B (4:25)

Hi, Popak. I'm sorry to see you're still coughing.

A (4:28)

Yeah, sorry about. Well, we cut around the coughing, but yes, that's, that is when I, when you're not watching me, I am coughing. Offline. I'm picked up yet another cold, but here we are together, so why don't we. You want to, you want to. Let's start with your kind of observations about, of these twin events that are driving a lot of the news cycle right now, about what you're seeing with the shutdown and the 800 military brass being addressed by, you know, in some sort of bizarro General Patton speech. By Pete hair and makeup Hegseth and Donald bone spurs Trump. What did you see?

B (5:06)

I love the way you. I love the way you frame that. You crack me up. Look, it's. It's wholly unprecedented to call the generals from all over the world who are keeping this country safe by being all over the world and commanding troops all over the world to come for this giant meeting that PS Cost millions of dollars to assemble all of these people there. That money could have been used to keep the government going, by the way, or so we don't have to lay off so many people in the federal government that they're trying to do to cut the workforce. That money could be used there. No, instead they were all brought so that they could have this big smoke and mirrors show of bravado that I think they thought was going to go over well, that somehow these generals, who, by the way, are brilliant, many of them, these are people who have been in the military for decades. They've devoted their life to protecting this country and serving this country. They are total experts in what they do. I cannot imagine what they must have been feeling being mansplained, frankly, by Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump, who truly have no expertise in this area whatsoever. I mean, just because Pete Hegseth fought in the military for a year, which I'm not going to. He deserves some credit for that. As somebody who fought in the military, he knows nothing about what it takes to be in protecting this country today, right now, where our threats aren't just macho men who have to go out and fight. And he didn't like the way they look. No more beards. He called them beardos. I mean, what was that all about, right? That he cares more about how someone looks than what their talent is and what they can do. So much of today's fighting is done electronically. So much of this has to do with electronic threats or so much military is done by drones or fighter pilots or. Or people. The Navy is on the water. I mean, there's a lot that goes into the military, not just brute force fighting, which is what he was talking about. This macho bravado, this anti woman. I mean, he was so misogynistic. He also said, you know, enough of the military standards of women, you know, we lowered our standards. Now we're going to go back to. Anyone who want to fight has to meet a certain high standard. P.S. that's always been the standard. They didn't ever lower or change their standards because of a woman. Every woman who is fighting in the Military met those standards. So it's just ridiculous. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about. And it was offensive, frankly. And I'm sure every person in that room was offended. I mean, they were told not to clap because they're supposed to not be partisan. But as I understand it, there weren't a lot of smiles or chuckles either.

A (8:04)

I don't think they would have clapped even if they were allowed.

B (8:07)

No, I agree.

A (8:08)

The veterans who can speak out are saying, what the F was that? Was this just to assemble us for a TED Talk where you got to use F around and find out fafo? I mean, it was really a. Disgusting and demeaning to the. Not just to women, but certainly to women. He's done nothing but demean women since he's been in. But also demeaning to the valor of the military.

B (8:36)

I agree.

A (8:37)

Right. And really, just. It's like unzipping his pants and peeing all over the military because he's. Because he's got. He's all excited because now he's the Secretary of War, you know, which is ironic given the fact that we have a president who's claiming to have settled eight different worldwide war conflicts so he can get the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet the thing that he gets most giddy about is that he changed the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War conflicts.

B (9:06)

Is he trying to take credit for. I don't know of a single one that he's responsible for.

A (9:10)

Well, he bombed Iran and that made them not do anything yet. I mean, you can go dark. You can go through all of these. And most of the countries that he claims credit for are like, we don't. That that wasn't him. Or we're not settled yet, or we're still at war with our neighbor.

B (9:26)

Exactly. That's why my point is he's taking credit for things that are still going on. So it's ridiculous.

A (9:32)

Right? It's not like a piece of court. Remember the old days, you went to Camp David and you had, like, Menachem Begin on one side and Anwar Sadat on the other, you know, or the plo, you know, PLO guy. And they were like, signing accords, you know, where. Where the F is that? He. Because on social media, he tweeted that solved it. I mean, that's not how you resolve.

B (9:54)

People in Ukraine. Did he resolve that in one. In 24 hours, like he said he did. Ask the people in Gaza or, you know, how do they feel? Has that been resolved?

A (10:03)

I mean, it's just how about when Trump wandered into that during his. Besides the fact that during the speech, he started talking about, I think we're at war. I would love to really get those generals alone in a room and say, how did you feel when Donald Trump said, we're at war with our own states and you should use. And you should use when you go into those states to do that cleanup that I want? That's practice for taking down the enemy. So now you and I are in a dress rehearsal where we are playing the enemy and the military is using real weapons and bullets.

B (10:39)

It's atrocious. It's absolutely atrocious to think about that. I mean, not to mention that it's in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Right. We've talked about ad nauseam on this podcast. You actually can't use the military against your own civilians, but you don't want to. The whole reason you sign up to go into the military and sacrifice your life is. Is for the people in this country. It's not to be against the people in this country. Meanwhile, you've got Donald Trump doing fake wars, basically declaring war on Venezuela. You know, there was like, I don't understand why he thinks he's solving all these problems and having peace, but yet he's out bombing everybody, you know, to smithereens.

A (11:15)

Yeah, well, you know, he falls up an escalator and then he's gotta, like, attack Oregon. It's like, well, that's what I.

C (11:23)

We're all at risk.

