal. The deal, I agree with you, is not going to be Harvard-based.

bending over and doing gymnastics in order to appease Donald Trump. But I don't like any settlement, even one where, even if they steal his lunch money on the school bus,

And Harvard is brighter and Harvard's people and lawyers are brighter than Donald Trump's. So they will they will squeeze out the best deal to try to get the three billion dollar grant back and not turn over the keys to the kingdom to to Donald Trump. However, I don't like the look of any settlement.

There is a reality, though, which I'm not immune to, which you did point out, which is they're not going through a judicial process, quickly restore their $3 billion that they need to be a preeminent university. The endowment is one thing. They have a tremendous endowment. They can weather really any storm. It's not a rainy day fund. This is like Noah's Ark proportional endowment. But I just don't like the look. And that's why the four law firms

that have been successful.

and have not only sued to preserve their integrity and to continue to have a business model in relation to the federal government, for me, are the victors, not the ones that bent over and settled. And I just don't like the look, optically, of any type of settlement. I know it won't be what Donald Trump is telling his followers that it will be, but I don't like it at all. You know, deals...

require usually substance and they require like an understanding of what the deal is going to build. Donald Trump walks around like, remember that game growing up, like Duck, Duck, Goose, where you just like tap the person's head and then you like run around. I'm not sure why I'm even giving that as a reference point to this or what I'm saying is about to even make sense.

but Trump basically just runs around doing deal, deal, goose. Like, deal, deal, deal. I wanna do a deal. Like, he's like thirsty. It's just like a weird thing that because he built a fake persona on like the deal guy from The Apprentice,

He just goes around. I need a deal. Did a deal? I did a deal. And everything is fake. I did the deal. I negotiated the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. And India's like, you didn't. You had nothing to do with it. Stop saying that. I did a deal with China. Xi Jinping's like, you didn't do a deal with us. You just...

put tariffs at 145 and then you lowered them to 30 and then raised them to 55. We don't know what you're even talking about. I did this deal. I did that deal. It's just an embarrassing thing for the United States of America, which was once viewed as the most powerful nation in the world to be led by like this, like grubby retailer, thirsty deal. You want me to do deal, deal, deal. And you know, I'm with you, you know,

Even those entities that think that they're being, you know, smart, smarting him. And I'll, I'll, I'll give you credit on your rebuttal. Even if Harvard does a fake deal with Donald Trump, which doesn't impact them, it's sullies the Harvard brand to even be in that world of, you know, cause then Donald Trump does a,

post. And then Donald Trump will say that the deal was one thing, which it isn't. And then Harvard will have to say, no, we didn't do that. And then Trump will take, take, take, take more. And then you never end the cycle. So you're only- By the way, I- Go ahead, finish. Because I like something you just said, but I want to- Your own, even if you do it, you lose because he comes after you again. The only way to deal with an extortionist like that is to say, we can't deal with you.

I never heard it put quite that way, how it sullies the American brand for Donald Trump to be a grubby retailer bargaining like at some auction with the American brand. I like the way you put that. And to prove your point,

Just in the last week, one in the past and one coming up, you got the Commerce Secretary when they cut the deal to allow Japan to take over U.S. steel manufacturing in America. And they negotiated a golden share to be held by the U.S. president, putting you and me and the taxpayers in a business with Japan today. It'll be China tomorrow with TikTok.

And Donald Trump be able to say, and Howard Lutnick said, the Commerce Secretary in his posting, the art of the deal. We got a deal. But look at the deal. The deal is that we now have a Japanese competitor to U.S. actual steel manufacturers.

who are now competing with the U.S. government, who owns a golden share of this subsidiary. Is that the business we're supposed to be in? We're supposed to be in business with the Japanese against U.S. interests? But it's because of his thirst to do a deal. And we're about to see it. You and I will report on it next week when he goes to the NATO summit.

And they announced it over the next 10 years, the allies are going to increase their contribution to security spending up to 5% of their GDP. Oh, the art of the deal. I mean, but it is this quest for the auction house and the deal that sullies the American brand and the American power as a leader of the free world. I agree with that.

Yeah. You know, part of taco Trump always chickens out is two weeks, you know, which I said in a hot take is fitting because he is too weak to

to make a deal. And that's why it's always two weeks, two weeks. I described it as, you know, when I used to have to go to school as a kid and I didn't want to wake up so early, my mom would drop, I got five more minutes, five more minutes. And I'm like, Ben, you got to get up. You got to, you got to go to school. You can't keep saying five minutes, you know, this two week thing, you know, over and over again, you know, you know, to me, Sully's the, you know, just again, it just Sully's the brand you, you, and here's Trump's strategy. You do nothing.

And then you wait to see the developments and you hope people do things. If it's good, you steal credit for it. You take credit for it. If it's bad, you blame someone or you blame Biden for it. And that's how you navigate every issue. It's kind of a binary situation. You know, and then there's that. Then you see him with the prime minister of India, Kier Starmer. You know, and just think about that moment at the G7. Donald Trump leaves after a few hours.

because he can't be around intelligent adult leaders. So he's like a little baby. He's like, I got to go home. I got to go home. I don't want to be around you. He doesn't stay for day two.

And there was a lot of business that had to happen on day two. He had to meet with Anthony Albanese of Australia to talk about AUKUS, Australia, UK, US, trilateral, and what's going on there. Serious issues about nuclear submarines, deterrence against China. Trump doesn't show up for that. Albanese is now getting attacked by people in Australia for saying, well, why didn't you do the meeting? It's like, well, what do you want me to do? I'm dealing with a baby.

