Federal Judge Sets Perfect Trap for Trump and Musk

Summary

Legal AF by MeidasTouch: Detailed Summary of "Federal Judge Sets Perfect Trap for Trump and Musk"

Release Date: February 19, 2025

In this compelling episode of Legal AF by MeidasTouch, hosted by civil rights lawyer Ben Meiselas, national trial lawyer strategist Michael Popak, and former Manhattan DA Karen Friedman Agnifilo, the hosts delve deep into a landmark legal battle involving former President Donald Trump and entrepreneur Elon Musk. The episode, titled "Federal Judge Sets Perfect Trap for Trump and Musk," provides an in-depth analysis of recent judicial actions and their broader implications at the intersection of law and politics.

---

1. Introduction to the Case

Michael Popak opens the discussion by informing listeners about a significant court order issued by Judge Chutkan in Washington D.C. This order pertains to the ongoing legal tussle involving Elon Musk and his role within the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

"We got a new order from Judge Chutkan in D.C., and she believes she may have been lied to by the Trump administration in a filing related to whether Elon Musk can continue to stop funding state programs and fire people."
— Michael Popak [00:00]

---

2. Background of the Legal Battle

The episode outlines that 14 states have filed a complaint against Elon Musk, alleging that his appointment to a government position within DOGE was unconstitutional due to the lack of Senate confirmation, thereby violating the Separation of Powers doctrine.

"14 states filed a complaint alleging that Elon Musk... has been improperly, unconstitutionally appointed to a position without Senate confirmation, and it violates the separation of powers."
— Michael Popak [00:47]

The plaintiffs initially sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to halt Musk's actions, specifically targeting his ability to cease funding state programs and make personnel decisions.

---

3. Judge Chutkan’s Ruling

Judge Chutkan denied the TRO requested by the 14 states but indicated that on the merits, the states presented a stronger case. Popak highlights that while the TRO was denied, the judge is leaning towards issuing a Permanent Injunction based on the substance of the case.

"On the face of it, she's denied 14 states attempt to stop Elon Musk with what we call a temporary restraining order. But she does suggest that on the merits, the states have the better argument."
— Michael Popak [00:40]

Popak elaborates on the judge's skepticism regarding the veracity of the declarations presented by the Trump administration, hinting at possible deception.

"Defense counsel is reminded of their duty to make truthful representations to the court. That's a nice way of saying she just got lied to by the Department of Justice."
— Michael Popak [05:56]

---

4. Legal Analysis

A. Irreparable Harm Standard

A focal point of the ruling is the irreparable harm standard required to grant a TRO. Judge Chutkan emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to provide concrete evidence of immediate and irreparable damage.

"The problem with the way the papers were written is that in order to obtain it now or in a preliminary injunction, they have to establish that they have irreparable harm. It is a threshold requirement... the states talked about a lot of what-ifs... but they didn't identify any particular funding that had been stopped by Musk."
— Michael Popak [01:25]

Popak explains that while the states argued potential future harms, they lacked specific instances demonstrating current irreparable harm, making it challenging for the TRO to be granted.

B. Merits of the Case

Despite the TRO denial, Judge Chutkan found the merits of the case compelling. She recognized that the plaintiffs raised valid constitutional concerns regarding Musk's appointment and authority within DOGE.

"Plaintiffs raise a colorable Appointments Clause claim... Musk has not been nominated by the president nor confirmed by the US Senate as constitutionally required for officers who exercise significant authority."
— Michael Popak [05:12]

The judge referenced United States Supreme Court precedents to underscore the significance of adhering to constitutional appointment procedures.

"Bypassing the significant structural safeguard of the constitutional scheme, Musk has rapidly taken steps to fundamentally reshape the executive branch."
— Michael Popak [05:18]

C. Constitutional Implications

The episode delves into the constitutional ramifications of Musk's unconfirmed appointment, highlighting potential violations of the Appointments Clause and the broader Separation of Powers.

"An unchecked, unelected, unconfirmed person who's taken a wrecking ball to the government even Congress doesn't have control of."
— Michael Popak [07:02]

Popak posits that the judge is likely to rule in favor of the plaintiffs on these constitutional issues, paving the way for further legal proceedings potentially reaching the Supreme Court.