A (11:24)

It's all these wag the dog moments. Like, he's gotta distract from something bad that happens. So he's gonna, like, start a war or go after a state or nationalize the federal Guard. There's a new hearing on Monday that I'm gonna cover in Oregon about the National Guard on an emergency hearing. And I'm sure they're gonna use clips, probably supplied by Midas Touch or Asin in the courtroom about Donald Trump talking out loud about the use of the military and violating the Posse Comitatus Act. We're still waiting for the ultimate ruling. It hasn't even gotten to the Supreme Court yet about the Posse Comitatus act and the violations of it, and yet there's Donald Trump just rambling away. I mean, he thinks the more he talks. You've had clients like this, right, in the white collar area, the criminal defense area, who are super smart, but they think the more they can talk because they're the smartest ones in the room, the more they'll help themselves. And all they're doing is hanging themselves. Yeah, they got to talk less. He needs to talk less and smile more. But he won't do that. And that's helpful to us in all the court cases that you and I are gonna talk about today. Let's switch gears and go to Lisa Cook. Board of Governors. Donald Trump wants to take over the Federal Reserve so he can get his hands on the interest rate setting. In order to do that, he's gotta get one more vote on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. He tried Jay Powell, the chairperson. That failed. So he went after Lisa Cook on some manufactured phony charges of mortgage fraud in order to claim that he had cause to fire her. And then he fired her. Except the funny thing happened on the way to the firing. It was like office space. She refused to. She kept showing up for her job anyway, and nobody, according to the filing that they did right before the Supreme Court ruled in her favor today, the Trump administration effectively said Trump fired her. But nobody cut off her building pass. They literally wrote that, and she shouldn't be allowed to benefit from that. Like, what are you talking about? That's the status quo. She's in her chair. She voted on interest rates just two weeks ago because HR didn't give her one of those little sad boxes with the plant to leave with. That's your rationale for the Supreme Court bouncing her from her chair? Not happening. We got the ruling today, Karen. It's one line, but. But I think it has its momentous. Why don't you talk about the one line that we'll kind of get into, the. What I think it means about the lack of five votes on the court.

B (13:55)

So it basically. It said she stays in her seat for now. Right? It basically says she will remain for now. And they scheduled oral arguments for January. So that's a win for her temporarily. But what I find interesting, though, really interesting, is there hasn't been an application for cert to the Supreme Court. This is still part of the emergency docket. And the oral argument in January is part of the emergency shadow docket, which is a highly unusual thing. I had to ask someone who's a Supreme Court expert, Steve Bladek, I didn't understand how are there oral arguments if they didn't grant cert? Because they didn't request cert. That's how you get to the Supreme Court. You petition with a writ of certiorari. And so when we say a cert petition, that's what we're talking about. And Trump hasn't done that yet. And apparently, it's so unusual to have oral arguments like this scheduled on an emergency docket, because it doesn't really feel like an emergency anymore. Right. If they schedule this for January, that he said it's only happened four times since 1971, and the applicant has won each time. And so he thinks that might be why Trump isn't seeking cert. They're sort of doing this to see how it's gonna go because he doesn't wanna lose ultimately in the Supreme Court. This is just a kind of an emergency ruling about whether she stays, whether this can happen, whether she stays. So I think something fishy is going on, and people who are suprem experts are trying to game this out a little bit. That's what I think is happening.

A (15:41)

Here's what I here, I'll give you my own. I'm a true own Steve Bladek, but I'll give it a shot, give it a whirl. I think that the ruling keeps her in place because what the emergency application was seeking was to block the lower court's decision, which in which stopped the Trump administration from firing her. She stayed in her chair during the pendency of those results. They ran to the Supreme Court and said, block the injunction, meaning take her out of her chair while we litigate the merits. That was the sole issue. But we always know with the Supreme Court that even when they're not ruling on the merits, they're ruling on the merits because it tells you it gives you a window into their thinking and how many votes there are. There have to be four votes to take up, for instance, a writ of cert. There have to be five votes to make a ruling in your favor. And with the Maga 6, which is my new name for the six right right wingers, I used to leave Roberts out and I said the jury was out, and Amy Coney Barrett, but they're now the Maga 6, and you figure you can't get five out of six. That's saying something. So Donald Trump argued in his briefing that Lisa Cook had no due process rights under the Fifth Amendment or the 14th Amendment, but mainly the Fifth Amendment, because she has no property interest in staying in her chair. The argument there is if you, if you own something, if you are entitled to something, that you get due process before it's taken away from you, especially by the feds. And their argument was she doesn't have a property interest in that. And the counter argument was she does. In the Supreme Court's ruling in May, in which they said in a Wholly unrelated case involving the nlrb, you need to remove a Federal Reserve person. They said chair at the time with cause. I mean you can't just fire them at will. That gave a layer of protection, which the argument goes is a property interest that can't be removed without due process. Trump said she doesn't get due process. And on the fourth, whether she was fired properly for cause. Trump argued for cause is whatever I say it is. Just like a rebellion is whatever I say it is. A war is whatever I say it is. A predatory incursion, an insurrection, an emergency economic situation for tariffs. It's what I say it is. And you can't challenge me. That's the problem is the you can't challenge me part. We understand what our core constitutional functions of the president. But then he takes, he always goes too far until as a judge we'll be talking about later said until somebody, until somebody, until a court makes him make me. It's like a child, it's literally a child, except he's got the powers of the president. So you know his position. It's whatever I say it is there. And if there were five votes for that she doesn't have due process, I think they would have bounced her. If there were five votes for his firing was appropriate and it's whatever he says it is, I think the Supreme Court would not have ruled the way they did today. But you know, in the week or two since they've had the full briefing, you know, they do their polling and they just couldn't get that fifth vote on, on that because if they could, she'd be out. You know, they bent over backwards. Of course they'd have egg on their face because they said of all of the agencies and all of the regulatory bodies and all of the departments, the one that's different, the only one that's different is the Federal Reserve. And then they're going to treat it the same way and let him fire anybody that he wants. So he put them in a little bit of a dilemma there. That's now having said that after full briefing and they also pushed it out far. They don't see this as an emergency. See every day she's in her chair. I've said in a recent hot take it strengthens the hand of Lisa Cook factually and legally because their argument is she's disobedient, she's insubordinate, she shouldn't even be the board of governors. We fired her and she refused to take fired for an answer. Well, Supreme Court doesn't seem to be concerned about that because they're letting her participate in the next four or five interest rate setting meetings between now and.