I can't tell you, I can't tell the baby you got to stay on Tuesday. I mean, who, who would have thought that? And I just think for someone like an Albanese, you just got to be like enough. I'm, I can't deal with this guy and we have to just never rely on him. You know, the best position if you're an Albanese is just say, screw Donald Trump. Unfortunately,

screw AUKUS. We have to go and do it. We'll just do it AUK. We'll just go Australia, UK. We'll do AUKU. Just do Australia, UK, Europe. Do AUKU, Japan. I don't know. You have to come up with another structure. Trump doesn't meet with Prime Minister Modi. Trump doesn't meet with Zelensky. Trump doesn't meet with Claudia Scheinbaum because he's a baby and he doesn't show up. It's ridiculous. And then he's there with Keir Starmer the day before on Monday, right before he leaves.

He's holding up what he claims is a trade agreement, which is all of four pages. Trade agreements are hundreds of pages. So he's not, he's holding up a fake thing with the EU, which was wrong. He thinks the UK is the EU, you know, and it's like,

It'd be one thing if you were with the French president and got France and EU wrong, because at least it's in the EU. You can't do Brexit, be with UK, think you're dealing with the EU. He drops the papers on the floor. Trump doesn't even think about bending down. Like normally a reflex would be you bend. He doesn't. The prime minister of UK has to sit down on his knees

while donald trump is standing there you have kier starmer like doing a downward dog while donald trump is looking at him and then kier starmer's like oh that's this looks like a in a very important deal you just dropped and then and i'm like and you look at the pages they're blank pages did it because he thought it was a national security risk if the papers blew away

And by the way, what a ridiculous thing to even make, because what would the national security risk be? If it's an actual deal between the U.S. and the U.K., it doesn't have nuclear secrets on it. That's a deal that has to go before Congress and get turned into a law that we get to see as the people. So you just see this bumbling, mumbling fool, and it's not even a Democrat-Republican thing. The guy is just a freaking...

utter humiliation loser walking around wanting to seem tough. And you know what? A lot of federal courts have stood up and done the right thing. But this Ninth Circuit ruling to me was dastardly. It was disgusting what they did in this ruling. It was a three to nothing ruling in the Ninth Circuit where they issued a stay of the

Judge Breyer, the federal judge's order. Federal Judge Breyer is a federal judge in San Francisco. He ruled that Donald Trump federalizing the National Guard is absolutely unlawful. Judge Breyer has been a federal judge for decades. He's got senior status as a federal judge in San Francisco. And Judge Breyer made the right analysis.

By the way, Judge Breyer's brother was the former Supreme Court Justice, Justice Breyer. And so Judge Breyer looks at this statute, 10 U.S.C. 12406, that Donald Trump uses to invoke the National Guard. It requires one of three things if you want to federalize the National Guard. The U.S. has to be under invasion by a foreign nation. There has to be a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the United States.

or there has to be the president being unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. It's not a hard analysis. None of those things have happened in Los Angeles. 400 people were arrested in Los Angeles, and most of that took place after Donald Trump threatened to send the National Guard in. When the Dodgers win the World Series, more people are often arrested than that.

400 people being arrested, .003 of the entire Los Angeles population. And this was limited to like small pockets of downtown Los Angeles. Yes, was there a guy who threw a brick at a vehicle? Yes, arrest that guy and put him in jail. Was there people who did graffiti and vandalism? Throw those people in jail. Those freaking moron idiot criminals are not helping anybody by behaving that way at all.

all. You know, were there people who were, again, behaving in aggressive and agitating? Yeah. Then if they're breaking laws, arrest them. The LAPD put out statements that they had things under control. The L.A. sheriffs had things under control. Overwhelmingly, the protests were absolutely peaceful. Trump ratchets it up.

and then uses his own ratcheting it up to claim that subsection three applies, that he is unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. That's not what the LAPD said. That's not what the sheriff said. As someone who lives in LA, these weren't mass Rodney King style riots that took place like back then. Like it was nothing even close, nothing like even anything near that was actually taking place. Trump was thirsty to send in the National Guard.

Now, the additional requirement under the statute, it says that for it says orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the state or in the case of the District Columbia through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia. So orders shall be issued through the governors.

If you satisfy subsection one, two or three, any of them, then they have to be done through the governor. Why? Because the National Guard belongs to the governor here in California. You know what the National Guard is doing right now as we head into fire season? You know how Donald Trump talks about, oh, they don't rake the leaves and do all that. We do.

We do in California. No, Donald Trump's like, Austria is a forest city and Austria always criticizes... Austria is a forest country. They call themselves forest land and they criticize California. Austria is not forest land, number one. And Donald Trump changed that story, which he was originally saying Finland and Finland people started mocking him. So then he said, Austria is forest country. What the hell is he even talking about? And then...

Our governor needs the National Guard to do things in California. There are fires taking place right now in California where National Guard assistance is needed. So that's why orders through the governors are needed. This Ninth Circuit panel, Popak, made up of two Trump judges, one Biden judge. They all agreed in a unanimous decision that Donald Trump...

was able to use this statute to call upon the National Guard, to federalize the National Guard, to take the National Guard away from the governor. Now, their analysis to me was putrid. What they said is, I mean, if you want to have any silver lining in this case, they said Donald Trump still is subject to judicial review. The presidency, you can't just say that

We don't have to justify why we federalize the National Guard. Courts should still be able to rule on it, the Ninth Circuit said. But the Ninth Circuit looked at what federal judge Breyer did and basically said, you're wrong, Breyer, because in issuing the stay of Breyer's order, they had to say whether they thought that the Trump regime would succeed on the merits in this case. And they said that they thought that the Trump regime satisfied subsection three,

that Trump was unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. And then they said that by sending a letter from the Department of Defense to the adjutant general, the top position in the National Guard in California, that

that was sufficient to satisfy the requirement that orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the states because the adjutant general is the representative of the governor for the National Guard. So that all you have to do is basically send a memo and say, it's ours now as the federal government. We get it. And the governor gets no say if the

Department of Defense sends a letter to the adjutant general. Now,

I explained everything to you. There's nothing there that I'm missing. I'm not sugarcoating. I'm just literally telling you what they found. Now, I find incredible flaws, Michael Popak, in that logic. Maybe I do. Maybe you do. I want to hear from you, talk about it for a few minutes, then I want to take a break, and then I want to talk about it more, though, as well, because it deserves a lot more Popakian review.

