Legal AF by MeidasTouch – Episode Summary (3/22/2025)

Release Date: March 23, 2025
Hosts: Michael Popok and William Goudge
Executive Producer: Meidas Media Network

Overview

In this episode of Legal AF by MeidasTouch, hosts Michael Popok and William Goudge delve into the tumultuous legal and political landscape shaped by former President Donald Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The discussion unpacks the subsequent legal battles, judicial responses, and the broader implications for the American legal system and democracy.

1. Trump's Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act

The episode kicks off with an analysis of Trump's decision to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used statute from 1798, to deport individuals suspected of terrorism and gang affiliations.

• Michael Popok [02:44]: "Perhaps the biggest legal story of this past week has been Donald Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798..."

2. Judicial Pushback: Judge Boasberg's Injunction

Federal Judge Jeb Boasberg issued a temporary injunction halting the deportations initiated under the Act, citing the need for due process and clarity on the invocation's legality.

• Michael Popok [02:44]: "...a federal judge issued an injunction for 14 days, saying that at least under the Alien Enemies Act..."

• William Goudge [05:17]: "DOJ is arguing with today about the deportation place."

Judge Boasberg's stance emphasizes that deportations cannot proceed without a clear legal framework ensuring that only genuine threats are targeted, thereby protecting innocent individuals from arbitrary removal.

3. Trump's Response and Judicial Criticism

In response to Judge Boasberg's injunction, Trump attacked the judge's credibility and questioned the legality of the proceedings.

• Michael Popok [08:02]: "Doesn't sound like this judge who the..."

• William Goudge [05:09]: "Because we want to get criminals out of our country, number one."

Trump's rhetoric, as discussed, involves delegitimizing judges who oppose his actions, portraying them as biased or unprofessional.

4. State Secrets Privilege Attempt

The DOJ is attempting to invoke the state secrets privilege to shield its actions and information from judicial scrutiny, a move criticized as misapplying the doctrine.

• Michael Popok [05:23]: "...they're going to have to file on Tuesday whether they're invoking it and the grounds for it."

• William Goudge [34:31]: "The state secrets privilege, which the Trump administration is trying to use to cloak their bullshit..."

5. Attacks on Other Judges: Case of Judge Ellen Hollander

The discussion highlights attacks on Judge Ellen Hollander, who issued an injunction protecting citizens' Social Security data from unauthorized access.

• Michael Popok [34:31]: "...the Trump regime is attacking this federal judge in Maryland, another very well respected senior status judge, Judge Ellen Hollander..."

• William Goudge [44:27]: "Why?"

Judge Hollander's injunction aims to safeguard personal data, but the Trump administration has misrepresented it as a directive to shut down Social Security services, undermining the judiciary's authority.

6. Capitulation of Major Law Firms: The Paul Weiss Rifkin Example

A significant portion of the episode addresses how prominent law firms like Paul Weiss Rifkin are capitulating to Trump's pressures, undermining their independence and commitment to justice.

• Michael Popok [66:08]: "...the biggest capitulation we've seen was from the Paul Weiss Rifkin law firm..."

• William Goudge [71:53]: "When I started my career, I was shocked that Paul Weiss decided not to fight this out..."

The hosts condemn the firm's swift compliance with Trump's demands, highlighting a loss of integrity and the broader implications for legal advocacy.

7. Potential Implications for the Supreme Court

Popok and Goudge foresee escalating legal battles reaching the Supreme Court, emphasizing the critical role of higher judiciary in maintaining constitutional checks and balances.

• Michael Popok [82:28]: "...these are going to be going up to the Supreme Court..."

8. Erosion of Rule of Law and Democratic Institutions

The episode concludes with a sobering reflection on the erosion of the rule of law, the undermining of judicial independence, and the threats posed to democratic institutions.

• Michael Popok [79:15]: "...to be a lawyer means to fight for our democracy and to fight for our rule of law, not to be an agent of the destruction of it."

• William Goudge [63:43]: "...we have to teach people why the federal government, when it's properly operated by the right people can actually be a tremendous benefit to people's lives..."

Notable Quotes

1. Michael Popok [02:44]:
   "Perhaps the biggest legal story of this past week has been Donald Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798..."

2. William Goudge [05:17]:
   "Because we want to get criminals out of our country, number one. And I don't know when it was signed because I didn't sign it."

3. Michael Popok [34:31]:
   "The state secrets privilege, which the Trump administration is trying to use to cloak their bullshit of having in the middle of the night sign the presidential proclamation..."

4. Michael Popok [66:08]:
   "The biggest capitulation we've seen was from the Paul Weiss Rifkin law firm..."

5. Michael Popok [79:15]:
   "...to be a lawyer means to fight for our democracy and to fight for our rule of law, not to be an agent of the destruction of it."

6. William Goudge [63:43]:
   "...we have to teach people why the federal government, when it's properly operated by the right people can actually be a tremendous benefit to people's lives..."

Conclusion

This episode of Legal AF underscores a critical juncture in American jurisprudence, where executive overreach and judicial resistance collide. Popok and Goudge articulate the dangers of eroding legal protections and the imperative to uphold constitutional safeguards. The capitulation of influential law firms and the targeted attacks on impartial judges signal a troubling trend toward undermining democratic institutions. The hosts emphasize the necessity for vigilant legal advocacy to preserve the rule of law and protect democratic integrity.

For listeners interested in the evolving legal battles and their implications on politics and society, this episode provides a comprehensive and impassioned analysis of the current challenges facing the American legal system.

Note: This summary excludes advertisement segments and focuses solely on the substantive discussions between the hosts.