C (20:03)

October, sort of baking that cake right.

A (20:06)

As it relates to her employment status. So I think that time is on her side. And the fact that they didn't think they needed to take her out because whenever they want to take out a federal, an agent or an officer of the executive branch, they're always like, oh, and to have the president have to have somebody he doesn't want to work with is irreparable harm. They must be immediately taken out in the back and shot. But they didn't do that with this. They were like, all right, we'll let her participate in a few more meetings. We'll come back not even in October, when the term opens first Monday in October, we'll see in January, do some briefing. It's not a great concern to them and I could be completely wrong. We'll have on your friend and we'll debate it after the oral argument. We'll know more when the oral argument is. We'll have it up live on legal AF YouTube. But that's what I think.

B (21:01)

Yeah, I think it's pretty smart. I think I agree with you. What I don't understand is, yeah, they say the Federal Reserve is different. Where are they getting that from? All of these. They're making it up, right? Exactly. And that's the very thing. They criticize the Maga 6, criticize judges for doing right. And everyone criticizes on the right. They criticize judicial activism. Right. They're just like, you should just interpret the law. You know, you should just originalism and textualism and interpret the law. Well, that's all you're doing. Then all of these agencies that Congress have made to be special. Right. Where you can't just fire someone, you have to have cause. Right. All of them should be treated this way. But time and time again, we've been talking about this for weeks. They keep letting Trump fire these employees or these people who are, who are on these special boards, if you will, letting them fire them. Even though there's this case, Humphrey's executor that we keep talking about that they're chipping away at, that they're going to end up probably overturning. But they have decided, however, no, this isn't like the Federal Trade Commission. This isn't like the nlrrb. This isn't like all the other agencies that they're allowing Trump to fire the people who are supposed to be non political, who are supposed to be there across different presidents who are supposed to be bipartisan. They've just decided on their own that the Federal Reserve is different. But it doesn't say that anywhere. Congress has made these laws and they're just making it up. I mean, I'm glad, I'm glad they left Lisa Cook there, but I think they should have left all the ones that Congress has basically said you have to fire for cause you can't just do it for political reasons like Trump is doing.

A (22:47)

See, Karen, I think people come here also for the disagreements. I don't think you're being fair because the founder of this particular congressionally made thing, the Federal Reserve and the predecessor had a Broadway show made about it. And I think that's the major difference. Hamilton was a big hit and I think that's it.

B (23:08)

Well, you know what? You know what? I got your Hamilton reference earlier when you said talk less, smile more. Yes, I got that one. It wasn't lost on me.

A (23:18)

Yeah. So. Yeah. How many times have you and I have said, and we will continue to say that the interpretive tools that the Supreme Court uses are effing made up, that they're not originalism sounds like something that was handed down to us from like, from like Mount Sinai on a tablet, but it was effing made up in the 1980s, late 1980s, by people like Robert Bork moving forward, handed off to Anthony and Scalia. And now we've got the six that believe that we have to divine from our founding fathers and framers what word. We have to go find a dictionary from 1787 to go figure out what a word means and trap the Constitution in amber instead of it's a living. Like you weren't you taught it was a living, breathing. A living, breathing document?

B (24:07)

Yeah, well, of course.

A (24:08)

Right.

B (24:08)

I mean, you know, as we always used to say, you know, when, when the Fourth Amendment was created, you know, which is search, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. We always said, you know, the computers didn't exist back then, but, but today you need a search warrant to be able to go into someone's computer. Right. You're not. You can't just go in without it. But you have to evolve. You have to move with the times. What did they mean when they, when they passed the fourth Amendment and they said, you know, protecting us against unreasonable searches and seizures, where you need a search warrant to go into our home, to open our file cabinet, to basically take our property, you know, to search us. Right. It extends to things that didn't exist back then like a computer.

A (24:59)

Even Amy Cody Barrett said there's a limit to historical antecedents and what you can do with them. But, you know, you have Antonin, the late Antonin Scalia, who is one of the. Is one of the geniuses, if that's the right word for the right wing, and the quote, unquote, conservatives. He said in a. Famously said in a speech in the 1990s, the Constitution is not a living, breathing document. It's dead, dead, dead. And that's how they operate. But these things like originalism, textualism, you know, then they don't have one. So, oh, we got to do. We're too close to an election. We got to do the Purcell Doctrine. Where the fuck did that come from? That just came from reverse engineering. They didn't want something to happen, so they created a roadblock for themselves. Another tool in their tool bag. Must be nice to create your own tools in your tool bag, right?

B (25:49)

Yeah, exactly. When they suit you.

A (25:52)

When they suit you.

C (25:53)

So when we come back, we're going.

A (25:54)