No, I mean, your framework is perfect. The law that the Supreme Court precedent they relied on, it goes back to 1827, involving James Madison and the War of 1812. See how long things took to get to the Supreme Court back then? 15 years to get to the Supreme Court. Talk about the War of 1812. And in that one, Madison federalized the New York militia for use in the federal war, the War of 1812.

Different statute was different militia act. Ours is the militia act of 1903. And that, and that was the militia act of something else, but that seemed to be the influence there. But what was really the influence is when we, is when we talk about the 10 commandment case is elections matter, who ends up being judges matter and who gets pulled from the random wheel, as we saw with judge Canada and Mar-a-Lago and other places matters. And so just as the fifth circuit, uh,

Democracy and the rule of law was lucky that we pulled a Clinton, Obama and George W. Bush person judge instead of three Trumpers or two Trumpers.

In the Ninth Circuit, your hometown, I've argued in the Ninth Circuit, I'm sure you have too. It's very, you know, it can happen because it's a random wheel, but it is moderate to liberal. Trump has been trying to get more Trumpers on there.

And but unfortunately, when we saw the panel, we sort of slapped our forehead. Judge Bennett, who's a moderate, not as Trumpy as some people would have thought, but he did take over and lead, I think, on this. The Hawaii former attorney general, a blue state who deals with immigration issues and other things. Judge Miller, who's right wing MAGA, Clarence Thomas, clerk and Judge Sung. We first had hope for Judge Sung because she was a Biden appointee, but.

The other problem, as you and I pointed out in separate hot takes, is she never had any judicial experience. She never was in the trenches of a district court or a state court. She just got parachuted in to the appellate court, having only been a lawyer before. I say only been a lawyer. She was a lawyer doing civil rights and labor, workers' rights type thing. Very important person. Probably would have been better for a little marinating, a little percolating as a trial judge. Now, some people are able to make that leap.

Justice Kagan of the United States Supreme Court was never a judge. She worked in the Solicitor General's office and the rest. Brilliant. I don't think anybody would question. Nobody's ever looked at one of Judge Kagan's, Justice Kagan's decisions and slapped their forehead and said, oh, if she'd only been a judge before she was a Supreme Court justice. But I think I could, and we had it on Legal AF as a live feed of the, it wasn't just audio, it was the video too. It's like a Zoom.

And you could tell that, I don't know what was happening behind the scenes, but she was, I don't want to say she's scared of her own shadow, but she certainly wasn't going to fuck Judge Bennett, who was leading this and leading them. And I didn't think, and you've had different attorneys general on with you in interviews and Gavin Newsom.

They could have done a better job in the advocacy role. That's speaking for somebody that's argued there. I thought they stepped into too many traps that were laid for them. I thought they conceded too much. I didn't think... My best case scenario, here's what should have happened. Firstly...

This was premature. The panel in preserving their jurisdiction should have said, you're on temporary restraining order. We don't really have jurisdiction over TROs. You have a hearing on Friday, this past Friday, with Judge Breyer about the preliminary injunction where he's also going to look at the Posse Comitatus Act. Hold that point. I want to talk about that and some new briefing that's happening on Monday.

But come back to us on Friday. We'll give you the administrative stay, but let's have a fuller record, more fulsome record and get to preliminary injunction. So when they stepped in before, I thought, well, it's about the temporary restraining order. But then it wasn't really about the temporary restraining order. It was really about staying the entire case subject to maybe this posse compitatus thing that I'll talk about in a moment.

So they should have kicked the case, let the record be more fulsome. I thought what they were going to do, I got half of it right, is they were going to find justiciability, which is a fancy term for the court has power and jurisdiction to oversee, provide oversight over presidential conduct. It's properly in a court. It's not a political question. They didn't buy Trump on that. And that's been raised over and over and over again by Trump whenever he's in trouble.

But then they went right to, but we're going to be highly deferential, that was their phrase, to whatever the president says in the area of the Militia Act. We're not going to find rebellion, but we do find that enough concrete pieces and bottles were thrown at federal buildings and federal officers to justify the federalization of the entirety of the California National Guard. Just saying it out loud sounds ludicrous.

There was no evidence in the record, and that's what they're supposed to be relying on. There was no evidence developed below that there was an inability of the state officials, whether it was the mayor or the law enforcement, the sheriff's department, whatever, to gain and regain control at these various locations of protest.

You're right to mention the Rodney King protests in the '92s. You were a young man. I was one year out of law school. It was in and around the time of the O.J. Simpson. There was a lot going on in California at around that time that was very interesting. It wasn't anything like that. The state had not lost control of public safety, which should be the measure.

So, so I didn't like that. I thought the better course for them, if they were even going to take jurisdiction, would have been to remand it back to Judge Breyer for the Friday hearing with instructions about how to develop a better record about whether the highly deferential thing should be given to Donald Trump.

