Loading summary
Transcript42 lines
- [00:01]
Karen Friedman Agnifolo
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 podcast for 40% off terms apply. This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations foreign.
- [01:00]
Dina Dahl
Welcome to another midweek edition of Legal af. I'm your co host, Karen Friedman Agnifolo, joined today by Dina Dahl. So great to see you, Dina. I love when you can fill in for either me or Popak. If one of us is traveling. Popak is traveling with his family. He's still putting out videos from hotel rooms and you hear the baby crying in the background. But it's so great of you to be able to step in today and join us to talk about all things things at the intersection of law and politics. How are you doing?
- [01:31]
Popak
I'm doing great. I'm so glad to be here. Lots to talk about for sure, as always. Unfortunately, with Trump creating a lot of legal news.
- [01:40]
Dina Dahl
Yeah. I have to say the hardest part of doing legal AF is curating. What are we going to talk about? Because there is so much. Right. There's so many things that keep going on and on. And what could we possibly talk about? You know, one of the things we were, we were batting around talking about, but. But you're gonna do a hot take on it instead is what the goings on in Los Angeles and your mayor, where you live, Karen Bass, is filing a lawsuit against Trump's immigration enforcement. And so I know we're gonna try to get our hands on that lawsuit and figure out what's going on. But wow, when you read the news, it's really bananas. What's going on there? I read that Mayor Bass showed up in a park because they were enforcing immigration. They're doing immigration enforcement at like a day camp or something. I mean, do you know anything? Well, what's going on there?
- [02:29]
Popak
I mean, I've been to that park, you know, several times. It's just west of downtown Los Angeles. You really consider it downtown Los Angeles. The population there is by far Hispanic. And, you know, you. You would go there on a weekend and it's just crowded. And it. Seeing the images, right, of the horses and the military kind of like going through it is just horrible. As we know, they didn't arrest one person. This was clear, just a show of force. I think there were some internal documents that may have gotten leaked showing that was the intent of it was a show of force. But here in Los Angeles, we are definitely. And those people here watching her in Los Angeles, I'm sure, are all feeling the effects. They say that the construction for the rebuilding of the fires is slowing down as a result of this. You know, people I know who are in construction are having a hard time. You know, normally they have teams of people, and because of these ice rates, people are too afraid to show up for work or whatever is happening. So we are seeing the effects of it. People I know who are citizens, but maybe more recent immigrants are carrying around their passport cards. It's really, really sad that Trump is trying to terrorize Los Angeles, trying to dehumanize an entire community of people. And that's exactly what that Park Force was all about. So glad Mayor Karen Bass went down there and showed up. I've met her before. She is truly, her whole career before as a congresswoman also has always been about standing up for the most vulnerable people in this community. And that's what she did that day. She was not going to leave it with a memo or a letter like Chuck Schumer likes to do. She was showing up in person and she was standing up for the people of Los Angeles. This is just the beginning of a battle. Trump is not going to give up. He's not doing this in Texas, he's not doing this in Florida. Despite the fact that before DeSantis and Abbott were, like, flying people away, they were having such a problem. No, he's doing this in Los Angeles because he wants this fight. And if he wants the fight, he's going to get it.
- [04:43]
Dina Dahl
It's going to be interesting to see. I grew up in la, born and raised, went to UCLA undergrad, and until I left la, I didn't realize how much of an influence the Mexican population is on Southern California and Los Angeles. I mean, obviously, it's right there, right where it's. It's practically a border. It's a border state for sure. And it's close. LA is very close. And, you know, you come to New York, and for a long time it was hard to get good Mexican food, for example. And, you know, it was just interesting that. Just normal cooking things that are. That you take for granted in Los Angeles. There's just such an influence from the Mexican culture in the most beautiful way through in every part of Los Angeles. You know, it's not just the workforce, but it's the culture, it's the language. You know, I'm fluent in Spanish, actually. And it's because I grew up in Southern California, and it's just this incredible part of. Beautiful part of la. And of course, LA is a sanctuary city and California is blue. And I think you're right to point out that's why Trump wants that fight. He wants to fight Gavin Newsom, the governor. He wants to take on the fight in Los Angeles in particular, because he wants to fight. Fight, right? There's. There's probably more Mexican immigrants in Texas that come through Texas. There's probably, you know, the same thing in Florida, right? There's so many immigrants that come into Florida from, from so many places, whether it's Mexico, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, you know, all of Central and South America, et cetera. There's just different, different locations. But you're right that he wants, he wants the show because they're the governors of, of Texas and Florida won't fight him. And so there's no show there, right? And that's, that's what he wants. He wants the. He wants people to show up and fight him and just that he's tougher and the authoritarian that he is, you know, and so la, I guess, provides that. That forum for him that, that, you know, it's like his. He had like a WWE wrestling match on the White House lawn for the Fourth of July, because that's what he likes. He likes a show. He likes a fight in a show, whether it has any substance or not, right? Whether it's fake or not. Like, like a lot of wrestling performances are. That's what he wants. He wants the performance, and that's what he's doing. And that, I think, is part of his authoritarian playbook, right? It's all about, I'm tough, I'm strong, I can get away with it. And he needs that constant, you know, feeding that constant thing so that I don't know if he's trying to scare people or what it is, but it's. I think it's how he's keeping control and keeping control over Congress, over the judiciary, right? It's through that, just brute force. And it's so great that there are people who are fighting back and fighting back hard. And that's kind of what our mission is here on the Midas Touch Network is to provide that, just that forum so that we can shine sunlight on the truth of what's actually happening in so many places. And so, so thanks for that update, Dina, on la, and keep us updated because, you know, again, when, when they were bringing in the troops and the tanks and everything into that tiny 1 square mile of downtown LA, because there was this, you know, riots and, you know, basically declared war and, you know, all the things he was doing down there, it was kind of ridiculous because I would talk to members of my family who live all around la, and if you watch the news and you listen to Trump, it makes it seem like they're under siege. And, and, you know, this is this horrible place. And all the words he used to describe Los Angeles and they were kind of like, I don't even know what you're talking about. You know, they like, there's, there's nothing bad going on here whatsoever. And he's creating the chaos, he's creating the riots, and he's creating the problem. Everything was peace and fine until they showed up with their ICE agents and their Homeland Security agents and started swooping in and doing all the things that they're doing. They're creating the problem that then they jump in and say, oh, look, we solved it. We brought in the National Guard. We fixed it. What are you doing? You fixed your own problem. There was no problem before you got there. So, you know, that's also part of his performative, his performative acts. But that's not what we're really going to talk about today. This is legal af. It's the intersection of law and politics. So we're going to talk about the ways Trump is weaponizing the law and the courts in order to try and get his way. We're gonna talk about how the Supreme Court has cleared the way for Trump to now officially fire do these mass firings and restructurings of federal agencies that was temporarily halted and then it was stayed for a while, but now the Supreme Court said, nope, go ahead, keep going. We'll talk about that, why they said that, why he is going to be allowed to do it, and how even if they ultimately rule against him, the damage will be done. It's going to be hard to, as someone said, it's going to be hard to unscramble the egg that he is, he is scrambling. And so it's a win either way, even though it's just a procedural win. At this point, but we're going to talk about that. We're also going to talk about Judge Zinnis and the saga of Mr. Abrego Garcia, where that case continues. Don't forget, there's two cases, right? There's the deport case in front of Judge Zinnis in Maryland. There's also the Tennessee criminal case that they have manufactured in order to try and prosecute him. But we're not even sure that case is going forward because that case doesn't seem to be very significant, important or with any merit whatsoever. But we're going to talk about, about Mr. Abrego Garcia and also how, how Trump has been temporarily blocked from enforcing the ban, the funding ban against Planned Parenthood. So that is a really important thing. It's only a 14 day, it's only a 14 day temporary stay. Hopefully it'll be made much longer. It'll be made not just a temporary