To talk about how lower courts, led by senior status judges, are firing back at the United States supreme while they dismantle limb from limb. The Trump administration on things like First Amendment, mainly on First Amendment. We have two decisions that I think will go down in the annals of history, especially Judge Young's, as being something, you know, your, your grandson and my daughter will be taught in law school. Heaven help us, one day will be Judge Young's decision about the First Amendment and Donald Trump's attempts to weaponize immigration law to chill the First Amendment rights and speech of those he disagrees with that are on college campuses. And Judge Royce Lampert, another Republican. Both of these are Republicans who dismantled Carrie Lake using her own words against her, but also took on the United States Supreme Court and their shadow docket use. Then Judge McElroy, as long as we're in that region of Massachusetts with Judge Young, will go up to Rhode Island. It's always the original 13 colonies to help us out at the end. Judge McElroy and a case about FEMA funding for 12 different states. And then, you know, whatever else pops into our head. But now's the time to support. Now more than ever, let's be frank. We're under attack as independent media and commentary. I mean, my something that's near and dear to me, my law firm website was literally hacked by bad people, which I will not name, who just want to, like, screw with us and shut us up and shut us down. But we're not going to be silenced and our audience is not going to allow us to be silenced. The bigger we are, the more your voice is heard. And there's ways to become what I now call a card carrying member of the Legal AF community. Right. One of them is, you're here already. Hit the subscribe button for Midas Touch, Slide over to Legal AF, the YouTube channel, and become a subscriber there. No paywall, no outside investors, no corporate parents telling us what to say. We don't have to worry about, for now regulation. We just have to tell the truth, which is what we do without blowing smoke or sunshine. Become a member there, set your reminders. And then it's interesting, people friends of mine have recently written me, Karen, maybe you get the same thing. How do we invest in Legal af? I mean, literally. And I said, well, we're not taking investments, we're not going public. But if you really want to support the show, the way to do it is to go over the last leg of the stool is Legal af, the substack where we're doing amazing. You know, some of the commentators are doing some amazing writing over there. Karen, you're a great writer. I'd love to get you over on Legal a F sub stack and live reports that I do a couple times a day when my voice will hold. And that's a place where you could become a paid member and you'll get certain benefits for doing that. But you'll also know that you're supporting some amazing content that is Legal AF branded. So we appreciate all of that. And then keep, you know, the Hummingbird theory, every little bit helps the podcast stay where it's at, which is sort of in the top half of the top 100 podcasts in the in news and in the top half of the Top podcast on YouTube of any genre. And that's all a testament to our audience. And then we've got sponsors, some of which have been with us for the last five years, that are handpicked by Jordy, one of the brothers. And we then take a look at them and they're with us and they know what our point of view is. They don't know what we're going to say and they don't tell us what to say, but we really appreciate them being here. And so here's a word from our sponsors. You know that nostalgic feeling of sitting.

C (29:34)

At the breakfast table as a kid and pouring a giant bowl of cereal that just tasted amazing? Amazing. Well, Magic Spoon has reinvented that feeling with cereal and treats that bring back the flavors you love, but in a way that actually fuels your day. Every serving of Magic Spoon's high protein cereal packs 13 grams of protein, zero sugar and 4 grams of net carbs. And the flavors straight out of your childhood, fruity cocoa and frosted. And then there are the Magic Spoon treats. Crispy, crunchy, airy and ridiculously satisfying with 12 grams of protein in every bar.

A (30:07)

They come in mouth watering flavors like.

C (30:09)

Marshmallow, chocolate, peanut butter and dark chocolate. Perfect on the go pre or post workout or even as late night snack. Here's how you try them. Get $5 off your next order at magicspoon.com legalaf or look for Magic Spoon on Amazon or in your nearest grocery store. That's magicspoon.com legalaf for $5 off.

A (30:32)

You know, we live in an environment.

C (30:33)

Our biology was never designed for. EMFs, artificial light, seed oils, microplastics, endocrine disruptors, chronic stress. These modern assaults disrupt cellular signaling, negatively impacting gut health and accelerating aging. That's why I've been using Amra Colostrum armor. Colostrum revives cellular signaling, bolstering our health from within to defend against everyday threats. Colostrum is nature's first whole food with over 400 bioactive nutrients that work at the cellular level to reactivate your body's innate capacity to reg and thrive. And since I started taking armor, I've noticed a real difference. My gut feels stronger and less bloated, my energy and metabolism are better than ever, and even my skin looks more radiant. Plus, armor helps strengthen immune health without just boosting it. It balances and strengthens your immune barriers across your mouth, sinuses, lungs, gut and more. Ready to reclaim your health? We've worked out a special offer for my audience. Receive 15% off your first order. Go to triarmore.com legalay or enter legal af to get 15% off your first order. That's T R Y A R M R A.com legal af arbor colostrum. It's pure, potent, natural and clean. Not a supplement, but a bioactive whole food. I highly recommend giving it a try.

A (31:56)

Welcome back to Legal AF at the midweek and for those that observe Lashana Tovah, as we're in the days of awe. Okay. And speaking of being odd and awestruck, Judge Young, who is a senior status judge up in Massachusetts, a Reagan appointee who we've talked about before, Karen, on Legal AF because he kind of got into it inadvertently with the United States Supreme Court on another case he was dealing with A case about funding and a government department. He blocked the Trump administration trying to cut off the funding. And the Supreme Court got all hot and bothered. And a case involving the National Institute of Health, of all things. And Gorsuch took time out and spilled some tea and some ink against Judge Young, of all people, and said open defiance by the lower courts will not be tolerated. Like, what are you even talking about right now? And then you read. And his version of open defiance was that Judge Young didn't apply a shadow docket. One paragraph ruling in which they cut off, they allowed the cutoff of funding from the Department of Education and that Judge Young was supposed to know that's precedent that needs to be followed as opposed to a preliminary temporary, procedural, non substantive, which is what we've always been told ruling it's like precedent. And if it's precedent, what's the guide? What's the. Where's the internal legal logic? Where's the radio decidendi? Where's the graveman? Where's the facts? Where's anything that helps and guides a lower court nowhere? But they chastised Young. And Young, actually, according to reporting, was so. This guy's like 80 years old, was so, like, was so upset about it that he was, he was at another hearing and he talked about how he would never, never openly defy the United States Supreme Court. Well, if they thought that was open defiance, wait till they see what Judge Young has done now. He spent 160 pages dismantling every last stitch of the Trump administration's effort through the State Department and Homeland Security to crush dissent on college campuses by making non resident or non natural born professors and students feel uncomfortable enough that they would stop talking about things that made the Trump administration uncomfortable, like, I don't know, the non Israel side of the Israel Hamas debate, I guess. And so under the false flag of rooting out anti Semitism, they started deporting and arresting through ice, professors and students who were here legally and until Judge Young got a hold of it. Now, Judge Young decided that he was going to frame this. I guess this was his rhetorical device, the entire opinion as a response to a postcard that was sent to his office. And he says it's still on display if you'd like to see it and leave it up there for a minute. So on June 19, he got on again. This whole thing is snarky. June 19, of course, is Juneteenth. So it says 19 slave, 2025. Trump has pardons and tanks. What do you have, dear Mr. Or Mrs. Anonymous alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, we, the people of the United States, you and me, have our magnificent Constitution. Here's how that works out in a specific case, like see below. And then he spent the next 160 pages, Karen, dismantling the Trump administration. But then he had like, I'll turn it over to you now. He had like five or six pages at the end, which is just like an after forward. You know, the First Amendment in the, in the time of Donald Trump, where using his, his own, I mean, the judge's own wife's comment about Donald Trump, he then went through and talked about how Donald Trump is going after and trying to bulldoze the First Amendment and how we have to stop it. And then at the end, he ended it with another message to the postcard sender. Have you ever seen anything like this in your life?