But no, they found there was enough in the record to support with the highly deferential standard Trump's finding that he couldn't faithfully execute or execute his laws with regular forces. The open question, and I want to hear what you think is going to happen on Monday or after Monday, is Judge Breyer pulled everybody together. He's the trial court judge. After the late ruling came out on Thursday night and said he made a joke. He said, everybody up late? Because the order came out sort of late. He says, all right.

The open question for me is whether I have jurisdiction over the Posse Comitatus Act provision, which he seemed to be very concerned about as to whether Donald Trump has the right to use the US military on domestic soil, turn it inward towards Americans and others, which they did to detain and arrest, whether that violated the Posse Comitatus Act. He wanted to get to the bottom of that with the new evidence that had been developed since his last hearing. The question for him is when you read the order

The one line of the order, it says, and for that reason, the motion for stay is granted. Now, if you go back to the motion, it's a little bit murky as to it was over the temporary restraining order process or the order that just got granted was about the whole case. So he wants briefing filed on Monday, competing briefing, which you and I'll get our hands on and post and talk about, about whether he's got jurisdiction to continue with the case or is the whole case on ice.

I think, having read the motion and the relief sought and the one-liner in there, without further clarification, that he still has jurisdiction to continue the case on the items that were not before the appellate court because they don't have – the appellate court doesn't have jurisdiction about other aspects of the case that have not yet been litigated properly by the trial court level. What do you think? Yeah.

I'll tell you what I think when we come back from a quick break. Everybody here, everyone's waiting with bated breath. Everybody, make sure you go check out Michael Popak's website for his law firm, the Popak firm. Even during the past commercial break, we were getting hundreds of phone calls. Look, reach out to Popak, have Popak's firm, see if you have a case online.

They're really only taking catastrophic injury cases. So really bad injuries, really tragic injuries, wrongful death cases, things that require surgeries and procedures. If you have family members, friends, and you know, and you told them about Popak and Legal AF,

Popak's still practicing law. I'm not anymore, but Popak is. And Popak works with and teams up with some of the best lawyers out there across the country on specific cases in different states. So reach out to Popak's firm. See if you've got a case. Consult with him. It's free to consult with him. Popak, where can they reach out to you? Yeah, thank you. And just around the gamut, representing the loved ones of a flight attendant,

who died tragically over the Potomac in the American Airlines Black Hawk helicopter, all the way to families in truck rollover accidents, medical malpractice, employment law, sexual, sex assault things, all together with some amazing, a team of amazing people that work with me around the country.

1-877-POPOC-AF for the 1-800 number, which leads you right to our team to start that free case evaluation and intake. Or you can go to the website and do it that same way if that makes you more comfortable, www.thepopocfirm.com.

Check out Michael Popak's YouTube channel, the Legal AF YouTube channel as well. They're on their way to 1 million subscribers. Subscribe there. We hit 5 million subscribers here at the Midas Touch channel. Thank you, everybody, for helping us hit 5 million. All right, we'll be right back after this quick break.

The weather, it's heating up and your nighttime bedroom temperature has a huge impact on your sleep quality. If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend you check out Miracle Maid's bed sheets. Miracle Maid sheets are inspired by NASA and use silver infused fabrics that are temperature regulating so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long. Using silver infused fabrics inspired by NASA, Miracle Maid sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night.

night long, no matter the weather. So you get better sleep every night. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands and feel as nice, if not nicer than sheets used by some five-star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores, causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with Miracle. Upgrade your sleep as the weather heats up. Go to trymiracle.com slash legal AF to try Miracle made sheets today.

And whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today, you can save over 40%. And if you use our promo Legal AF at checkout, you'll get a free three-piece towel set and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product, it's backed with a 30-day money-back guarantee. So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund.

upgrade your sleep with Miracle-Made. Go to trymiracle.com slash legal AF and use the code legal AF to claim your free three-piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's trymiracle.com slash legal AF to treat yourself. Thank you, Miracle-Made, for sponsoring this episode. It was great seeing my mother-in-law from abroad over the holidays and have her visit with our baby daughter.

But it also reminded me that she's getting older and that she doesn't have access to affordable hearing aids in her own country. Millions of adults every year over the age of 65 start to lose their hearing. If you or your parent are one of them, you are not alone.

This podcast is sponsored by MD Hearing. MD Hearing makes high quality, easy to use rechargeable hearing aids with exceptional sound quality that are personalized to your hearing profile and cost a fraction of what typical hearing aids cost.

MDHearing's Neo model costs over 90% less than clinic hearing aids. The Neo fits inside your ear, so no one will even know it's there. Plus, MDHearing just launched the Neo XS, MDHearing's smallest hearing aid ever.

MD Hearing recently cut their price in half. That means you can get high quality, rechargeable digital hearing aids for only $297 a pair. Since we gave my mother-in-law MD Hearing aids on her last visit, her life is so much brighter and better. And now she can actually hear my baby daughter's first cooing and almost words, which are coming close to babushka.

MD Hearing was founded by an ENT surgeon who saw how many of his patients needed hearing aids but couldn't afford them. He made it his mission to develop a quality hearing aid that anyone could afford. MD Hearing has sold over 2 million hearing aids and they offer a 45-day risk-free trial with 100% money-back guarantee. So you can buy with confidence. Still on the fence about MD Hearing?

They were just selected to be the hearing aid supplier for top Medicare Advantage plans. So they are a brand you can trust. Get the high quality, affordable hearing aids you deserve with MD Hearing. Go to ShopMDHearing.com and use promo code LegalAF.

to get a pair of hearing aids for just 297 dollars. Plus, they're adding a free extra charging case, a hundred dollar value just for listeners of Legal AF. That's shopmdhearing.com and use our promo code Legal AF and get a pair of hearing aids for just 297 dollars.