restraining order, but a preliminary injunction. But for now, that's where we are. But we're going to talk about that and just basically all things going on, you know, that we can talk about here. So I'm really excited to be here with you again, Dina, and I love that you have started doing much more podcasting and hot takes on the Midas Touch Network and on the Legal AF YouTube channel. It's really fantastic to have your voice and your perspective. And it's just so important for people to really stay up to date. And so we're just so thrilled to be here again on this Wednesday. So let's jump right in and talk about how the United States Supreme Court Court, which is they're on vacation for the summer, they, they basically go, they leave at the end of June, early July. They hand down all their decisions and we, and we thought we were done. And they don't come back until October. But that's because there's something called the shadow docket, which, why do they call it a shadow docket? It's because there's no sunshine or sunlight. There's no hearings, there's no briefings, there's no oral arguments. There's no decisions. It's, it's sort of this emergency application that happens. And it's, there's nothing nefarious about it, despite it being called a shadow docket. It's, it's something that happens with emergency applications, but it's basically being used by the Trump administration as their own personal legal advisor. I mean, literally, Trump will do something like issue an executive order, and then it either has no basis in law or it looks nothing like anyone has ever seen before. It's not something based on what Congress is doing. It's his own authoritarian, just dramatic kind of use of the pen where he declares some kind of executive. He pronounces, this is what's going to happen. And, and of course, he gets sued or, you know, the. There's always some kind of enforcement that happens. And by and large, he loses in the district court level, in the federal district court level. Almost all federal district court judges, including ones that he's appointed, have found, have basically said, you can't do what you're doing. Then it usually gets upheld on appeal. The appellate court level, which are three judge panels. Right. Or sometimes a full. A full court panel. Right. Sometimes they do it like that and they're usually upheld. But what does Trump do when he loses twice? He runs to the Supreme Court in lightning speed. I mean, it usually takes years to get something before the United States Supreme Court. Years, like cases can be 4 and 5 years old by the time it winds its way up through the courts up into the Supreme Court. It has to be fully briefed. They have oral arguments. It's just. And by the way, they don't take most of the cases, Right. You apply for something called the. You file a writ of certiorari, and most of the time they deny the writ, which would leave then whatever the lower court ruling in place. But for Trump, somehow, they take everything, almost everything, and they take it in this emergency shadow docket application. He gets it at lightning speed. And by and large, he typically wins. Not always, but he typically wins in the Supreme Court. And they basically allow him to go forward and do what he's doing. So that's what happened here. They. This was a case where essentially unions and nonprofits and local governments filed a lawsuit challenging his executive order, which was a very dramatic plan to essentially dismantle parts of the federal government without congressional authorization. Right. It was reductions in workforce, restructuring of agencies, hiring freezes. All that kind of stuff was in there. It was executive order number 14210. It was titled Implementing the President's Department of Governmental DOGE Efficiency Workforce Optimization Initiatives. So implementing the President's DOGE Workforce Optimization Initiative. That's what it's called. And the executive order talked about, it says, to restore the accountability to American public. Critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy by eliminating waste, bloat and insularity. Empower families, workers and taxpayers and system of government. Reduce the size of the federal government through efficiency and attrition. Require Each agency to hire no more than one employee for every four that depart. Also, there's a standing hiring freeze on places like the irs. But they do have a caveat that this ratio does not apply to public safety, immigration enforcement and law enforcement. Any new hires has to be with the consultation of doge. All agency heads must initiate, initiate these large scale reductions in force and fire all temporary employees or re employed employees. And of course, it calls out any diversity, equity or inclusion initiatives and any other thing that is not aligned with Trump priorities. He says it doesn't apply to the military, national security, homeland security, or public safety. So that's what the executive order order said. And essentially these unions, nonprofits and local governments filed this lawsuit basically saying, no, Congress is the only one who can do this. You can't do this. Right. You absolutely cannot do this large restructuring of government without congressional approval. And the district court Judge Ilston, who's from the Northern District of California, issued an injunction saying, okay, you can't do this. Right? You can't do this right now. And what did the Supreme Court do, Dina, you take it from here.
- [16:36]
Popak
So basically, and just to make it really clear, the Supreme Court is just looking at this about the stay. They're not deciding the substantive issue of whether or not it's legal for Trump to restructure the agencies without congressional approval. Right. That's the essential question, whether or not he's doing it lawfully or not. That case may take years to get up to the Supreme Court. But what was at issue was this stay that the lower court judge put in place saying, we're not going to allow this happening. You cannot restructure it for now while we decide whether or not the process upon which you're doing it is lawful. And you do look at whether or not the government is likely to be successful on the merits when you that's one of the factors in determining the stay. So the Supreme Court to kind of look at that, but it is still a procedural issue. So the interesting thing about this, because as you said, it's a shadow docket. There's no opinion written about the reasoning the judges gave for this order. But we do have a concurrence by Judge Sotomayor, which is interesting because usually in these cases that we've been seeing where even Trump has one, let's say with them, the Supreme Court allowing the cancellation of the temporary protective service, not service status, the temporary protective status for Venezuelan immigrants and the Supreme Court kind of allow the cancellation. We saw the more liberal justices we'd Say, right. Sotomayor and Justice Kentandre Brown Jackson dissenting together in this case. Sotomayor gives about a one paragraph concurring opinion and she, she says the reason why she is agreeing that the lower court's stay should be reversed, which allows Trump to do the mass firings while they decide if it's lawful or not is because the lower court judge still has the power, let's say, or the ability to look at the specific plans that Trump is putting forward and decide whether or not those specific plans are lawful or not. So her thinking reasoning is maybe it is too soon for a stay that let the Trump government basically submit their plans to the court. The trial court judge can then decide whether or not they're lawful and then put a stay, maybe a more modified stay, maybe a more limited stay, as to which part of the plans are lawful or not lawful, which, you know, is consistent with typical judicial philosophy, which is do as little as possible. And so her thinking is almost it's too soon for a broad stay. Let them get more information, the trial court judge, and then tailor their stay in a more specific way. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, though, just gave a blistering dissent multi pages long, calling out, I mean, it could have been written by any one of us who are just following along here on Midas, on the, the Trump lawlessness of like, let's just be frank here. We all know what Trump is trying to do. We don't need to see any specific plans. He's telegraphed it to us. Project 2025 is telegraphed to us. He wants to change these agencies, he wants to abolish agencies, and he wants to do it without congressional approval. And so we basically know enough folks, right? And let me just kind of read her, you know, her from her opinion itself. You know, she says, quote, in my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate, but also hubristic and senseless. Lower court judges have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening on the ground and are indisputably best positioned to determine the relevant facts, including those that underlie fair assessments of the merits, harms and equities. I see no basis to conclude that the district court erred, let alone clearly so, in finding that the President is attempting to fundamentally restructure the federal government. Therefore, I would not disrupt the lower court's preservation of the status quo. Instead, I would leave intact their protection of the historical relationship between Congress and the president, preventing irreparable harm to the plaintiffs and the public while the judiciary does the critical work. Of evaluating this exercise of power. And so she's really kind of telling it like it is, which is, folks, this, we know what he's trying to do, and this is what he's trying to do. And let's keep status quo while you decide if he's going to do it in a legal way or not. If he goes ahead and fires tens of thousands of people, he has effectively restructured it before. You are deciding if he can lawfully restructure it. That should be unlawful. And that was really her dissent, her lone descent.
