Legal AF Full Episode - 9/3/2025

Summary

Legal AF, Full Episode – 9/3/2025

Hosts: Michael Popok & Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Date: September 4, 2025

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, hosts Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo dive into a week of major legal and political setbacks for Donald Trump and his administration, examining a flurry of court rulings across the country and unpacking the broader implications for democracy, public institutions, and vulnerable communities. The episode also features a powerful discussion on the ongoing Jeffrey Epstein files controversy and the larger question of institutional enabling, before closing with analysis of recent decisions on the Federal Trade Commission, the Posse Comitatus Act, and the protection of refugee children.

---

Major Court Losses for Trump: The Week in Review

[02:15] Michael Popok Recap
Popok opens by detailing an "epic losing streak" for Donald Trump, with five major court defeats over eight days. He emphasizes that despite the Supreme Court’s conservative turn, accountability is prevailing in lower courts nationwide.

The Five Losses

• Harvard University - Research Grants Restored ([02:15], [29:07])
  Judge Burroughs (MA) ruled against the Trump administration's $2.2 billion research grant cuts, finding antisemitism allegations a "smokescreen" for violations of Harvard's First Amendment rights and academic freedom.
  • Quote: “Because it's working. Because the wheels of justice turn slowly, but they grind fine.” – Michael Popok, [02:15]
• Federal Trade Commission - Rebecca Slaughter Reinstated ([02:15], [59:35])
  A D.C. appellate panel (2-1) blocked Trump from firing the last Democrat on the FTC based on 95-year-old Humphrey's Executor precedent.
  • Quote: “You can't just fire them… it’s exactly on point.” – Michael Popok, [59:43]
• Judge Sparkle Sukhnanan - Migrant Children Protected ([02:15], [71:13])
  Federal Judge Sukhnanan issued 15 orders in 24 hours to halt the secret deportation of 76 Guatemalan refugee children, restoring them to safety pending further review.
• Judge Charles Breyer - Posse Comitatus Violation ([02:15], [39:32])
  Judge Breyer found Trump violated the Posse Comitatus Act by using the military as a domestic police force, a historic first.
  • Quote: “A president attempting to create... an illegal federal police force with him as chief.” – Michael Popok, [02:15], referencing Judge Breyer
• Tariff Scheme Ruled Illegal ([02:15])
  D.C. federal Circuit overturned 2/3 of Trump’s tariffs as violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

---

Trump’s Political Fallout and Media Diversions

[07:21] Karen Friedman Agnifilo Analysis
Karen observes a pattern of Trump lashing out and creating distractions whenever the legal heat intensifies, highlighting the rise of health speculation and attempts to deflect with manufactured controversies (e.g., Epstein documents, health rumors, aggressive military actions).

• Quote: “It's funny that Donald Trump is losing a lot for somebody who doesn't like losers. Right? That's kind of his thing.” – Karen Friedman Agnifilo, [07:21]

[09:51] Hypocrisy on Health

• The hosts riff on the shift in Trump-world as even rightwing media begins to question his fitness, with discussion of the lack of transparency around his health and mounting public scrutiny.
• Quote: “We have... the worm has turned. Right?” – Michael Popok, [09:51]

---

Jeffrey Epstein Files: Survivors Demand Truth

[12:05] Epstein Survivors’ Press Conference

Karen provides a moving, firsthand recounting of a press conference by Epstein survivors, who demand full access to their personal files for healing and expose the ecosystem of enablers beyond direct abusers.

• Quote: “Their words were so powerful... They said there were others. And we're going to get together and compile our own list.” – Karen Friedman Agnifilo, [12:10]

Key Takeaways

• Survivors want unredacted files for themselves and public transparency.
• Emphasis on the role of enablers: bankers, lawyers, politicians, fixers.
  • Quote: “Those are the people that are contained in those files... That’s the list that I’m most interested in.” – Karen Friedman Agnifilo, [12:10]
• Political context: Bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act introduced; survivors threaten to name any member of Congress who votes against it.
  • Quote: “They also said... this is a bipartisan bill... They want to out every congressperson who votes against it.” – Karen Friedman Agnifilo, [18:11]
• Harsh criticism for Congress’ inaction and Trump’s about-face on survivor support.