Welcome back to Legal AF. Michael Popak, before we went to break, you asked me a question, what I think will happen with the remaining briefing before Judge Breyer. Look, my view of it is, is that this Ninth Circuit panel is clearly a very unfriendly panel. I think the view that this Ninth Circuit panel will take of it, that they're shutting down this case and letting until there's a trial, which is

you know, in some indefinite time in the future, because technically they didn't reach the merits. You know, they just stayed the order, which allows Trump to continue to federalize the troops pending the more fulsome record and trial, which, you know, can take a year or longer or whatever the thing will be set for for trial.

So not I think you've got a bad panel. I think the panel will take a very expansive view of their order. I think that their order left much to be desired in terms of does it stop other, you know, to your point, does it stop other things from being invoked? But I think that.

I think ultimately this Ninth Circuit panel is a disaster and they will continue to, it doesn't matter. They're going to continue to rule against Governor Newsom. Now, the challenge for Governor Newsom now is this question. Should the state of California do what's called an en banc appeal to the full Ninth Circuit? How many judges are there, Popak? 27? There's 29. You need to get 16 to vote yes. And then they put together an 11-person panel to hear the case again.

Yeah. So I think you have the votes for that in order to get in on, I think you clearly have the votes for that. So do you go in front of basically this, this broader panel of judges, 11 judges and do this en banc review? Do you try to go immediately to the Supreme court or given that the Marines at the current stage and the national guard are, are,

The bigger issue right now in L.A. is the ice, is ice and masks. And they're going there. They're patrolling the streets like the Gestapo, hiding in bushes and attacking people on our streets like we have a secret police force.

federal officers, American citizens, migrants. It really doesn't matter. If you look Latino, they're chasing you down and they're hunting you in the streets of Los Angeles right now. I can tell you from personal experience that my mother-in-law doesn't leave her house

She's an American citizen. She doesn't go to church anymore. If she does, she has to go with protection. She's from Guadalajara. She became a citizen a while ago, but she sees it. So she doesn't leave her home anymore. And she lives in Huntington Park, which is an area that ice goes through the streets like Nazi Germany. And if you leave your house, they find you and they tackle you and they throw you on the ground.

The National Guard isn't doing that stuff. The Marines isn't doing that stuff. And this is a point that the Ninth Circuit made and that California conceded was that the National Guard and the Marines are just standing in front of the federal buildings like kind of doing nothing. They just stand there. And it's sad, too, because there's actually work that they need to do with wildfires and things where they need to help California.

So the question for Newsom, though, is, is that because things are quieting down now, do you just kind of leave it there, you know, and just it's very unpopular. I mean, I saw the recent Reuters Ipsos poll. Americans hate what Trump's doing in Los Angeles. It's not a winning issue, despite cable news trying to gaslight us and claim that it is. Americans can separate that. Yes, we need a strong border, which I agree with and everyone agrees with. But also we don't.

attack our own cities with invading troops from the United States. We don't disappear migrants who are not criminals off the streets. And those who are accused of crimes get due process. That's what most Americans overwhelmingly feel and absolutely hate what Donald Trump is doing here. So do you just do nothing or do you appeal? I think you have to appeal it is my view.

If it was my call, I think you do every type of appeal. You appeal on bunk and you go to the Supreme Court because you have to get a decision. The Supreme Court needs to confront this. And this is a major states' rights issue as well because it's not unique. Okay, Republicans, would you have wanted Biden to say, you know what?

It looks like Texas can't do their energy grid the right way. And I see that the governor Abbott is killing everybody in Texas because he refuses to deal with, you know, his electric grid and he's handling everything wrong. I'm saying I'm federalizing the National Guard troops in Texas.

who are going to patrol the streets and make sure we put up the right types of electric grid right there. Arguably, that fits into subsection three under a deferential reading of it. And so the question here is why?

When I've been hearing states' rights, states' rights, states' rights, there's no bigger egregious violation and encroachment on the 10th Amendment and states' rights generally than having a unitary executive rule like a dictator and steal the National Guard under the command of a governor that needs to be used by states' rights issues. I mean, I understand that on some situations, given the history of the presidency, I'm

not how Donald Trump has destroyed it, but I understand why in the past there would be some deference when presidents were actually responsible adult human beings and were supposed to be qualified for the position before Donald Trump, uh, destroyed that to me, presumption. Um,

But there should be an equally strong presumption, if not a more stronger presumption, that you have to make the highest possible showing the moment you steal a state's National Guard. That should be the highest shown. Why deferential? Then basically what you're saying is there's really no states' rights at all. And states don't exist.

So that needs to be addressed before the United States Supreme Court. And you could be like, well, that could create bad precedent or blah, blah, blah. I don't understand. This issue needs to be addressed. There needs to be oral argument. And we, the people, deserve it. Because if all along all the states' rights thing was just complete bullshit, well, then go and make your argument and let the American people basically see, once again, the utter betrayal and fraud that is this federalist right-wing fraud

pro-dictator movement, right? All they wanted, all the bullshit that they gave us, Popak, with we're originalists, we're strict textualists, we're states' rights. Really, what y'all wanted was a Kim Jong-un-style dictator because you were pissed off that the South lost the Civil War and your grandparents were whining about it up to you and you wanted to do, you know, that's really what this is all about. Popak,

I'll let you address what you think Gavin should do. But then if you can go right into Ten Commandments and mock mood and we'll land the show. I think you covered it well. I have a hot take that's going up over the weekend on Midas about my thought about what Gavin has to do.