- [21:47]
Dina Dahl
That's what I found weird, that it was her lone dissent. Right. That's what I found interesting, that she's the only one who dissented here. You know, I don't know about you, Dina, but I usually read the dissent before I read an opinion. Because, you know, when you read an opinion, whether it's when you agree with or disagree with, you know, you don't, you're not ever going to be as steeped in the facts and the law as the parties or the judges if you've kind of, unless you sat through the oral arguments and you read all the briefs. So, you know, you read an opinion and you're like, oh, okay, I get it, I get it, I get it. But then you read the dissent and you're like, oh, my God. You know, that, that really, that's a huge issue. And, and so whether it's, whether it goes in a direction that I agree with or disagree with, I usually always read the dissents first because I want to see what are the issues that they're gonna say with the opinion so that when I read the opinion, I can see whether I agree or not with the, with the majority opinion. And Justice Jackson's dissent was fascinating for the reasons you said. And it was also fascinating because she also gave the history of kind of this whole congressional the authority to reorganize and create agencies, et cetera, and the history of when presidents have wanted to reorganize federal agencies and that this has been going on for over 100 years, that presidents who want to do this and that in all of those instances, and she went through all of them, presidents always do it through Congress. Sometimes Congress accepts it and sometimes they don't. She essentially said that basically since 1990, presidents have submitted 126 reorganization proposals to Congress. 93 were implemented and 33 were rejected. There was one in 1984 under Reagan, that Congress allowed him to make significant changes to the structure of agencies, saying they were necessary to carry out certain Specific policies. And she specifically said in that case, in 1984, Congress passed that law to allow Reagan to reorganize. And they defined the statute, defined what is reorganization, it's transfer of the whole or part of an agency, abolition of all or part of the functions of an agency, the consolidation or coordination of the whole or part of an agency or their functions, the consolidation or coordination of part of an agency or the functions with another part of the same agency, the authorization of an officer to delegate any of his functions, or the abolition of the whole or part of an agency. Obama asked Congress to reorganize. Congress didn't authorize it and so he didn't do it. In 1993, Clinton issued an executive order to reduce the size of the federal workforce by requiring agencies to eliminate 4% of full time positions over three years. Now, that did not require congressional action because that was just something that said do it through attrition.
- [24:58]
Popak
Right.
- [24:59]
Dina Dahl
When people leave just, you know, full time positions over a certain period of time, just reduce it through attrition, you know, and early out programs, that's different from restructuring. So there's, there's case law, there's statutory law, there are, there's historical precedent that shows when you need to go to Congress and when you don't. Does what Trump is doing feel more like what Clinton did in 1993, or does it feel more like what Obama couldn't do? Right. I mean, it's, or what Ronald Reagan had to get congressional authorization for. So the other interesting thing she pointed out is there is a pending bill in Congress right now to give Trump the authority to do this, but it didn't pass and it wasn't in the big bloated bill. They could have put it in there again, if they wanted to reduce it, why didn't they do it in that big bloated bill? And I just thought it was a really interesting recitation of the history of really kind of what the difference is. And I just want to read one thing that she said. She said, first of all, the federal district court judge reviewed 1400 pages of facts that the plaintiffs, the unions, the cities, et cetera, provided affidavits and 1400 pages worth of evidence, real hard evidence to show this is what they're trying to do, this is the harm, this is the restructuring, this is the organization, the government provided. One page, literally one page, a single declaration by the government. And so she says, to be clear, today's merits dispute is not about the President's ability to unilaterally restructure the federal government. No one argues that it is lawful for him to do so instead of. Because. So what she's saying is no one's saying he's allowed to restructure the government without congressional authority. Not even the government is saying it. She says instead, the President insists that his administration's actions in carrying out this executive order in the memo are an exercise of existing executive branch authority to make staffing decisions, not a fundamental reorganization of the federal government. And so, you know, it's basically, as you said, not a question on the merits. It's a question of, you know, basically what are they going to, you know, can't, can he do something like this? And you know, maybe they will just do it through attrition and let people leave, but we know that's not the case. He's already started firing those temporary employees, et cetera. And you know, let's say he reduces, let's say he does all these things unlawfully. Let's say he fires all these people. He doesn't allow hiring. He makes, makes every agency head go to doge and say, can I hire this person or not? And he significantly reduces the workforce. And then it makes its way up to the Supreme Court four years from now. At that point, the damage is done, right? And that's where you can't unscramble the egg. And you know, look, when you see things that happen, like the National Weather Service didn't warn the people in Texas prior to that Horizon horrific flood that killed all those children. And I mean, I didn't sleep that night. I was so upset by that story. Just the idea of those parents with those children who were missing. It broke my heart. You know, Kristi Noem said it was, you know, failure of antiquated computer systems. I really hope she's right. I hope it's not because we're reducing, you know, we don't think that the National Weather Service has to do with public safety. I clearly think it, it does. And I think that's a clear example of it and how critical and important the National Weather Service is, especially with all the climate change that's happening and the catastrophic weather events that keep happening, whether it's the fires, the floods and tornadoes, hurricanes, all the things that are happening. The National Weather Service is one of the most critical life saving infrastructure agencies, frankly. And I just hope and pray to God that, that they somehow are not going to be affected and impacted by this reorganization and these cuts and that this, this horrible thing that happened had, that is just unrelated to that is, is my hope, because that would really be a terrible, terrible tragedy.
- [29:23]
Popak
Oh, absolutely. I mean, it's a horrible story. I mean, I think every, everybody across this country, it was the tragedy of that camp and all the people's lives who were lost there. And this is why Justice Kentandre Brown Jackson is like, we need to keep the status quo because there is going to be real harm. He's talking about firing thousands from the Veterans affairs, and people who need, who served in our military and need health care are not going to be as poor provided for and get the services they need. When you cut staff like that, I mean, this is if you, if he does what his plan was, which was restructure tens of thousands of agencies, you know, our government has all those agencies affect our lives in so many ways. And let's talk about the actual employees, because, you know, for all the federal employees out there who have MAGA has turned into a bad guy. You know, my father was an immigrant, got his degree here in this country in economics, and he was a government employee his whole life, really believed in the cause. Worked in public health, worked in Veterans Administration, worked in public health departments, different levels of government, and was able to raise a family. Right. I mean, these are good jobs that people who believe in giving back to the government and contributing to all these agencies, whether or not it's education, whether or not it's, you know, health so important. And instead of being thanked for using their skills to give back to all of us, they're being made the bad guy. And so I think just to also point out to so many people who got this decision, and it was more than just about our democracy. It was about, am I going to get fired? What am I going to do about providing for my family? So many people move to different cities and locations in order to work for the federal government, and now maybe kind of are left stranded in those locations. The ripple effect, not only to those individual families, but to our economy, especially during the time that Trump's tariffs are like, tanking our economy and he's hurting our dollar, the value of the dollar. And now you may have even loss of more jobs. And just the dehumanization, the demonizing of people in our government, like, as if they are doing something bad, instead of providing the foundation and the fabric upon which all of us depend on in ways that we just don't always see. And so I just wanted to kind of point out that, too. For anyone who's affected by this or knows somebody affected by this, hang in there. You have our support. And this is just another unfortunate effect of Trump's dismantling. But this is why we have to vote in the midterms. As bad of the news we get, we can't be overwhelmed, we can't turn it off, we can't give it up because we have to fight for people who may be the ones who are feeling, have lost their jobs and maybe feel like they can't do the fight. The rest of us have to continue the fight. We can't give up on it.