---

Deep Dives into the Major Court Rulings

1. Harvard/First Amendment & Academic Freedom

[29:07, 31:39, 35:11]

• Judge Burroughs' ruling explicitly protects academic independence, finding Trump’s actions retaliatory and a violation of the First Amendment, with strong language critiquing both the administration and Supreme Court’s shadow docket.
  • Quote: “Defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country's premier universities.” – Judge Burroughs, summarized by Popok [35:11]
• Karen commends the decision’s footnotes for spotlighting the Supreme Court’s lack of clarity and for defending judicial responsibility.
• Broader theme: Trump’s continued attacks on public health and higher education are framed as strategic to undermine institutions that challenge his agenda.

2. Posse Comitatus Act Violation

[39:32, 43:01, 47:14, 51:10]

• Judge Breyer’s opinion is lauded for teaching constitutional history, drawing direct lines from the founding era to Trump’s efforts to use the military against civilians.
  • Quote: “Our founding fathers... saw the threat of a President King having a standing army...” – Michael Popok, [47:14]
• The ruling is cast as historic and chilling, warning of the dangers of a modern “federal police force.”
• The segment discusses appellate prospects, possible Supreme Court involvement, and implications for democratic guardrails.

3. FTC & Humphrey’s Executor Precedent

[59:35, 64:04]

• Trump’s efforts to reshape independent commissions were checked by affirming that the FTC remains protected from “at-will” firings, unless the Supreme Court itself overturns decades of precedent.
  • Quote: “We are not going to do your job for you, Supreme Court. If you don’t like Humphrey’s Executor and its application in this case, then you need to change it.” – Michael Popok, paraphrasing D.C. Circuit majority, [59:43]

4. Guatemalan Refugee Children – Judicial Heroism

[71:13, 72:39, 74:08]

• Judge Sparkle Sukhnanan’s emergency orders saved 76 children from deportation, with Karen poignantly describing the trauma inflicted and the judge’s humanity.
  • Quote: “Not all heroes wear capes. I would say some wear robes.” – Karen Friedman Agnifilo, [72:39]
• The segment spotlights her immigrant and DOJ background and raises concern as the case moves to a Trump appointee, Judge Tim Kelly, with uncertain prospects.
• Quote: “As a mother... what the terror that would be like for those children was just so unsettling and so upsetting...” – Karen Friedman Agnifilo, [72:39]
• Ends with an emotional plea for empathy and the need to shield children from political cruelty.

---

Institutional Accountability & Broader Implications

• Congressional Paralysis:
  The hosts repeatedly criticize Congress’ willingness to cede oversight, fail to act as a check on executive overreach, and undermine core democratic processes.

  • Quote: “Congress is a complete... dereliction of duty. Congress does not exist anymore as a check to this president.” – Karen Friedman Agnifilo, [67:25]

• Strategy for Democracy:
  Popok stresses the importance of fighting Trump in every courtroom, as the administration doesn’t appeal all losses and cracks under sustained pressure.

  • Quote: “When you pressure the Trump administration... he makes mistakes, and when he makes mistakes, it benefits the cases.” – Michael Popok, [74:08]

• Humanizing the Legal Battles:
  The episode closes on the plight of children and asylum, underscoring the intersection of law and humanity.

  • Quote: “Just leave the kids alone. You know, we're here to protect them. We're not here to hurt them.” – Karen Friedman Agnifilo, [79:54]

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “[This] is like an embarrassment of riches if you’re trying to hold Donald Trump accountable...” – Michael Popok, [05:20]
• “Watching Ghislaine Maxwell’s rehabilitation tour that Donald Trump’s been participating in...” – Michael Popok, [18:57]
• “These were young children... who were woken up in the middle of the night, pulled out of bed, terrified. There was testimony that some were vomiting in fear.” – Karen Friedman Agnifilo, [72:39]
• “He has to do all of this, all of this tambourine shaking to try to convince you that he’s not failing.” – Michael Popok, [39:32]
• “I really hope they get smacked in the midterms because that’s outrageous.” – Karen Friedman Agnifilo, [67:25]

---

Important Segments & Timestamps

• Legal victories rundown: [02:15 – 07:21]
• Epstein files and survivor activism: [12:05 – 18:53]
• Harvard ruling detailed analysis: [29:07 – 39:18]
• Posse Comitatus historic decision: [39:32 – 52:00]
• FTC and administrative law analysis: [59:35 – 67:25]
• Emergency response for refugee children: [71:13 – 77:25]
• Closing emotional appeals: [78:51 – 80:08]

---

Episode Tone & Language

The episode is candid, spirited, and occasionally irreverent, blending legal rigor with moral urgency. The hosts’ interplay mixes legal analysis with personal experience, human stories, and political commentary. There's humor, direct critique, and a constant undercurrent of advocacy for constitutional checks, institutional accountability, and the rights of the marginalized.