B (36:19)

I was just going to say, as a lawyer who's been practicing for 30 plus years, and I went to law school, I've read thousands of decisions. Thousands. It's all I do all day, every day for a living. I have never seen anything like this in my career. At the same time, it gave me chills. I loved it. It gave me goosebumps. I mean, it is a decision that is going to be criticized by legal scholars for being gratuitous, over the top, unusual to say the least. And it's going to be studied in law school classes and read by more people than almost any other decision because it is that good, it is that important, and frankly, it's that accessible to everyday people. I hate reading. I hate when I have to read a decision that I barely understand because half of it is in legalese and in Latin language. And citing cases that I have to now go look up the case and try to figure out what they're talking about. This was written, I think, for the ages. This is something, I think entire law school classes are going to be just centered around this particular decision. That's how incredible I think it is and how accessible I think it is and how I frankly, I think everyone should read it. But I also know that there are a lot of legal scholars who are going to criticize it because it's very unusual how he did it, but he's 85 years old, he's clearly about to retire or soon retire, and he's just basically like, fuck it, this is what I'm doing.

A (37:55)

Let them all hang out.

B (37:57)

Exactly. And I was like, you know what? It's probably my favorite decision that I've Ever read. I just loved. I enjoyed every single second of it. And what he basically was doing here is he was talking about what is the First Amendment right. That's what this was about, is this was all about people who. This case boils down to the Trump administration trying to use your political views and free speech, people who protest, et cetera, to determine, determine your immigration status, to determine if you're here legally, but not a citizen, but you hold viewpoints that I don't like, frankly, then I'm going to deport you or change your citizenship status. What he basically said was, the First Amendment says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. No law means no law. That means no law. Not for anybody. And that's what the First Amendment means. And that's the bott line of this case. And so, no, you can't do it. But the way he got there, just even framing it with that beautiful postcard, what I loved about it is it reminds everyone that judges and public servants, anyone who works for the government, work for everyone. It's not just judges don't just work for other judges and lawyers in this rarefied ivory tower that we all live in and these fancy schools that we went to, they all represent judges, represent the people, regular people, including the guy who anonymously, or a woman who anonymously wrote this postcard about Donald Trump having tanks and whatever, and you have nothing. Yeah. And he basically wrote it for them. And I thought that was genius. Brilliant. And frankly, I think more judges should speak that way and be more clear and also just be. I would love more of these types of decisions than, frankly, the types that we're used to.

A (39:58)

Hearing you talk about it, I've decided I'm going to have these two pages, the first and the last page framed side by side, because I think it's the reason I got into the law, certainly the reason I joined you here on Legal af. This is how he ended it. I mean, yes, there's 160 pages of legal analysis. Pardon me. Yes, there was 160 pages of legal analysis as to all the instances in which the Trump administration violated the Constitution and the First Amendment, which he reminded everybody, is carved into the new. Into the New Hampshire granite on the side of the Massachusetts courthouse that he sits in. The First Amendment, he went through methodically, after having sat through the trials and having all the testimony and looking at all the video evidence and other evidence and made his decision. Decision. He did not make his decision as to what the remedy is going to be for Having found this, he's working on that part of the decision. We'll get another beautifully written decision about that. He then said, this is what's going to go into my thought process about how to create what we call redressability. How do I fix an injury in the land of Trump? And here's the problems I have that he goes through all the institutions that would normally be the bulwark to protect the First Amendment, the firewalls of the First Amendment. Donald Trump has destabilized from law firms who have been. This is what he lists. Law firms that have bent the knee. Corporate media, that has bent the knee. Higher education. We have new reporting that Donald Trump keeps bragging that we're gonna have the Harvard School of Plumbing soon after they settle their $500 million case. And all the money goes into trade schools, apparently. So with that and the other thing here, before I get to the conclusion, he writes this Judge Young, it's 161 pages. He's been working on it for a minute. He has been working on it, I am sure, since Charlie Kirk's death and what I call the martyrdom of Jimmy Kimmel by Donald Trump. So that is ringing in his ears when you're writing a major First Amendment decision. He's a human being. Of course he's going to be influenced by how Donald Trump has attacked fellow Americans, more than 60% of which do not agree with Donald Trump based on recent. A dozen recent polls. So that sort of animates how he writes. Here's how he ended. There's two things I loved about it. One, that was the quote from his wife, which I'll talk about. But here's how he ends it again, writing to the anonymous postcard writer. He signs it, william G. Young, judge of the United States. But then under it, he types, I hope you found this helpful. Meaning the 161 pages of his analysis. Thanks for writing. It shows you care. You should. Sincerely and Respectfully, Bill Young. P.S. the next time you're in Boston, the postcard on the card is from the Philadelphia area. Stop in at the courthouse and watch your fellow citizens sitting. As jurors reach out for justice. It is here and in courthouses just like this one, both state and federal, spread throughout our land, that our Constitution is most vibrantly alive. For it is well said, that, quote, where a jury sits, there burns the lamp of liberty. Close quote. And that is one of his major concerns. This is the guy that was appointed by Ronald Reagan. So he also quotes from Reagan and I did this the other day on the intersection, in talking about the remedies, Karen, he quotes all in bold. Freedom is a fragile thing, and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance. It must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. That was Ronald Reagan in 1967 when he was governor. And he, and apparently he, this is interesting. He says that he first heard those words back in 2007 when his son, the judge's son, quoted them in a Law Day celebration speech at. Because I think his son's a judge as well. And then he ends with, I fear that President Trump believes that the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected. Is he correct? That's how Young ends his decision. And I don't believe that that Trump is correct. I believe from what I've seen from this audience, from the growth of the Midas Touch Network, from Legal af, from our involvement here, that freedom fighters are alive and well and are supporting, if they can't be in the courtrooms like the ACLU and democracy forwards and attorneys generals of the world, that they can't be there with them. They're there in spirit and they're there in support in a community like the one we've built here on Legal af. I'm definitely framing at least four of these pages from this decision.