- [32:43]
Dina Dahl
This. I'm glad you give that really humanizing perspective, Dina. You know, in addition to those individuals, those is, as you said, is the people who rely on the services provided by the government. Right. And you don't want that to be a for profit place to, you know, to provide that service. There's certain services that really shouldn't be driven by profit. It should be driven by people who want to give back. I mean, I was at the, a lifelong public servant myself. You know, for 30 years I worked for the government. And it's just a different, it's a completely different motivator, a different mindset. You're there to help people and that's it. That's what you're there to focus on. You're not there to focus on profits over people. And so there, there are certain things that absolutely need to be done by the government and certainly not just by one man who unilaterally just makes these decisions. And that's what he wants. He wants ultimate power. He wants to be king. And he wants to go against the, truly the founding of this country, which was that we don't have kings and we have separation of powers, so, and checks and balances. So it's scary. It's really like real life scary, you know, that, that so many catastrophic things can happen and are happening and, and you need more people in place to help with that, not less. You know, fema, he's cutting fema, he's cutting, you know, all, all the, all the things that help people in these, in these catastrophic events. So hopefully, I mean, we'll see how this goes. But, but this is, this is not great. And you know, the Supreme Court, they're just enabling, they're completely enabling this unitary executive. So we need to take our first ad break because we love our sponsors, we depend on our sponsors and it's what keeps the lights on at Legal AF and the Midas Touch Network. So let's take a quick break for our first sponsor.
- [34:43]
Karen Friedman Agnifolo
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 Maids bed sheets. Miracle Maid sheets are in 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 made sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all 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 legalaf 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 3 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 try miracle.com legalaf and use the code legal af to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's try miracle.com legal af to treat yourself. Thank you Miracle Made for sponsoring this episode. Hey, I gotta tell you, I'm officially obsessed with laundry sauce. Honestly, laundry used to be the worst chore, but now I actually look forward to it because my clothes smell amazing all day long. My personal favorite is the new Mojave Peach set. Bright Mandarin warm cinnamon and that juicy sun soaked peach note just screams summer vibes. It's like a mini getaway every time I open the dryer. Plus, these pre measured pods take all the guesswork out of laundry and the scent lasts for hours. I've gotten so many compliments on how fresh my clothes smell. Friends even ask me if I'm wearing a new cologne. If you want to level up your laundry game, here's the deal. For a limited time, Our listeners get 20% off your entire order when you use code LEGAL AF20@laundry sauce.com that's 20% off your entire order at laundry sauce.com with promo code LEGALIF20. After you order, they'll ask you where you heard about laundry sauce, please tell them that we sent you make laundry day the best day of the week with laundry sauce.
- [37:34]
Dina Dahl
We're back. And thank you to our sponsors again. They are how we are able to provide what we provide to Legal AF and the Midas Touch Network and this community. And what's important and what I love about our sponsors is they choose us. They know what we're about. They know what our message is. They know that we're not beholden to any corporate America. We don't have any big, you know, certainly the Midas brother, the Meisellas brothers, you know, don't tell us what to say or not say. We just come on here and we, and we have a point of view for sure. And these are the sponsors who choose us as well. And you know, they send us their products, we test them out. And I've become huge, huge, huge fans of some of them and actually many of them. And so it's just fantastic. So if you can support them, we appreciate it very much. So let's go now to Our next topic. Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who is been essentially a human ping pong ball, right? He just to remind everyone where we are with him, he is the individual who was here legally. He went through an immigration process where a judge ruled years ago that he couldn't be deported to El Salvador, he could remain here because he was trying to be recruited by an El Salvadorian gang. And he rejected it. And when he rejected it, his life was in danger. And so he came to the United States, sought asylum and basically a judge ruled he cannot be deported to El Salvador and he can remain here. He got married, he became, he had children here and he was lawfully gainfully employed here. And he was swept up in this immigration Trump, immigration enforcement. And they admitted that. And he was sent to El Salvador. He was tortured and he, he's talked about what happened to him there. The conditions there sound absolutely horrific. I mean, beyond anything that a civilized society certainly we would never accept in this country. You know, deprivation of sleep, of food, of water, of, you know, basically beaten and all of the terrible things you can imagine that you read about and hear about that happen in uncivilized societies, frankly. And so the government admitted on the record that he was, that he was sent to El Salvador by mistake. That was their words. It was an accident. It was a mistake. They shouldn't have done it. And so, judge, they went to court in Maryland and Judge Zinnis ordered his return, ordered that they have to facilitate his return. Well, Trump was like, I can't. I have no authority. You know, mocking the government, you know, mocking the judge, essentially kind of like, oh, make me. I can't. And, you know, even the president of El Salvador went to the White House and they were, you know, laughing and talking about, you know, whatever. But Trump never asked, you know, never at least publicly asked him to bring him back. He just said he couldn't. He doesn't have the authority. And that went all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, where they 9 0, which almost never happens these days, ruled that Trump has to facilitate his return, that the administration has to do it. They disagreed and said they had to do it. And again, Trump was sort of giving the middle finger, the proverbial middle finger that he's not going to return. Mr. Abrego Garcia and then I think realized, okay, you. You have to. Right? You have to do it. So what did they do? They manufactured a criminal case against him. Okay. They literally said they went back. I think it was from what it was like, 20, 22 or something. There was a traffic stop in Tennessee where the authorities there. All they did was take down the name, like handwritten names and dates of birth of the people in the car and let them go. That was it. That was the big thing. They. They literally did a traffic stop and let them go. They then turned that into a human smuggling case. Now, there's a big difference between human trafficking and human smuggling. And. But from the press conferences about Mr. Abrego Garcia, you wouldn't know that there is a difference, right? They make him out to be a gang member. They make him out to be a human trafficker. They make him out to. He smuggles children, you know, all these kinds of. Of things. And what's the difference between human trafficking and human smuggling? Human trafficking is the movement of humans, right, of people. It can be within the United States or from different countries. You know, it doesn't have to be from one country to another. You can have human trafficking. You know, there's sex trafficking, there's labor trafficking. There's different kinds of human trafficking. And it's the movement of humans. It's the transporting of people by force, fraud or coercion. It's. It's essentially that. That's what it is. It's slavery, essentially. And. And human smuggling, by contrast, is. Is basically transporting someone, okay, across the. Across the country, you know, into the country or out of the country, somebody who might be illegal or, you know, might be not able to come Here, you know, and they bring them here. And. But it's like a contract, a deal, you know, to transport someone. It's like. It's like an Uber ride, you know, very different. And there's. There's consent between the parties, usually. And. And, you know, that's what smuggling is, and that's what he is charged with. Now, he may or may not have done it. You know, I don't know. But he was. They suddenly, now they have an indictment, and that's what they use to bring him back. He goes before the Tennessee court and faces that judge who's like, well, normally I don't hold people in on bail for human smuggling, because that's not a serious crime. But there's this whole thing about if he gets released, they're going to deport him, and so they can't prosecute the case. And so he wants to stay in because he doesn't want to be deported. He's like, no, keep me in criminal custody so that I can't be deported. Because now the government's saying, oh, okay, we know we can't send him to El Salvador, but that will send him to another country, you know, some third country that he has no connection to. And we know some of those countries that Trump is doing this to have some of the worst human rights violations in the world. And so there's that whole thing going on. In the meantime, there's still the Judge Zinnis case in Maryland, that original case where she ordered him brought back. And some of us, When, When. When he was brought back, some of us asked, does that mean that case is over, that it's moot because he's returned? Well, Judge Zinnis says, no, it is not, and she's keeping it going. Dina, why don't you tell everyone. I just gave us the background. Why don't you bring us up to speed about the hearing that Judge Zinnis just had and the posture of that situation, because the words the. The. The contempt she has for the federal government, essentially accusing them of lying and. And what she's going to do, I was actually astounding. To me, I have never heard a federal judge in my entire career say things like she has said about the distrust of the Department of Justice, employees of the prosecutors, or the lawyers from the Department of Justice. So I'll turn it over to you, Dina. Tell us what she did.