I don't think he has a choice. I think he I think I'd rather have a win if we're all right all the Ninth Circuit Ninth Circuit observers are right that he will get his on bunk and then try to get The majority of 11 the chief judge and ten others randomly selected which could also be from the original panel It's better to have a win to go to the Supreme Court than a loss and

But I think he's got to take it up. And then you're right. It sets up this weird battle where we're really just going to call the bluff of the ultra-MAGA right wing on the Supreme Court. Because on one hand, and these are competing interests, on one hand, they're for the unitary Leviathan president, right? The total imbalance of our checks and balance system, placing the presidency well above the other two branches, including their own. Right.

And they accomplished that in many ways, including the immunity decision, which gave him that superpower in his own mind. But that competes with many of the ones on the right wing, like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, even Roberts, are states' rights people.

And so you're watching an assault of epic proportion against states' rights. I mean, the fact that they had to go back to an 1827 case involving the War of 1812 tells you how fundamental these issues are. And what are they going to do when presented with that? And I agree with you. I think we have to put them.

on the horns of that dilemma, where the American public deserves to hear what this United States Supreme Court has to say about it. And I wouldn't worry about, quote unquote, making bad law. Fortunately- I'm just trying to understand this, Bob Buck. So the federal government cannot allow women's reproductive rights because that's a state's rights issue.

Yeah, that's where the states need to treat women like second class citizens and decide what they do with their bodies. But the federal government can co-opt all of the National Guard and turn them into an arm of the federal government. Yeah, with very little with very little justification. Yeah, that that puts. Well, so we want to get there.

We have some good rulings. I'll cover it with Dina Dahl on Unprecedented on legal AF that came out of the Supreme Court this week. Some bad rulings and some things that will be set up for next term, including at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. So when I first heard Fifth Circuit strikes down, you know, a law in Louisiana in which the governor wanted to have it passed.

Every classroom in Louisiana, from kindergarten to senior high, every classroom would have an 11 by 14 Protestant, their words, Protestant-style Ten Commandments posted there. Smacks of a violation of the Establishment Clause and of at least two different Supreme Court precedents, one from 1980 and one from 2005.

1980 struck down almost the exact same bill or law in Kentucky requiring the Ten Commandments in the classroom. And another ruling, Perry v. Van Ars, the Perry case, in which they said you could have in Texas the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Capitol

But they contrasted that with, but you probably are going too far if you're trying to shove it down school children's throats with compelled public school education and an impressionable age. And that's exactly what's going on here. So we, as free-thinking Americans, pulled a good panel.

which is remarkable for the Fifth Circuit. You know, it's sort of like in sports where the Dallas Mavericks were able to get the first pick in the draft, you know, even though they only had like a 3% chance to do that based on their record. Same thing here. We had like a 3% chance of getting this panel. The panel is a 90-year-old plus senior status judge, Clinton appointee,

This is the revenge of the senior status judges, which I've been talking about at length. You've got a Obama and a George W. Bush moderate Republican. And they got together and the Obama appointee wrote the opinion of the court. And one of my, let me just grab it. One of my favorite parts, and I posted it on Substack for Legal AF.

is after 40 pages of talking about why, you know, the religion, by the way, brought by religious people. This was brought by Reverend Darcy Roick, Reverend, because even they saw this was a violation of church and state and the establishment clause and the free act and the establishment clause. And so after they get past that there's injury,

because the state was trying to argue there's no injury. And they said, well, there is injury because you're forcing down the throats of an impressionable school-age children Protestant teaching and veneration that may be inconsistent with their religion or no religion at home. And that we cannot do. They said that families...

entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family, citing a case called Edwards for the United States Supreme Court. They then tore down the BS that Kentucky raised, which is they had a secular legislative purpose for

to teach Western civilization and common law to the students. And they literally said, that's a sham. This is all about religion. And that's what the 10th Amendment is. They then go on to refer to the leading case, which is the one from 1980, directly on what you and I referred to in the law as on all fours, meaning it's exactly like this case. It's the case called Stone,

which dealt with another state's exact attempt to do exactly this. And here's how they ended the 50-page decision. It's one of the most pithy yet perfect endings to an appellate decision I've ever seen in my career. Here's what it says.

Stone, which is the name of the case, is exactly on point. Stone still stands. HB 71, false. That's it. That was the ending. As long as that's still a good case law. Now, what that sets up

is what is this United States Supreme Court going to do? Not now, not on an emergency basis. It's not a Trump administration issue at the moment. Although you'll see other states like Texas and South Carolina filing amicus briefs here because they want to do the exact same thing. And where this all came from is a case that you and I covered at length

the Kennedy case, Kennedy versus Bremerton, which came out about, it was like a phony case with facts that weren't properly developed in the record about a football coach holding prayer at midfield and compelling his students to hold hands and do a prayer session. And that seemed to be okay with the, at that level anyway, with the Supreme Court, the six to three MAGA right-wing majority, because

They are mainly Christian right, and they believe that there is a place for religion in the public square. So Bremerton set off an entire, or the Kennedy case, set off an entire reevaluation by the alt-right and the Christian right. Hey, maybe we can use that to get the Ten Commandments back in school, and they'll revisit the Stone Decision.