---

Final Thoughts

This episode provides a whirlwind, “embarrassment of riches” for the rule of law, documenting how persistent legal action and institutional resistance can check executive overreach—even in a fraught political landscape. The hosts urge continued vigilance from the courts, Congress, and the public, reminding listeners that the fight for democracy, justice, and compassion is ongoing and deeply personal.

---

Transcript

[Sponsor Announcer 1]

This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. When you visit the doctor, you probably hand over your insurance, your ID and contact details. It's just one of the many places that has your personal info and if any of them accidentally expose it, you could be at risk for identity theft. Lifelock monitors millions of data points a second. If you become a victim, they'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first [e-mail] podcast terms apply.

[Sponsor Announcer 2]

If you used Babbel, you would Babbel's conversation based techniques teaches you useful words and phrases to get you speaking quickly about the things you actually talk about in the real world. With lessons handcrafted by over 200 language experts and voiced by real native speakers, Babbel is like having a private tutor in your pocket. Start speaking with Babbel today. Get up to 55% off your Babbel subscription right now at babbel.com Spotify spelled B A B-B-E-L.com Spotify rules of restrictions may apply.

[Michael Popak]

Packages by Expedia.

[Sponsor Announcer 3]

You were made to occasionally take the.

[Michael Popak]

Hard route to the top of the Eiffel Tower.

[Sponsor Announcer 3]

We were made to easily bundle your.

[Sponsor Announcer 1]

Trip Expedia Made to travel flight Inclusive.

[Michael Popak]

Packages are ator protected.

[Sponsor Announcer 1]

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.

[Sponsor Announcer 3]

High interest debt is one of the toughest opponents you'll face unless you power up with a Sofi personal loan. A Sofi personal loan could repackage your bad debt into one low fixed rate monthly payment. It's even got super speed since you could get the funds as soon as the same day you sign. Visit sofi.compower to learn more. That's sofi.com p o w E R Loans originated By SoFi Bank NA Member FDIC Terms and conditions apply. NMLS 696891.

[Michael Popak]

Legal AF the podcast has begun. What an epic losing streak for Donald Trump. Karen There are four losses. No. 5 if you go back just eight days. Four in the last four days against the Trump administration. Because it's working. Because the wheels of justice turn slowly, but they grind. Fine. We came on the air to Harvard University winning on summary judgment in front of Judge Burroughs in Massachusetts to restore $2.2 billion worth of grants because she found in her words that antisemitism was being used as a smokescreen to violate the First Amendment rights of the most oldest and most prestigious university in America, Harvard University. Making us, this is gonna be a common theme for the Republicans at the midterm, making us less healthy and less safe. Because where do you think those grants were going? They weren't going into endowment, they weren't going into retirement funds. They were going into research. Research for the National Institute of Health, research for the cdc. I know we don't believe in those things anymore under RFK Jr. But they really do make people healthier. And so they have won. That's one. Let's just. We'll do the head, we'll do the count here, Karen. We'll do like a counter one, one. Federal Trade Commission. We had a ruling today in the D.C. appellate court finding two to one that Donald Trump can't just fire the only and lone remaining Democrat on the Federal Trade Commission because there's a case about the Federal Trade Commission and exactly that from 95 years ago called Humphreys executor. And in a two to one decision they reinstated Rebecca Slaughter to her position on the Federal Trade Commission. That was earlier today. That was going to be the lead story as we came on and then the Harvard thing came out right before we, we recorded our live today. That's two, three judge. She'll get the award for the best name of all time, Sparkle Soup Nadan, a judge that Biden appointed. I mean amazing judge, even though she's only been on the bench for a short amount of time. Took her 15 different orders over 24 hours to get 76 migrant children, children off of a plane where they were loaded at 1 o' clock in the morning. Nothing says I'm not doing anything wrong or unconstitutional like loading children accompanied by adults onto a plane in el Paso, Texas. Fifteen orders later, all 76 are present and accounted for back in the refugee resettlement program where they belonged instead of being sent off in the middle of the night or early morning hours to Guatemala. So we've got third loss, fourth loss. Posse Combatas anyone? So we finally got the ruling out of Judge Breyer. No, not that one. The brother of Supreme Court justice retired Stephen Breyer, Charles Breyer. After having a three day trial that we followed here, I might as touch networking on legal AF ruled that Donald Trump and the Trump administration and his Department of Defense violated the Posse Comitatus Act. But more, more to the point, he said what we are watching and he called it out as a finding is A president attempting to create and creating a federal, an illegal federal police force with him as chief. And he is calling it out. He issued his injunction. First time in our history a president has been, I wouldn't say convicted, has been adjudged to have violated the Posse Comitatus Act. That would have been the lead story if we didn't have these other ones. And then the fifth, which just is just outside the last week. But go back eight days or so, you've got the D.C. federal Circuit that rules that Donald Trump's 2/3 of his tariff scheme is completely, as we knew it, illegal under the International Emergency Economic Powers act and tore those down. That's just in the last eight days. And for those that think that we are on a loot, that we're losing because of the Supreme Court issue, the wins against Donald Trump have been accomplished by various groups in Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, District of Columbia Appellate Court, San Francisco Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Appellate Court. Five different courts have all ruled against Trump administration. I'm exhausted. I need my co anchor. Where's Karen Freeman? McNiffalo. Hey, Popak, what's going on? What is we created this thing called Legal AF a number of years ago and I remember we were scratching. Is there going to be enough to talk about? This is going to be interesting. Holy sh. But this is, as one of our editors said coming on the air today, this is like an embarrassment of riches if you're trying to hold Donald Trump accountable for being for his abuse of power, which of course we are. How are you?