- [45:32]
Popak
Yes, Well, I know it sounds like. I mean, she is. They had asked for the. The government asked for the dismissal of this case, and she found that to Be meritless. And maybe you should. You sounded like you wanted to. Why don't you just talk about what the judge in particular said that you kind of found? So. And then I'll jump into some of the other developments also in this case with the UN and the El Salvadorian statement, the gag order in his criminal case, because there's a lot of different pieces. Yeah.
- [46:02]
Dina Dahl
So Judge Zinnis held a hearing yesterday, and the Department of Justice basically moved to dismiss the case, saying, it's moved, you know, no need to do this anymore. We brought him back, it's done. And she said, no, this. She said, absolutely, I'm denying your motion to dismiss because I have to bring back the status quo. Like, I have to bring him back to where he was before you did this to him. And also, I don't believe anything that you said. So I still have a contempt proceeding that I am trying to get to the bottom of. Because you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth, by the way. These are my words, not hers, but this is my paraphrasing of what she's essentially said. And she basically said, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth because on the one hand, you say you're gonna try the criminal case. Now, don't forget, this is the same Department of Justice. Right. Whether you are. Whether you, you know, it's the same government, whether you are trying to deport him or you're trying to prosecute him. You're all part of the federal government. You all work for Donald Trump. So you can't say, well, no, one side is going to try the case and prosecute him, but the other side is saying, no, we're going to deport him and not try the case. And I think they want to deport him and not try the case, because there really is no case. And the only reason they brought that case was to try to dirty him up some more and make up an excuse to bring him back. So she basically ordered a hearing on July 10 and said the government has to produce someone who's going to testify under oath. You don't normally make prosecutors or government, you know, lawyers testify under oath, but about what they plan to do next with Abrego Garcia under penalty of perjury, because if they lie, if they lie, she can then basically bring perjury charges against them and hold them in contempt. Now, you know, she wants to know, what are you planning on doing? How are you going to do it? When are you going to do it? What notice will you give to Mr. Abrego Garcia, what due process are you going to give him? Do you plan on removing him? If so, to what country? She just wants to know what the. This is all about due process. This is not, no one's saying Mr. Abrego Garcia is a saint or not. I have no idea. I don't know anything about him other than what I read in the paper. And this is about due process and giving people, whether it's criminal or immigration, due process of law. The law applies to everyone, even the most, even the people who you find the most objectionable, even the people who are the least pleasant people, you know, criminals, etc. Everyone in this country is afforded due process of law. That's what makes this country great. And this judge literally said, I'm going to put you under oath and I want someone to show up who has something, who has information because of this dual legal drama that's going on, you know, with the Tennessee case and this case, it's just in insane. And she basically said, you know, let me, I have some of her quotes. Let me find them. She said, you know, the Department of Justice essentially said, look, this was an isolated mistake. It won't happen again during this hearing yesterday. Right. And she says, no, no need to do anything, Judge. You don't need a hearing. This, this is a mistake. It won't happen again. And Judge Zinnis cut off this lawyer, this Department of Justice lawyer, and said, for three months your clients have told the world they weren't going to do anything to bring back Mr. Abrego Garcia. Doesn't that matter? And she tried to pin down the Department of Justice about what are your deportation plans. And the DOJ attorney said the current plan is to deport him to a third country, but that plan could change. So to say more is pure speculation. Then the judge just said, basically, I don't buy that for a second. And she accused the Department of Justice of not being truthful. Truthful. And asked if he was indicted in part to help facilitate his return to the U.S. they said no, which of course I don't believe. And she said, I want you to be. And then she said, I want you to be really careful with me. She's basically saying, you lie to me, that that's it. And so, you know, she, this was a three hour hearing. She was clearly incredulous over the government's complete lack of candor and their complete lack of any definite plan to finally be truthful to the court. And you know what their plans are. So, you know, I think she said some quote, like trying to get the Department of Justice to give us some details about what they're considering. For Abrego Garcia, it's like trying to nail Jell O to a wall to figure out what's going to happen next. So she just, by all accounts the judge was exasperated by the government and essentially is, you know, basically, you know, she ended it with like, given the history of this case of unlawful action, series of unlock awful actions, I do believe it is well within my authority to at least get this information. And she ordered a hearing for July 10. So she was just not having it when it comes to the Department of Justice. So, you know, that was incredible.
- [50:56]
Popak
I mean, the interesting thing is that Judge Crenshaw and his criminal case is having a similar hearing on July 16. And that hearing is trying to determine whether or not to release him pending trial in that case. You know, because as we know in the pre trial motions, Judge Holmes was dealing, the magistrate judge was dealing with a pretrial motions and she found him not to be a threat to society. He could be released pending trial. But then the government started talking about deporting him, so she decided to keep him. And now July 6th, 16th is they're going to have this hearing in front of Crenshaw to decide whether or not to release him. And then it's really the same type of information both of the these judges are trying to get, which is what do you plan on doing with this man? If you are getting confused about the number of cases and motions and around this man, it's not a surprise because it is just there are so many. He has become a symbol for, I think both sides, those of us who care about due process, the rule of law, how we treat human beings in this country, you know, really care about him. And then on the other side, right, the bigotry, the dehumanization of like we can do anything, anytime with anybody who maybe doesn't have, I mean he had legal status to say here. I mean the government said it was mistake, but maybe wasn't a false citizen, you know, and their belief that maybe even a full citizen you can denaturalize is a whole other issue Trump is going after. But he has become like a symbol for both sides and that's why there's so much litigation around him. In his criminal case, you know, the Judge Crenshaw went as far as to grant a gag order against Attorney General Pam Bondi, all the lawyers, the doj, because of all of the things they've been saying about him. Right. They have been calling him a criminal despite the fact that he has no criminal conviction, that he's just, his actions are just alleged. In this case, they have been talking about him being a domestic abuser. They've been talking about some videos with minors. They've been talking about him murdering like a gay mother's mother. I mean, the amount of crazy stuff they've been saying about him is insane. So much so that the judge in that case granted this gag order just very quickly, like a day after was requested. You know, gag orders aren't just routinely given. You are restricting the free speech rights of a lawyer. It's only given when that speech is taking away somebody's constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. And that's the thing about it. Abreu Garcia as a criminal defendant, you can argue has even more conflict constitutional rights now because our constitution allows for quite a bit of rights to somebody who's standing trial in a criminal case. You could ask Donald Trump about it. He got all those same protections. So I was, I don't know about you think, Karen, but I was very satisfied to see that gag order because I've been wanting somebody to stop Pam Bonnie from all her lies. And finally some judge did. It's a question whether or not it applies to Kristi Noeman ICE as well. The motion asked for Kristi Noem and ICE to also be gagged. But in his it just gives like a one line grant. It was a little bit vague as to the scope of it either way. Now, now that Abrego Garcia is part of the criminal justice system, he has a whole other set of constitutional rights that are afforded to him and, and whether or not these charges that can move forward or if they are just so flimsy and so based on evidence that they end up getting dismissed like. We'll see. We're just at the very beginning here. But make no mistake, you know, if there's an avalanche of information and law around him because of the fact, you know, that they Trump is, is trying to make him a symbol. Oh, and then there's also the UN Inquiry that I don't know if you wanted to say anything about the gag order, but otherwise I could go into the U.N. go ahead.