So it's going to go up to the United States Supreme Court. It'll probably be picked up by them for the next term starting in October. Sometime next year, you and I will talk about it. And this is going to put them – they've chipped away so much at the establishment clause. They were this close three weeks ago, this close, and they'll do it when they get the chance, to allowing public dollars to be used for religious charter schools. It was a 4-4 because –

Amy Coney Barrett had to step off the case because her best friend was involved with the case from Notre Dame days. It would have been 5-4. It would have been 5-4. Public school education run by religious programs can use our tax dollars. So they've so lowered the separation of church and state. Question is now, are they now going to overturn the stone precedent, which they overturned so many precedents, it's hard for us to even keep track, in order to allow people

these red states to have the Ten Commandments in your face for your entirety of your public school educational career as a student, even if you're a Muslim, even if you're no religion, even if Jewish. I mean, are they going to allow it? I don't know. I may be a cockeyed optimist, but I don't think they're going to overturn the Stone decision when they get the chance. What do you think, Ben?

You know, I never think the Supreme Court's going to do the right thing. So I will err on them overturning the stone decision, especially when it comes to issues of religion. But before we go, Popak, I want to talk about Mahmoud Khalil, right? He was in Newark, New Jersey for these federal proceedings. He was released from the Louisiana ICE detention center where he was put there for more than three months after he was arrested outside of his apartment in

on the Columbia University campus, you had this federal judge, Michael Farbiars, who ordered Khalil's release on bail on Friday after making a finding

that Mahmoud Khalil is not a flight risk or a danger to the public safety. And the judge says it is highly unusual to be seeking his detention at this point. The judge cited several extraordinary circumstances in Khalil's case that also led him to order the release, including that there is a due process violative effort to try to punish Khalil.

Khalil. The judge went on to find Khalil is not a flight risk and the evidence that was presented, at least thus far, is that he's not a danger to the community. Period. Full stop.

You know, it's not just Mahmoud Khalil. You know, this is their tactic for all of their kind of high profile weaponized arrests as well, where they try to deny bail. You know, we you know, we talked about it on the last week's episode as well with the Brego Garcia case.

They're saying that he's a flight risk and a horrible person and the leader of gangs and all of these things. And they presented all this phony evidence where even the United States attorney in Tennessee was like, I'm sorry, I'm just telling you what they told me to say. I picked the short straw here.

So they double and triple down, Popak, after they make these unjustified arrests. They try to charge people with all of these crimes that the DOJ would never in the past charge you. And they try to keep you in jail indefinitely, but

Mahmoud Khalil is out pending this ridiculous trumped up federal trial against him because he's a pro-Palestinian activist. And that's why he's being targeted so that, look, Donald Trump doesn't give a shit about anti-Semitism, but Donald Trump sees it as an issue that he can use as a pretext

to go after people by weaponizing it and calling people, you're anti-Semitic, you're anti-Semitic. And he sees it as another wedge to divide us. Well, one thing, I want to just dovetail that with something. We're still waiting for the Abrego Garcia decision from Tennessee, if you can believe it. We're now nine, 10 days out from whether he's going to be detained or in that particular case for that judge.

with khalil as you said there is a the good news is in the in the magistrate's release conditions he's not requiring that khalil report to ice which is i'm sure burn the ass of the trumpers because he's not only out not a flight risk as declared but he doesn't have to report to ice at all

Because the judge is also aware that there's this other thing going on in Louisiana about his removal. Even though they got a bad decision there, they're going to be able to go through an administrative appellate process. And at least he's out to help his lawyers. And he gets to reunite with his new, you and I are fathers, his newborn child and his U.S. citizen wife back in New York and New Jersey.

Look, I'm not saying I – let's make sure we're clear on this. Just as you went through a whole list of things, throw him in jail, throw him in jail, throw him in jail. We're all about the First Amendment. And to the extent that he is proven to have exceeded the protections of the First Amendment,

and went into terrorism or violence or things that are outside the First Amendment, I'll be the first one to put him in the paddy wagon. It's not about that. And the First Amendment is an expression under the First Amendment. It's supposed to make your skin crawl.

Unfortunately, it's supposed to make you uncomfortable. The more uncomfortable it makes you, the more it is properly protected by the First Amendment. And there's plenty of things that go on at college campuses, including about the Israel crises, that it makes my skin crawl because I don't get into the politics of it right now.

That doesn't mean I'm not going to defend, like the ACLU, his right to say it as a green card holder, as somebody married to a U.S. citizen with an American-born child. If he wants to express his opinion without being a terrorist and without being violent, then...

then I'm all for it, even though it might make me uncomfortable. So it's not just Khalil, it's the Khalils of the world and others named, fill in another ethnic group's name as Donald Trump's shock and awe attack on immigrants

resonates not just with them, it's with anybody like you and me that counts in our immediate past an immigrant who came to this country. And that's why you and I are so passionate about this particular issue. We can separate the wheat from the chaff. I can separate criminal conduct from law abiding, even if undocumented, people. And the last thing I'll just say on this is that the

The shame, we have a word for it in Yiddish or Jewish, the chander of it all is that neither party in the last 40 years has been able, even when they had the numbers that had the House and the Senate, had the political will

to put together a humane immigration program as a path for 11 million people, now 11 million, maybe now 10 million people, because a lot of them are self-deported, to give them a path to citizenship. If they are hardworking, if they are paying their taxes, and if they are not criminals,

We should find a way to give them a dignified path. Neither party has done that successfully. Donald Trump doesn't want to do it successfully because it makes political hay for him and divides this country for him and his electoral chances and those of his party. That's why the Republicans don't do it. And the Democrats were focused on other things for a lot of that time, like health care and lots of other social issues. But

But whoever gets back into power, and I'm looking at you, Gavin Newsom, or any of the Democrats in 2028, and we give you the House and the Senate, you have to address immigration in a humane way to give these people a path to citizenship. Well, look, Biden tried to do it. Biden had a bipartisan bill with Senator Lankford from Oklahoma. You don't get more right wing than Senator Lankford. And-

Donald Trump destroyed that budget bill. I mean, he destroyed the immigration, the bipartisan immigration bill, because he said it would be bad for his election. So there actually was a comprehensive bill that addressed the border that provided pathways to citizenship. Most Americans agree that there should be a pathway for citizenship. When the immigration question is asked,

why immigration tends to look a certain way as well in terms of polling often is because Americans believe there should be a strong border. But you ask more questions. Should immigrants have their due process rights violated? Overwhelmingly, Americans say no. Should there be a path to citizenship? Overwhelmingly, yes.