---

5. Future Implications and Next Steps

Judge Chutkan denied the emergency motion and directed both parties to confer and establish a briefing schedule if the plaintiffs wish to pursue a Preliminary Injunction. Popak anticipates that the plaintiffs will focus on the merits rather than interim relief, aiming for a Permanent Injunction.

"No temporary restraining order, because it's going to be very difficult, nigh impossible for the states to make out their irreparable harm burden. But you don't need irreparable harm to win on the merits."
— Michael Popak [07:46]

He suggests that the plaintiffs, led by states like New Mexico, will likely expedite their case towards a trial on the constitutional merits, adhering to the judge's directive.

"If I am the attorneys general... I sort of take the hit and I tell the judge we want to go to permanent injunction declaratory... we're going right to trial on the merits."
— Michael Popak [08:00]

Popak commits to ongoing coverage of the case developments, emphasizing its significance in the legal and political landscape.

---

6. Conclusion

The episode wraps up with Popak reiterating the strength of the plaintiffs' case on constitutional grounds, despite setbacks in securing a TRO. He underscores the strategic shift towards addressing the core legal issues, positioning the states for a potential victory on the merits that could have far-reaching consequences.

"You're likely on the Department of Justice and the defendant side gonna lose on the constitutional issues. And then that, of course, will go up as all roads, all do lead to the United States Supreme Court."
— Michael Popak [08:12]

Listeners are encouraged to follow ongoing updates on the Midas Touch Network and the Legal AF YouTube channel for the latest developments in this high-stakes legal battle.

---

Key Takeaways:

• Judge Chutkan denied the TRO but found the plaintiffs' constitutional claims against Elon Musk persuasive.
• The main legal contention revolves around the Appointments Clause and the Separation of Powers.
• Irreparable harm was not sufficiently demonstrated by the plaintiffs to warrant a TRO.
• The case is poised to proceed to the merits, with potential escalation to the Supreme Court.
• The outcome could set significant precedents for executive appointments and the limits of unelected officials' authority.

---

This episode of Legal AF by MeidasTouch provides a thorough examination of a pivotal legal challenge, offering listeners nuanced insights into the interplay between law, politics, and executive power in the United States.

Transcript

[Michael Popak]