- [55:03]
Dina Dahl
Yeah, go ahead.
- [55:03]
Popak
This is just came out also recently where so four family members of people who were sent to this El Salvadorian prison, including the family of Andre Ramirez Hernandez, filed a request for the UN to look into the fact that their family members were kind of disappeared and sent to this El Salvadoran prison and asked for this inquiry to put up forward. Let's just take a moment here to think about this. Here we have the United States having been a fundamental partner, informing the UN Trying to have a world order. The United States always trying to see itself as this ethical, moral leader of the world, the leader of the rule of law. And these family members being so desperate and feeling as if our justice system is failing them, are instead going to the UN and asking the UN to look into how the United States government disappeared their family members, looking for the UN to step in against what they're seeing as this human rights abuse. This is something, you know, I mean, would we have even thought we would be in this position not that long ago? It just shows the level of lawlessness that Trump is doing. But as part of that inquiry that the UN Opened up, El Salvador sent a letter to the UN Saying that the United States, I mean, they didn't say the word the United States. They said the. The country, the other country that they are in this partnership with has the legal jurisdiction over the people, that they are merely, merely housing the people in their jails, but the legal jurisdiction over these people reside with the United States. This is, of course, completely counter to the declaration that the government submitted to Judge Boasberg in that related case having to do with all the people that were deported, not just Abrego Garcia. And so both that report has been filed with that Judge Boasberg case, saying, hey, we, United States does have constructive custody based on what El Salvador is saying. This isn't some sort of diplomatic issue, that the United States can't ask the sovereign nation of El Salvador to do something because El Salvador is saying that we have legal control of them, so we do have constructive custody. And that letter was also submitted to even a different case, a Judge Gallagher, who's handling the request of a return of somebody else, the pseudonym Christian, who was sent to this same El Salvadorian prison as a result of a completely separate case about unaccompanied minors being stripped of certain asylum protections under Trump, Trump's first term. That person was now 20 years old when they were just sent to the El Salvadorian prison in March. But so a lot of developments on not just that are affecting Abrego Garcia and kind of the larger context of Abrego Garcia being a part of Trump just loading up people and sending them to the Sea Cop.
- [58:36]
Dina Dahl
I mean, we have to take a step back here and ask, why is this happening? Why are we sending our prisoners or, you know, Our human beings that we are incarcerating for whatever reason to foreign countries. It makes absolutely no sense. We are literally outsourcing, you know, outsourcing that. It's not like we don't have our own prisons. Look, our own prisons aren't great, right? I'm a criminal defense attorney. I happen to therefore spend a lot of time in jails and prisons. They're not great. They're actually quite difficult, and they're very, very inhumane in a certain sense. I mean, obviously, there are people who have to be incarcerated and who are incarcerated. I think our whole system of corrections and incarceration needs to be reformed. And even in our own system, compared to certain European countries, for example, it's really. There's so much more we could do to make it much better, much more humane, much, much safer. Make it actually something that helps people so that when they come out, they can be better individuals and better, better members of our community. So, you know, that could be a whole conversation that. That I won't have here. But it's certainly much better than these countries that they are choosing to send them to. Right? They're sending them to people. Some of the worst human rights violations, notoriously. I mean, it is. It's truly cruel and unusual punishment that they're doing. I don't understand why we are not kind of fighting that even more. Even though it's lawful, even though we're allowed to do it, the fact that we as a civilized country, as a civilized nation are doing something like that is so disgraceful and really takes us back so far. I mean, I was just. Well, we've got to take another ad break before Salty cuts me off. But, you know, I was watching. My husband. My husband and I were watching a documentary the other night on Led Zeppelin. And woven in there, just sort of, you know, sprinkled in there, is all of the things that were going on in the 60s, all of the human rights violations, you know, and human rights movement, I should say, and the women's rights movements and all these things that happened in the 60s that were so transformative. And you couldn't help but feel, wow, we have gone all the way back there. So much of where we are today is undoing the last 50 years of this country. And that, to me, almost 60 years of this country. That, to me, what was so stunning that is happening now, and this is just one more example.
- [61:20]
Popak
And just to say the people sent to El Salvador weren't even convicted criminals. It wasn't as if they would be entitled to be in prison here in the United States. You know, there is why to your point, why we're even sending people to Sudan even though they'll, they were convicted criminals. But why we think sentencing somebody to life because they happen to be undocumented in our country. Why that? Well, I mean there's millions of us who think that's not okay, but that is an attempt itself, like a disgusting idea. But to be honest, I'm worried because that ice, that budget, that huge horrible bill they just passed and how much money they just put toward ice, I would not be surprised if a large chunk of that is going to go for four private, undocumented or stripped of their documentation centers here in the United States. States. I think that you wouldn't. So the alligator.
- [62:23]
Dina Dahl
Alligator. There's a alligator. Alcatraz and all those things.
- [62:28]
Popak
I mean all that money, I think that is probably going to be. I would not be surprised. But either way, yes, that's a concept of anybody going to life. Nobody should have to be going to life for anybody, you know, their life. Sentencing for happening to come here and not properly document yourself is, is, is.
- [62:49]
Dina Dahl
I also can't imagine going to a country that you have no connection to. You don't speak the language, you don't know anybody, you don't have any, you don't have a passport there either. Right. You're not a citizen of their country. Like you can't go back to your own country for whatever reason because either, you know, because their own violations there, you have family here in the United States and you're in some other place. Like it's just, just unbelievable to me where we are. I, I just can't, I just can't believe it. Anyway, I gotta, we gotta go to our next ad break or Salty's gonna literally, he's gonna cut us off. So let's go to our last ad break and then we'll go talk. We'll keep talking.