The issue becomes where you have MAGA claims that all the immigrants are here are criminals, that 20 million criminals are here from insane asylums and they're criminals and they're horrible people and they're not. They contribute to the United States economy and are very, very important. California, which is under attack literally as though it was a foreign nation being invaded by an authoritarian regime, has the fourth largest GDP in the world.

if California was a country, we'd have the fourth largest GDP.

It subsidizes the red states. Literally, the red states are failed states and wouldn't exist but for California's paying money to the federal government. That's it. So you notice this episode goes full circle. You've got Trump attacking Harvard, the top university, attacking California, the top state. And it's what I said at the outset. It's because Donald Trump is a loser. And as we're now focused on war and Iran and all of these other things,

You know, think about where our attention needs to be focused on as well. And so I'll leave people with this. The disastrous budget bill that's going to rip away health care from 15 to 16 million Americans and can add upwards of $20 trillion of debt over the next five to 10 years. That's horrific. Take away food stamps from people. Take away lots of social services from people so that billionaires can get massive tax cuts.

Attention is being diverted away from Ukraine being attacked by Russia as Ukraine agrees to an unconditional ceasefire. Russia escalates its attack on innocent Ukrainians. Attention is being taken away from the horrors that are taking place right now in Gaza. You should be able to stand up for people in Gaza and what's going on and how people are dying and kids are dying without being called a terrorist or without being called names. It's horrible what's going on there.

Trump promised that there would be a ceasefire. If anything, the ceasefire that existed was not being followed. And it's horrific. What's what's going on there. Trump's made the world a less stable place. We've already seen wars between India and Pakistan break out. Uh, we are now seeing another war in the middle East breaking out. We're seeing things getting worse between, uh, but in Russia's unlawful invasion of Ukraine, we're seeing, uh,

China get more assertive and aggressive with its military ships around Australia and Japan and South Korea. Japan has to build up its military because it sees what's happening in China and that the U.S. is not going to help. Japan just canceled the meeting with the United States scheduled for July 1st because of the way the United States is handling negotiations with

The prime minister of India, Modi, canceled a meeting with Donald Trump after Trump refused to show up at the G7 and Trump taking credit for a deal between India and Pakistan, which did not take place. Trump made a fool of the United States at the G7. Internationally, the world's moved beyond the United States.

The dollar has declined in value massively. Other economies are asserting itself to become the reserve currency of the world. The U.S. bonds are not viewed the way they are anymore based on Donald Trump's erratic behavior. You have all of that happening as well at the intersection of law and politics. So there's a lot to cover. But by the way, think about the no kings protests from last week, 2020.

literally millions and millions of people. On the low end, the estimates are 6 million. On the high end, the estimates are 12 million to 13 million people protesting the Trump regime across the nation. I tend to think the estimates on the higher end are right because when I was here at the Pasadena protest, there was probably 10, 15,000 people in Pasadena alone, Pasadena, California. And that is...

taking place across the country, hundreds of thousands in cities like San Diego and New York and Chicago. And those are going to continue to grow. Knowledge is power. Sometimes this legal information and legal lingo can be hard to access. So we've made it a priority here to make it accessible to you so you understand what these doctrines are. Knowledge is power. Go out there, share this network with other people. Subscribe to Michael Popak's YouTube channel, the Legal AF YouTube channel, wherever it is available. Search

Legal AF on YouTube. It's available everywhere on YouTube, so I'm not sure what I even mean by that. Just search Legal AF. Also, subscribe on audio to the Legal AF audio podcast. And as I said before, we've been getting dozens and dozens and dozens of calls already during this episode about people who have cases. And I know, Popak, your team does a good job handling

All of those calls. So if you have a case, catastrophic injury case of yourself or a family member or friend, a wrongful death case, a truck accident where you've been hit by a truck or you've been hit by a car or someone you know has or.

dog bite or some other type of negligence where there's a horrible injury that takes place or sexual assault victims, cases like that. Reach out to Popak and his firm will see if you have a case and they'll do the consultation for free. Popak, where can they reach out to you? 1-877-POPAK-AF or thepopakfirm.com.

Thank you, Popak. Thank you, Legal AFers. Appreciate you, everybody. Hit subscribe here. Let's get to 6 million subscribers. Have a wonderful one. Today, we'll attempt a feat once thought impossible, overcoming high interest credit card debt. It requires merely one thing, a SoFi personal loan. With it, you could save big on interest charges by consolidating into one low fixed rate monthly payment.

Defy high interest debt with a SoFi personal loan. Visit SoFi.com slash stunt to learn more. Loans originated by SoFi Bank N.A., member FDIC. Terms and conditions apply. NMLS 696891. Ready to level up? Shemba Casino is your playbook to fun.

It's free to play with no purchase necessary. Enjoy hundreds of casino-style games like bingo, slots, and solitaire anytime, anywhere with fresh releases every week. Whether you're at home or on the go, let Chumba Casino bring the excitement to you. Plus get free daily login bonuses and a free welcome bonus. Join now for your chance to redeem some serious prizes. Play Chumba Casino today. No purchase necessary. VGW Group. Void where prohibited by law. 18 plus. TNCs apply.