B (45:25)

Yeah. I want you to send me which ones you're going to do. I'll have matching ones framed.

A (45:29)

Okay. All right, I'll send it to you. I'll make you one.

B (45:32)

Really?

A (45:33)

Yeah.

B (45:34)

I love, I absolutely love it.

A (45:35)

I mean, I see it now. I see the four that I want. But look, it just as I said it, you know, you have to renew your own tree of liberty, your own way, especially when you're in the field that you and I are in and our supporters. For me, it was when my wife was eight months pregnant and still able to drive somewhere. We took a weekend trip to Washington, D.C. while Biden was still in office. We got a White House tour, but then we went and saw in person the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution under glass and with other people, including from other countries. And it was a meaningful and important moment for renewal, especially when we, you know, if you're just following our system of government and constitutional republic by social media posts, it can be very disheartening and maddening. Sometimes you have to go back to the touchstones of what makes this country great. Remind yourself that one day this too shall pass. And I mean the Trump administration, it will still be standing and we'll still be here, right?

B (46:45)

It's absolutely true.

A (46:47)

It's the best we can do. Your grandson and my daughter will only read about Donald Trump in a history book. History will judge and history will judge him as opposed to knowing what's going on. That's the one thing I got going for me, my 15 month old daughter. And how old's your grandson?

B (47:04)

He's two. He just turned two.

A (47:06)

Turned two. They're not gonna know who they're, they're not gonna know, Donald. They're gonna say, who's that crazy Halloween mask guy over there?

B (47:12)

Yeah, exactly. The bad spray tan.

A (47:17)

So let's, let's, when we come back from our next commercial break, let's talk about another senior status Judge Royce Lamperth, who I think was also a Reagan appointee. I'll double check that at the break. There he is. Who ripped into the Trump administration, also took time out and ripped into the Supreme Court and Carrie Lake for good measure. And then we've got some rulings up in Rhode island about immigration, sanctuary state status or city status and FEMA funds and what a judge has done about all of that. But let's again off of Judge Young's eloquent words, now more than ever, we need your support. Go over to the podcast, leave a five star review and comment, which we read. If you listen to us on audio, on Spotify or Apple, that kind of thing, watch us on YouTube. Some people don't even know we're on YouTube. Some people don't even know we're on audio. Do both. That helps. It's like the hummingbird theory. You don't know what exactly helps in the algorithm, but it all helps. And then if you want to continue and become like really the great supporter of legalif that you are and fly our flag, come over to Legal AF, the YouTube channel, become a subscriber there. It's for free. Ten new videos a day. Karen's got a great one up now with an interview she just did of Ellie Hoenig about a new book that he wrote about when you come for the king. I know what that's in reference to about. The Department of Justice is going Department of Justice over the years going after presidents and what happens. And that was a great interview. Thank you for doing that. And I know our audience appreciated it. And then we've got legal af the substack, which is a unique, it's different than YouTube. YouTube, it's sort of, you got the video, you can leave comments and there you are. But on and some podcasting and then on Substack we can kind of get together as a group. We do lives with chat and back and forth. We've got a written commentary that goes beyond what we're doing in the video. It's just a great new community. We welcome you to come join us there on Legal AF the substack as well. And then we've got our sponsors and here's another word from them.

C (49:28)

Delete Me makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. As someone with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me.

A (49:43)

I've seen how easy it is for.

C (49:44)

My personal information like address, phone number or even family members names to end up online. And that can have real world consequences. Have you ever been a victim of identity theft? I have harassment or doxing? If you haven't, you probably know someone who has. That's why I use Delete Me. With Delete Me, you can protect your personal privacy or even the privacy of your business from doxing attacks before sensitive information can be exploited. The New York Times wire cutter has even named Delete Me their top pick for data removal services. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your delete me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com LegalAF and use promo code legalaf at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com LegalAF and enter code LegalAF at checkout one more time. That's JoinDeleteMeAT.com LegalAF code Legal AF welcome back.