- [63:25]
Karen Friedman Agnifolo
You know, life moves fast and sometimes I just need a moment to relax, recharge or get focused without any hassle. That's exactly why I love via. Their products have genuinely helped me enhance my everyday. Whether it's winding down after a busy day or sharpening my focus during work. If you haven't tried VIA yet, you're seriously missing out. Trusted by over half a million happy customers, VIA offers a range of hemp derived wellness products designed to help you sleep better, boost your mood, improve focus or simply relax. Their award winning gummies and calming drops are made with organic lab tested hemp from American farms and everything is crafted with care and quality in mind. Plus via ships discreetly across the us. No medical card needed and they back it all with a worry free guarantee. Not sure what's right for you? Take their Quick Product Finder quiz. It's less than 60 seconds so if you're 21 or older, head to viahemp.com and use code legal AF for 15% off free shipping on orders over a hundred bucks and a free gift with your first order. That's V I I A H E M P.com code legal AF. Again if you're 21 or older, check out via@viahemp.com and use code legal AF to get 15 off free shipping over a hundred dollars plus your free gift. When you're new, please support our show and tell them that we sent you Enhance your everyday with Via. Summer's here and if you're like me, setting health goals is easy, but sticking to them, well that's the hard part. That's why when I'm craving a real reset, Prolon is the only nutrition program that works for me. It's convenient, backed by Nobel winning science and it works. Prolon's five day fasting mimicking diet is your summer ready secret weapon. It's a plant based science backed program developed at USC's Longevity Institute designed to trigger deep cellular rejuvenation while keeping you in a fasting state. You'll target fat loss, support lean muscle, reset your metabolism and look and feel amazing doing it. Their new next gen program features 100% organic soups and teas, richer flavors and ready to eat meals all prepackaged and labeled by day so you know exactly what to eat. Fasting doesn't get any easier than this. For a limited time, Prolon is offering Legal AF by Midas Touch listeners 15% off site wide plus a $40 bonus gift. When you subscribe to their five day nutrition program, just visit prolonlife.com legalif that's P R-O-L-O-N L I F E.com legalif to claim your discount and bonus gift. Prolonlife.com legalaf we're back and we are.
- [66:16]
Dina Dahl
Going to now talk about this big bloated bill that I like to call it because it's not a beautiful bill. It's so awful and bloated that it's caused Elon Musk to start a third party and you know, I don't know, magazine having a civil war which is fine with me, right? But go for it. But really it's an atrocity, this bill. I mean, what. Just everything that it's doing, it, you know, the whole everything about Trump is, is he says one thing and then does something else. It's just fascinating. And, and there's nothing different about this bill because it is making just the parts of making government bigger, increasing our national debt. Everything you can imagine is happening, making rich people richer, cutting off much needed services to poor people who need it, et cetera. And one thing that it also did was it is essentially cutting off Medicaid, that the Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, essentially, which would shutter Planned Parenthood in, you know, I think they said something like 2.1 million, you know, people wouldn't receive health care and, you know, hundreds of Planned Parenthood would have to close down, et cetera. And you know, there was a recent decision, a 6 to 3 decision, a Medina case in the Supreme Court, but essentially said when Planned Parenthood sued because Trump restricted Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. Now Planned Parenthood provides healthcare services, right? They provide all kinds of healthcare services, right? Sexually transmitted diseases, women's gynecological examinations, et cetera. I mean, it's a primary provider healthcare provider for so many women. And they also provide abortion counseling. And in states where it's lawful abortion services, you can either they can either perform the abortion or they can refer you to somewhere else, or they can also prescribe Medicaid assist medicine, you know, medical abortions. And so, and so, you know, Planned Parenthood, absolutely, absolutely provides an essential, essential service for so many women. And this decision basically said that Planned Parenthood, you cannot sue Medicaid under the statute, right? Because the statute does not allow a provider who is denied service to, to, under the Medicaid statute to, to sue them. And that was not great, right? But then, so they lost. And so they thought they were going to lose their, you know, that ability to use Medicaid. But then the big beautiful bill or the big bloated bill, whatever you want to call it, had a provision in there that essentially defunded Planned Parenthood. Now they can sue. They're allowed to now sue under that, right? A constitutional challenge to an act of Congress, to a statute, that's what most anytime lawsuits happen against the government. You are essentially suing about a statute, about a law, right? That's what you're doing. And there's no provision in there that says you can't do that. And so despite the fact that this other decision, the Medina decision, said you can't sue under the Medicaid statute, they could bring a suit against the government with respect to the defunding mechanism against Planned Parenthood. So they went to Massachusetts and a judge there issued a 14 day temporary restraining order, essentially saying that you are blocked from cutting off Planned parenthood funding for 14 days. The reason, again, they could do that is because, you know, because it was a statutory, it was, it was challenging the statute. And also it's not a nationwide injunction here. It was only two states that are bringing this statute here. But, and what they're doing, bringing this, this, this lawsuit against the statute here. And essentially it's a First Amendment challenge saying that you're punishing me for our viewpoint. Right. Just for our freedom of speech, our freedom of association. And so you still have to fund us. You're not allowed to discriminate. No statute that Congress passes is allowed to discriminate. That violates First Amendment rights of your freedom of speech or your viewpoint. So that's what the temporary injunction has happened in 14 days. Let's see if the judge turns it into a preliminary injunction, which means it'll continue throughout the course of the whole case while they litigate the case. It'll be interesting to see if the Trump administration continues to litigate the case in front of this judge or instead tries to take this up to the appellate courts and then the Supreme Court, who I'm not very confident that the Supreme Court will, will rule against Donald Trump on, on most anything, especially on this topic. But. So it's unclear procedurally how this is going to go, but for now it stayed for 14 days.
- [71:49]
Popak
Yeah, exactly. And really the difference is that as you said, it was a South Carolina, South Carolina had stripped the ability of people in South Carolina to receive Planned Parenthood services, despite the fact that the Medicaid spending provision that Congress had passed said that they could go see any qualified provider. The Supreme Court held that that spending provision did not create an individual right to sue. And here we are having just the judge declare, I mean, even temporarily, that the law was violating or potentially violated the First Amendment or the constitutional rights. And that's why there should be this temporary stay. And by declaring it unlawful, then it, even though it's not quite a nationwide injunction, it almost has, has the impact of it. I think that if we may very well see, as you said, it'll be interesting to see procedurally in this post ban of nationwide injunctions, do they file a lawsuit in Texas, let's say, where they would get maybe an opposite ruling. And then you're going to have one judge with a temporary stay, one judge without, and then you're going to create the conflict that Justice Kavanaugh said, hey, no one worries if we have conflicts. This is what we're here for. You know, the Supreme Court resolves conflicts and they may then take it up and decide which way they're going to resolve it. I mean, I don't see. I mean, I think that the bottom line with the Supreme Court nationwide injunction rulings is the Supreme Court is going to be a lot busier. That was never the point at the Supreme Court is to do those kind of day to day, minute by minute orders. They were really supposed to take like the, the great big constitutional questions of our time and be thoughtful and careful and, and that's why they don't take that many cases. But they seem there, they may just happen to be resolving dispute after dispute. Because that would be the strategy, right? That would be the strategy of wanting to reverse or have a different outcome in terms of this Planned Parenthood and a bill. But like, make no mistake that patients who are receiving Medicaid, about Planned parenthood patients, about 60% of them receive Medicaid. So it would be crushing. That's the whole point of the provision is to crush Planned Parenthood because they still do provide abortions in states where they're legally allowed to. And Republicans want to take away any access to abortion at all. But the bottom line is so many people in this country, women and men, I've gotten some social media replies. There's men who also get care from Planned Parenthood and this is their primary care doctor. Health care is definitely an attack by this bill that they just passed, as we know, stripping millions of people, kicking them off of Medicaid. People who are going to be in the middle of cancer treatments, in the middle of heart issues dealing with chronic diseases like diabetes, no longer going to be having insurance. This is going to close hospitals, put a major strain on our health system in general.