We got a new order from Judge Chutkan in D.C. and she believes she may have been lied to by the Trump administration in a filing related to whether Elon Musk can continue to stop funding state programs and fire people. Judge Chutkin is not pleased with a declaration, a sworn statement under oath that was presented to her on Monday, and she just issued her new ruling. On the face of it, she's denied. 14 states attempt to stop Elon Musk with what we call a temporary restraining order. But she does suggest that on the merits. On the merits, the states have the better argument that Elon Musk is effectively constitutionally out of control and needs to be stopped. She may not handle it with a temporary restraining order, but it looks like she's inclined to handle it with a permanent injunction. I'm Michael Popak. You're on the Midas Touch Network and on legal AF. Let's get down to it. 14 states filed a complaint alleging that Elon Musk, the head of Doge, from whatever perch he occupies in the White House or within the Department of Government Efficiency itself, that he has been improperly, unconstitutionally appointed to a position without Senate confirmation, and it violates the separation of powers as well. And they try to shut them down first with a temporary restraining order, but, but ultimately what they want is a declaration from the judge that Elon Musk and that position is unconstitutional and can be and should be ignored and permanently stopped or enjoined. Now, along the way, you try for a temporary restraining order, you try for a preliminary injunction. These are the equitable powers of a judge. But does it. Just because you don't get the TRO and the 14 states have not gotten the TRO, does, does not mean, as I've said in the past, that they're not gonna win on the merits. Let me tell you about the order. Let me tell you where the judge has said in a footnote that she believes she may have been lied to about the status and role and power of Elon Musk. And I'll do it by reading to you from actually Judge Chutkan's order. Judge Chutkan, of course, presided over Donald Trump's election interference criminal case. So she knows Trump and the Trump administration all too well in a 10 page order. Here's what she said. Now, look, I've said this kind of a teachable moment, the focus of a temporary restraining order. You have to prove, if you're the 14 states in this example, you have to prove that you will suffer irreparable harm or you can't get the temporary restraining order. It is the fundamental. It is the sin qua non of getting a tro. Irreparable harm is sort of what it sounds like. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, right? You can't put the spilt milk back in the jar. You can't fix it with money. Problem is, the states talked about a lot of what ifs if Elon Musk stops funding to the federal, to state programs. If he stops certain programs, it'll impact citizens in their states, but they didn't identify any particular funding that had been stopped by Musk. This is separated apart from. From him rummaging around in the servers and rummaging around in our private information. This was about whether he is going to decimate federal offices and federal departments and agencies to the injury of the states. Her problem, Judge Chutkan's problem, is show me the proof right now in order for me to enter a temporary restraining order. But this is in contrast to the substance of the actual case, which is if she's able to ultimately declare that Elon Musk is. Is illicit, is illegal, if you will, is unconstitutional, she can do that without having to decide whether, well, right now, whether there's irreparable harm. But I'm telling you straight, from the way this is written and my experience of reading orders like this over 35 years, it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, for the states to prove irreparable harm. Doesn't mean they're not going to ultimately win their case. I think they are, but not on a temporary restraining order basis, which judges are very circumspect about, about granting. They. They don't like to use their power unless they really have to. So here's where we go. First page. January 20th. Trump establishes the Department of Government Official Efficiency. Elon Musk directs the work of DOGE personnel, but is formally classified as a special government employee. Now, here's where she takes the government to task. I did a hot take recently about a filing that was made by Joshua Fisher, the Director of the Office of Administration. He filed an affidavit with this judge on Monday in which he actually had the balls to say that Elon Musk does not have actual formal authority to fire people or make personnel actions at any of the agencies. What he said in particular. This is on the footnote on page one. Page On a footnote one. On page two. Neither of the President's executive orders regarding Doge contemplate much less furnish authority to order personnel actions at any of the agencies. However, she said, based on the Executive orders plain text New career appointment hiring decisions at each federal agency shall be made in consultation with the agency's DOGE Team lead and agency shall not file or fill any vacancies for career appointments that the DOGE Team lead assesses should not be filled unless the agency head determines the position should be filled. At a minimum, the judge says this language contemplates doge's authority over personnel actions. Defense counsel is reminded of their duty to make truthful representations to the court. That's a nice way of saying she just got lied to by the Department of Justice.

[Unknown Speaker]

When I married my wife, I got.

[Michael Popak]

A fantastic cat in my life as.

[Unknown Speaker]

Her plus one Chanel an amazing tortie.

[Michael Popak]

That I can't get enough of.

[Unknown Speaker]

Our cat is part of our family, plain and simple, so I want her to have the best food money can buy. I didn't realize for years that the cat food we were buying had questionable ingredients. This podcast is sponsored by Smalls. If you're a listener of this show, you know that my cat can't live without smalls. To get 50% off your first order plus free shipping, head to smalls.com and use our promo code legal AF Smalls Cat Food is protein packed recipes made with preservative free ingredients you'd find in your fridge and it's delivered right to your door. That's why cats.com named Smalls their best overall cat food. My cat, Chanel, prefers Smalls way more.

[Michael Popak]

Than her previous cat food.

[Unknown Speaker]

I legitimately did a taste test.

[Michael Popak]

No, not me. But with the cat, I put two.

[Unknown Speaker]

Bowls side by side and she immediately went to Smalls. Since making the switch to Smalls, Chanel has had fewer hairballs, more balanced energy, a healthier weight, a softer and shinier fur coat, and a less stinky litter box. Still not a believer in Smalls? Well, New York magazine called Smalls the best cat food according to veterinarians, while Buzzfeed said my cats went completely ballistic for this stuff. Now that we feed her Smalls, even Chanel's breath is much better and her fur is much softer. Ever since I switched to Smalls. After switching to smalls, 88% of cat owners reported overall health improvements. Look, that's a big deal and the team at Smalls is so confident your cat will love their product that you can try it risk free.

[Michael Popak]

That means they will refund you if.