A (50:51)

We're in the home stretch of the midweek edition of Legal af. Royce Lamperth is no friend of this administration. Even though he's a Republican. He's often found himself on the other side of the administration, including during January 6th. And he's been, I think, exceedingly patient, Karen, about how the Trump administration has been dismembering, piece by piece, the Voice of America. Voice of America, you know, a Radio Free Europe, Radio Free China. Congress set a, set a requirement that our brand of democracy and freedom be exported to the rest of the world, especially in places which don't have democracy, like Russia and China and North Korea and other places like in South America. And that is the mandate of Congress. The executive branch is not supposed to, until the Supreme Court recently said it was okay. It's not supposed to cut off funding. Pocket rescission, like, nope, I don't want to give that money out. Nope, I don't like that agency and just cut off and choke it to death. Voice of America, give me an example. Voice of America used to have 24 hours of programming in multiple countries and regions around the world because Congress had funding for that. Right now, right now, Voice of America consists of two 15 minute segments a day in Arab dialects. And that's it. There's, I mean, that's it. There's nothing in South America, North Korea, China, Russia, nothing on the Internet, radio, whatever, shortwave. That's it. And that has not sat well with Judge Lamperth, who blocked and had his block affirmed, blocked the current defunding of and personnel firing of Voice of America. Kari Lake gave a deposition. They had a full trial. And Kari Lake was an idiot. She was dripping with indifference, as the judge called it. When they asked Kari Lake, do you consider Africa to be a country of interest as a material interest, as that term is used in the statute creating the Voice of America, she said, I've never given it any thought. That did not sit well. And he then spent a considerable amount of time telling off the Trump administration and inviting a contempt motion. Why don't you take it from there for what you found in that order, Karen?

B (53:30)

Yeah, I mean, he basically found that she violated his April order and that she was obfuscating the court's requests for information. She wasted judicial time and resources. And he essentially, basically said what you've done readily supports a contempt proceeding. However, Voice of America only asked to reinstate their 500 plus employees. They didn't ask for contempt. Reading between the lines, I think he would have easily held her in contempt. But this decision also is completely contemptuous of Kari Lake and what she's doing. And he basically said, don't mistake the fact that I'm not holding her in contempt for lenience. Her behavior's egregious. I'm just not doing it because nobody asked for it. That's very sharply, strongly worded, really, what he was saying. But you can't just have a court tell you what to do and then turn around and basically give the court a middle finger. Lay off 500 people and the judge says you have to reinstate them, which makes all the sense in the world. You can't just lie to the court and do whatever you want. I mean, the Trump administration doesn't seem to care, and they just are going to do whatever they want and then just hope that a few slip through and they just don't care about their reputation, they don't care about honesty. And, and this is just another example of that. So I'm really happy that this, this court is holding the line here.

A (54:54)

Yeah. The part that I liked as well is when he took on the United States Supreme Court again, yet another joining a long list of federal judges, trial court or appellate, that are telling the federal, they're telling the Supreme Court, you want to rule by emergency docket and give us one paragraph and call it precedent. We don't see it that way and you're not giving us any guidance and we don't know how to apply it. And what he pointed out was a good thing, was a good point. Lamperth pointed out where the Trump administration says, you can't block our firing because there's a long or funding because there's a long line of cases, including the Department of Education, where the Supreme Court on the shadow docket has ruled a certain way. And what Lampert said is, I don't care what the Supreme Court says. It's not precedent, I can't apply it. You don't give me the radio, you don't give me the internal logic, you don't give me the gravomin, you don't give me the way to apply it to my facts. And you're filling in the blanks on a one paragraph to your advantage. And I reject that. Now, that's going to get him in trouble again because Gorsuch, as I said at the top of the show, already excoriated Judge Young. When Judge Young in Massachusetts said, I'm going to block you cutting off funding for the National Institute of Health. And they said what? Of course it said what. There's precedent. Even though you may not like it, even though it may be one paragraph, it may be a provisional ruling. It is precedent of our court and you are to apply it. And the guy's like, you mean that one paragraph about the Department of Education? You wanted me to apply that to the National Institute of Health. Like, what are we supposed to do? I thought we're supposed to apply facts to law as judges. So there's a battle, a brewing among and a rebellion, if you will.

B (56:48)

Putting this into context for people who didn't go to law school, 99% of our audience. Yeah, exactly. I Mean, I just want to put this into context. The Supreme Court serves as the supreme legal body, right? And so when they write decisions, they are very long, very thoughtful, and they are written in a way to give guidance to the courts below. Okay. So that the middle level courts and the district courts, who are the first level of courts that hear a case, right. They need to know what is the law. And so the Supreme Court always. And same thing with the appellate courts. Their decisions are always long and thoughtful and give a lot of guidance so that the judges know exactly what it means. What Popach is talking about that's going on, this mutiny with some of the judges, understandably, is the Trump administration uses the Supreme Court as a small claims court, essentially, for all of his little, you know, he's just, he takes every thing on an emergency basis to the Supreme Court and is like, he uses the Supreme Court like it's his own personal court. And I guess it kind of is cuz he's the president. But normally cases don't go to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis on routine things like whether or not you fire someone, et cetera. But here, what Trump is doing is so unprecedented that these cases are going to the Supreme Court on these emergency bases, and the court then isn't fully briefing them and writing a whole decision. The court is just basically saying, yes or no. Yes, you can do this. No, you can't, and gives a line or two and maybe a paragraph. And so that's what's going on here with these other courts. And so what a lot of litigants are doing is they're taking that one or two line or paragraph decision saying, see, this is the law. And what the federal district court judges are saying, no, that's not the law. That was a decision in one case. The Supreme Court did not see fit to give us guidance and tell us what the law actually is. They just made a decision in that one case, and therefore it doesn't apply.

A (59:03)

Here, which I totally agree with. Except Gorsuch doesn't agree with it because when he chastised Young, he said, it may be a paragraph, it may be procedural, it may be temporary, but it is the precedent of the United States Supreme Court and you are to follow it. Except when you. When they don't even follow their own precedent. I ran a clip last night on the Intersection, my other podcast of Clarence Thomas caught at Catholic University. I guess he thought he was in like a cozy, comfy setting and nobody would listen to him, which he said is, I don't consider Precedent to be gospel that I need to follow. Well, there it is, folks. We always thought they were just judicial activists who were just making, Making law without reference to the record, the case, or even precedent. There he is. He said it out loud.

B (59:50)

You know how, you know, like, it's always like, you know that old adage, like, if someone's accusing you of something, it means they're doing it themselves.