- [75:05]
Dina Dahl
And our healthcare system was messed up to begin with. You know, I mean, there are so many problems with our healthcare system and especially the health and medical insurance system. The fact that this is going to make it worse is unbelievable to me. I am actually shocked that this is where we're headed again. You know, it makes no sense. I mean, health care is one of those things that you would think should be provided by the government in a way, right? Or at least have some like, like education, like, like emergency services, like the fire department, like libraries. You know, there's so many things that are provided by the government that are essential. And healthcare is one of those things that it just makes no sense that there are people who like, it's not your fault if you get cancer. Right? It's not. It can happen to anybody. It's just. It's something that just befalls you if you get sick. And the fact that people have to go into debt because of it and not. And get denied coverage and get denied services and, you know, the fact that that is not something that the government provides is a complete shock to me. And when you again go to other countries that are civilized, that is one of the essential services that is provided and that this is doing that. You know, Planned Parenthood in particular, the fact that they exist still in states that where abortion is outlawed is such a testament to them and shows they're not just about abortions, they're about healthcare. They still provide services that are not related to abortion to so many people. And because our health care system is so messed up, the fact that there are these not for profits in rural areas where people might not have any other access to healthcare. Right. That they can get healthcare like, and that he's trying to shut this down. I mean, Planned Parenthood is one of the good guys, right? It's one of the. It's one of the places, one of the entities that provides a true service to people. And how you can argue with health care, right? Of all the issues that you may or may not agree with, Democrat versus Republican, shouldn't we all want everybody to receive excellent healthcare? I mean, isn't that something as a country we want all people to receive? Like how is that controversial? How is that a political issue? And I just find that staggering. And the fact that, I mean, thankfully that that is stopped for right now and hopefully that will continue. But I am not hopeful with this, with this Supreme Court.
- [77:37]
Popak
And I think that's why, though their argument was so interesting, that it was a First Amendment right because Planned Parenthood is being attacked for their speech. They are giving their patients accurate information, but it is information they are counseling them on if they want to plan how they have their family, the ways they can do it. And so I actually, I think this was not. It was such a smart strategy, legal strategy, but also goes to the core of the information. Because when you put this up against the other recent lawsuit that was. Was just brought against RFK Jr. The FDA, the CDC, the NIH for his statement about vaccines and how they're going to take away the vaccine approval, I think for Covid specifically for women and children, pregnant women and children, and the lawsuit that was brought against him from the pediatrics, and so many doctor associations saying the way he did that was illegal. But when you take RFK Jr. Who's now in charge of our health department, and all the information he's gonna. He has already said about vaccines and other things and will continue to do that. The disinformation that hurts our health, and you put that against Plant Parenthood, who's giving accurate information. You may not like it, but at least it's accurate and factual, and it's treating people with the dignity of making their own decisions based on. Based on real information. I mean, families should have a right not to give vaccines if they don't want. Depending on the health situations of their children. Some people maybe can't take it or whatever, but give them at least accurate information instead of lying about all of the studies out there, you know? So I'm so glad the medical associations were taking RFK Jr to task, because he no longer can just say whatever he wants now that he has the power of the health department. They're behind him. And then here we see so them arguing for the First Amendment rights of Planned Parenthood, of saying, you know, we have to live in a world where we are. If you're saying something accurately as a doctor, you should be able to have a right to say that.
- [79:53]
Dina Dahl
Yeah. It's just unbelievable, the state of this topic. I just. I actually can't believe it. But. But here we are, and we need to keep a very close eye on this because a lot is at stake here. This is a huge, huge. Will be a huge problem. And hopefully the judge will extend this to a preliminary injunction, and hopefully the Supreme Court won't undo it, because otherwise, I don't know if Planned Parenthood can survive. I don't know if there'll be private money donated or. Or what will happen or if states will step in and fund the Planned Parenthoods in their states in certain states. So that's something we have to keep an eye on because they serve so many people in this country and, as we've been saying, provide such an essential healthcare service to everybody. So, Dina, we have reached the end of another episode of. Of the midweek Legal af. Anything else on your mind that you want to chat about before we thank everybody for listening and we say goodbye?
- [81:05]
Popak
You know, I think we at least covered the last few days. Let's just say that. And I don't know what you thought about the Fourth of July weekend. It was A weird time to be having our celebration of our country, because there's so much that we've even just talked about in this thing that, you know, it's just not the country that my father chose to immigrate here to and that I'm a proud American growing up. And. And. And I think there's a lot that a lot of people I'm talking to are grappling with that. Right. Having. Keeping patriotism at the same time that the country that you're a citizen of is doing so many things that fundamentally you disagree with. But anyway, I'm so glad that we get to grapple with these issues here.
- [81:48]
Dina Dahl
And, you know, I want to say something about the Fourth of July, because I listened on the Fourth of July to Ray Charles singing America the Beautiful, and I had the chills. I'm like, that song just is an amazing song, and I. I love it. And, you know, I realized as I was thinking about it that I do love this country. I do love America. I love everything it stands for. I don't love maga, I don't love Trump, and I don't love the Republican Party. But they're not America. They are the current occupiers of that particular branch of government, and they are certain people in this country who I feel have lost their way. We got to figure out how to bring them back and really bring back the wonderful, beautiful values of this country. But I'm not going to let Donald Trump and his hateful messaging and his exclusionary messaging ever take away my love for this beautiful country. And that song, you know, just really reminded me how much our country's so much bigger than any one person, any one president. And I don't want anyone. I never want to lose that and lose the patriotism for this country that I will fight for until my last breath.
- [83:08]
Popak
Yeah. And I think it's also important, you know, the. Our country's never been perfect. We were founded on slavery. You know, the women just had the right to vote barely a hundred years ago. We have been far from perfect.
- [83:23]
Dina Dahl
Women couldn't get credit cards until the 70s. I mean, no, I mean, you and.
- [83:27]
Popak
I. I know what would have happened to us.
- [83:31]
Dina Dahl
Exactly. But that. But that. That's the point, Dina. That's the point you just made. Our country has. Has always had issues, but what. The one thing we've always had is patriotism, love for our country, and we're going to fight for our beliefs and our. And what we love. So I am not going to let Donald Trump ruin the Fourth of July for me or my love of this country. And I urge everyone to listen to that song because it's really, really important.
- [83:58]
Popak
Absolutely. And all of our talk about the Supreme Court and how it's so bad the Supreme Court upheld slavery under Dred Scott. We have also had bad Supreme Court. And we have survived. So survived.
- [84:09]
Dina Dahl
And we've been. And we've been amazing. So. And we will get there again.
- [84:13]
Popak
We will get there again. And that's why sometimes it's hard, because we're delivering, I feel like, a lot of bad news. And I know some people can get really overwhelmed and disenchanted, and that's what they want. Right. So we have to both be informed of the bad news in order to become good, be good citizens, but at the same time, not give up. And not give up on our belief in hope and patriotism and realize the trajectory of our country and democracy is not linear. You know, isn't just a straight line. Right. It's going to have a little curves in that line.
- [84:49]
Dina Dahl
Two steps forward, one step back. So we've taken a step back, but we'll get there. So keep the fight up. Exactly. All right. Great to see you, Dina.
- [84:57]
Popak
Good to see you, too.
- [84:58]
Dina Dahl
Thanks, everyone, for joining us tonight. And please listen in every Wednesday, every Saturday, to legal AF.