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

I'm great. I'm great. You know, it's funny that Donald Trump is losing a lot for somebody who doesn't like losers. Right? That's kind of his thing. And he loses all the time in court and everywhere. It's fascinating. And yet he keeps going. So this can't be a good week for him. That, plus the fact that there's all this speculation about his health. And you've got J.D. vance coming out saying he's ready to be president. You've got Elon Musk who's stepping aside and no longer doing a third party. I don't know. Is he brokering some deal with Vance? Who knows? But this, this can't be a good week for Trump because there's a lot going on.

[Michael Popak]

And you know how you know it's not a good week for Trump? It's when he, what I call the wag, the dog moments when he starts a war. He bombs 11 people out of existence in the Caribbean waters, claiming that we're at war with Venezuela. So we had to bomb one of their warships. Apparently, when he drops, you know, his MAGA In Congress dropped 33,000 pages of stuff we've already seen about Epstein to try to stop what's happening in Congress, which is Republicans leading, led by people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Representative Massie trying to take a floor vote against Mike Johnson. So they have been trying to contain that Epstein scandal. And then while they were doing that unsuccessfully, because it's not contained, despite summer recess and all sorts of other things, then the health scandal scandal came up, which is who? I'll put it this way. When Pete Doocy from Fox has to form the following sentence, when did you learn you were dead, Mr. President? When he has to actually ask it that way. We have, we have, we have. The worm is turned. Right? And I love your JD Vance comment. JD Vance, he always finds a way. I mean, back in the day, Ann Richards, who used to be the governor of Texas, who passed, she had a great line for George W. Or George Bush. She said he was born with a silver foot in his mouth. J.D. vance has a way of making things infinitely worse.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Exactly.

[Michael Popak]

Whenever he's put in charge of something, like he was put in charge of getting rid of the Epstein scandal, and it became he tried to turn it on Joe Biden and it just blew up in his face. Now he's sent out to ensure everybody that Donald Trump is vim and vigor. Don't worry, he's robust. And instead he says, well, God forbid, I don't know what will happen, but I'm ready to step in.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Exactly.

[Michael Popak]

This is like the equivalent I said on one of my hot takes. This would be like if Lyndon Johnson, before JFK went to Texas on that fateful day, said, I don't know what's going to happen at the Texas School Book Depository, but if anything happens, I'm ready to become president. I mean, right?

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Yeah. No, it's true. I'm wondering, is Trump having someone taste his food for him before, you know.