A (59:58)

Right.

B (59:58)

You know. Right.

A (59:59)

Like somebody comes out against pedophilia. Yeah.

B (60:01)

Or, or, yeah. Or like, you know, I know you're cheating on me, you know, whatever, you know, like all that kind of stuff. But usually when someone's. Whatever. So, so I feel like that's what the, that's what the Maga 6 have been doing all these years, have been accusing judges of judicial activism when you're just like, it's not a judicial activism. Guess what? That's what they are.

A (60:21)

Absolutely. Very, very good point. Well, then if the Supreme Court didn't like that, they're not going to like what's going up in Rhode Island. Going out in Rhode island last week, you got Judge Smith who says in. And rules against the Trump administration in terms of. On a major immigration case. Right. And then because they lost their, and lost in their ability to, you know, to deport, remove and things related to that, there's a sort of a related case in front of Judge McElroy and she's got a hearing about whether FEMA funds, of all things. You know that old adage, that old saying, the government is my enemy until I need a friend. And usually people need a friend when they're holding by their fingers tips on top of their houses because a hurricane or flood or something has, or fire or mudslide, something terrible, tragic has happened. But, no, if you live in a blue state, all your FEMA money was going to be reallocated by the Trump administration as punishment because those states were not willing to play ball and become deputized, apparently, as federal agents to implement Donald Trump's immigration policy. That was the Judge Smith decision. Judge Smith's decision the week earlier was, no, you can't force a state. They have state's rights. You can't force them to become federal agents and assist. They can't obstruct you, they can't interfere with you, but you can't conscript them into, into working with you or for you to chase after other human beings in immigration policy. That's a federal policy. You use your federal agents for that. You can't make the state do it. Well, Trump didn't like that. Then it's like, well, f you, I'm taking away your FEMA funds. And what happened with Judge McElroy?

B (62:16)

Yeah, I mean, he basically said, you know, I mean, first of all, the way you describe it, it sounds like extortion. You know, that that's exactly what Trump is trying to do. He's trying to extort the states. And the judge essentially said, you can't do that. Right. You can't do it. And he, McElroy, who was a Trump appointee, by the way, and he said, you can't do it, especially right before the end of the fiscal year. It's illegal. And so the funds remain available and the states can continue to claim them. I mean, it's just absurd how Trump is trying to do this and really withhold funding from the blue states. And he said at a hearing, he said, it's yet another case where the administration saying, I'm going to do what I want to do and not what the law says and make the court make me. I mean, that. That was said out loud by Judge McElroy.

A (63:05)

Only one. Only one thing. I need to leave it in the pot. It's a woman. It's Mary McElroy.

B (63:10)

Sorry.

A (63:11)

That's all right. That's all right. It happens. But everything else you said is exactly right about. About the judge there.

B (63:19)

Just leave it in. It doesn't matter.

A (63:20)

Yeah, absolutely.

B (63:21)

I misgendered.

A (63:22)

Yeah, she said, unintentionally. No, she said, you know, I'm tired and frustrated of the. The court saying, of the Trump administration saying, I'm going to break every law until you. Till you make me stop. Till you make me. And, you know, I just thought it was interesting that, you know, judges are mindful and aware of how the Trump administration is acting in various courts. We just saw Judge Young spend many pages in the decision that we talked at length about at the top of this podcast. Talk about Trump in other contexts, about the First Amendment around the country. I'm not saying they got a newsletter, but trust me, something circulates, and they have eyes and ears, and they know when major decisions are being made around the country. And then they'll get their law clerks to go find that decision. Go find me Judge McElroy's decision. Go find me, Judge. I'm sure Judge Young's decision is now sitting on every law clerk's desk, at least in the federal courts, to have their bosses read them. But they don't exist in a vacuum. They have bosses at the Supreme Court. They have to be aware of precedent in their own jurisdiction. But they also have to know about persuasive analysis that's being rendered by other federal judges around the country on similar issues and similar topics. And only then can A judge like McElroy say, I know what's going on here.

B (64:40)

You know, Popak, one thing that I find really interesting is Trump is clearly going to war against the blue states, right? And this is what he's doing. And he's sending the military in. He's threatening to withhold funding. When you look at the blue states and what they're responsible for from federal tax, I mean, so much like California and New York, for example, pay way more in federal taxes than some of the red states. I'm not going to name any. But if they start playing games with these blue states, I wonder if the blue states are going to start having to self fund, frankly. You know, it's a situation that I realized is not you're not supposed to do it but and you can't do it, but they're going to be left no choice if Trump is going to do these illegal, unlawful moves to try to withhold funding that they're entitled to.

A (65:33)

Yeah, agreed. The point I was trying to make when I got caught, a frog got caught my throat is that Judges like Judge McElroy are fully aware of what's going on around the country and she knows that this action by the Trump administration to try to reallocate money so that it wouldn't be there for the future litigation, the billions of dollars in FEMA funding, it was a reta, was a response in retaliation because they lost the case in front of Judge Smith, as fully aware of that. That's why, as I was saying, she blocked those particular funds. So I think we've reached the end of not only my voice, but also of another.

B (66:12)

That's why I jumped in, by the way, because you needed a second to, to reclaim your voice.

A (66:17)

I know you did. I appreciate that. So we're we've reached the end of another edition of Legal AF at the midweek with Karen Freeman, Igniflo and Michael Popo. Saturday back with Ben Meiselas. And of course we've got hot takes on the Midas Touch Network and Legal AF YouTube channel, Legal AF the Substack. All great ways to become part, an enduring part of the Legal AF community. And thank you again for joining us. Karen, what do you got? Last word.

B (66:48)

I hope your fast that you do for the next 24 hours is easy and not too difficult.

A (66:58)

Thank you. To our audience as well. Happy New Year. So until our next report, shout out to the Midas Mighty and the legal a efforts.