[Unknown Speaker]

Your cat won't eat their food. What are you waiting for Give your cat the food they deserve. Head to smalls.com and use promo code LEGAL AF at checkout for 50% off your first order plus free shipping. That's the best offer you'll find. But you have to use my code legal AF for 50% off your first order. One last time. That's promo code legal AF for 50% off YOUR first order plus free shipping.

[Michael Popak]

Now what she's saying is this goes down to irreparable harm. And that is her entire focus. The problem she has with the way the papers were written is that in order to obtain it now or in a preliminary injunction, they have to they have to establish that they have irreparable harm. It is a threshold requirement. What she says on page six is six of her order says on the record before it the court cannot conclude that plaintiffs those 14 states satisfy the high standard of irreparable harm. Plaintiffs declarations those are affidavits under oath are replete with attestations that if Musk and Doge defendants cancel, pause or significantly reduce federal funding or eliminate federal state contracts, they will suffer extreme financial and programmatic harm. But then she cites to all the ifs. But the court is aware that Doge's unpredictable actions have resulted in considerable uncertainty and confusion for plaintiffs and many of their agencies and residents. But the possibility that the defendants may take actions that irreparably harm plaintiff is not enough. Not enough again, for irreparable harm to support a temporary restraining order that's different from the merits of the case. Here's here's her next example. On page eight, she talks about the merits of the case. This is why I think the plaintiffs are ultimately going to win. That said, Judge Chutkan says on page eight, plaintiffs raise a colorable Appointments Clause claim. That's the Constitution about who can be appointed to certain positions and how they have to be confirmed by the Senate with serious implications, she says. Musk has not been nominated by the president nor confirmed by the US Senate as constitutionally required for officers who exercise significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States. Bypassing the significant structural safeguard of the constitutional scheme, Musk has rapidly taken steps to fundamentally reshape the executive branch, and she's citing United States Supreme Court cases for that. Even defendants concede that there is no apparent source of legal authority granting Doge the power to take some of the actions challenged here. She continues. On page nine, plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress, over which it has no oversight. In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that the court acts within the bounds of its authority. So what she's saying. Let me translate that. You're likely to win on a permanent injunction and you're likely to win on the merits of the case. But I'm not giving you a TRO temporarily right now. Instead, she directed the parties as follows. For the reasons explains, it's ordered that the emergency motion is denied. It is further ordered that the parties, that's the Department of justice for the US and the 14 states, meet and confer, get together and talk. If, if the plaintiffs intend to move for a preliminary injunction, the party shall file a proposed briefing schedule and state their position on consolidating the merits of the case. With the preliminary injunction briefing, and she wants to know by tomorrow at 5pm so here's how I think we can break all this down. No temporary restraining order, because it's going to be very difficult, nigh impossible for the states to make out their irreparable harm burden. But you don't need irreparable harm to win on the merits and the merits. The judge has already said this looks like an unchecked, unelected, unconfirmed person who's taken a wrecking ball to the government even Congress doesn't have control of. Meaning you're likely on the Department of Justice and the defendant side gonna lose on the constitutional issues. And then that, of course, will go up as all roads, all do lead to the United States Supreme Court. So I'm going to continue to follow what happens tomorrow on the 19th with what they propose. If I am the attorneys general, the 14 of them led by New Mexico, I sort of take the hit and I tell the judge we want to go to permanent injunction declaratory, have a declaration by the court that Elon Musk is invalid and unconstitutional. And we want to do that with full briefing before the month of March is over. February almost, you know, we're already kind of halfway through February here and we won't go for the preliminary injunction. Judge, we hear you. We hear you loud and clear. We took your advice. We're going right to trial on the merits. That's what I would do. I'll report back after I see what they finally decide. That's my, that's my, that's my suggestion. And we'll continue it all right here on the Midas Touch Network and on Legal af. Follow us on the Legal I have podcast every Wednesday and Saturday at 8:00pm Eastern Time on all podcast platforms. Me, Michael Popak here on the Midas Touch Network and on Legal AF, the YouTube channel. So until my next reporting, I'm Michael Popak in collaboration with the Midas Touch Network. We just launched the Legal AF YouTube channel. Help us build this pro democracy channel where I'll be curating the top stories, the intersection of law and Politics. Go to YouTube now and free subscribe at LegalAFMTN. That's @legalafmtn.