[Michael Popak]

Looking over his shoulder and as Richard who's the guy that used to be Meet the Press or face Meet the Todd? What's his name, the guy that took over for one of my favorite longtime hosts? It'll come to me in a minute, he said. One of these reporters said out loud that they have nobody to blame but themselves. This has turned into a health crisis for Donald Trump, that we don't trust him about his health because of his attacks, merciless attacks on Joe Biden, because of his failure to release proper medical records about himself. We still haven't had anybody try. They still haven't pushed anybody in front of the microphone, you know, any kind of surgeon general or somebody from, you know, William, you know, what is it, Walter Reed Naval Hospital to say that Trump is in tip top shape. We can see with our own eyes that he's not. He's an 80 year old that may or may not have had an assassination attempt. Something hit his head, you know, eight or nine months ago, who's morbidly obese, whose only form of recreation besides eating McDonald's is having the Secret Service push his golf ball into holes while they drive him from hole to hole. He's not carrying his own bags. That's not exercise. He's not even finishing his own. His own round. So this guy could be on the precipice of a complete and utter health failure or maybe not. But the point is that he left open the door for us to talk about this and something that's important, like should we be exercising the 25th amendment? This guy seems to be completely failing before our very eyes. Legitimate questions, but made more legitimate by how Donald Trump handles it. And I don't think he did himself any favors. Did you see the press conference or read about the press conference today of the 10 Epstein victims?

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

I watched it. It was incredible. It was absolutely incredible.

[Michael Popak]

What was your takeaway? Talk about that.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

So I watched it because I'm obviously very interested, but I was surprised that I actually learned something or have a different perspective. First of all, I had goosebumps the whole time and I was practically in tears. I mean, they were so courageous, these survivors who came forward and told their story. I mean, it was. It's worth watching. I mean, you can do without the introductory politic and the lawyers who spoke. Just watch the survivors who spoke. Their words were so powerful and what they had to say was so meaningful. And what was really incredible, first of all, they were saying, I was 14 when this happened to me. I mean, 14. One of the women dropped out of school because she had to continue to service. She never went to high school. She had to consider continue to service. Jeffrey Epstein and when you just. These were babies, these were young girls. And what they said and what was interesting was sort of a perspective that I thought is really a reason to release all these files to them. They're like, we want the unredacted. I want my files. I want my unredacted files. Some of them have buried some of these horrific Memories as a survival tactic. And they're saying, I want to know what happened to me. I want to see what pictures you have of me. I want you to fill in the blank of what are the terrible things that happened to me. I know some of it, but I have blocked some of those memories out, and I need that for healing. And so they said, release everything to the public, but unredact it for us as individuals. I thought that was really compelling. The other thing I thought was really compelling is they said there was no list. That's not how they did business, that's not how Jeffrey Epstein did it. And they said, by and large, they mostly serviced him and Ghislaine Maxwell, and that's what they were required to do as children. But they said what we want, and they said there were others. And we're going to get together and we're going to compile our own list because we know who we had to deal with and who we had to service and who we were forced to do these horrific acts too, in addition. And they're going to get together and they're going to compile the list. So I thought that was the second thing that I thought was incredible that they're doing. And the third thing and the most compelling thing that I thought they said, which is a reason to release these files, was not necessarily other people who sexually abused these young children, but the people who enabled the behavior. They said there was cash, tons of cash that would be taken out of banks. And they literally gave a roadmap, they said, they said all the different agencies who had people in power who covered up and enabled this behavior, some of them went to the authorities and made a report, hoping they had the strength at the time, hoping that it would stop. It didn't stop. So who are these enablers that allowed this rich, powerful man to continue? Those are people who are in power. They're either wealthy or powerful people. And those are the people that are contained in those files. They're bankers, there's lawyers and fixers and politicians and celebrities and other billionaires. That's the list that I'm most interested in. Who are the enablers of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell? And that was the point that I thought they made that was so compelling. And they literally gave a roadmap, check this agency, check this agency, check these files, go to this government, and it's all there. And so I thought it was incredibly, incredibly compelling. And, and I'm. I thought it was a great thing that they did this press conference Today.

[Michael Popak]

And for those that kind of have forgotten, because we've been on the air for so long, you know, when Karen Freeman makes an observation about sex trafficking victims and rape victims like that, it takes on a whole different context for me. 30 year prosecutor number two in the Manhattan District Attorney's office. And you have a background in sex crimes prosecution, right?

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Yeah, yeah, that was, that's my. That was my background in sex crimes. And. And so I've heard a lot of stories, obviously, I've, I've sat with many survivors and shed tears with them. It takes a lot to move me at this point and to hear things that. That really still get under my skin. And this was one of them. I mean, I had tears in my eyes and I sat there like a chills, like I had chills up and down my arms thinking, I am so just in awe of their strength and their courage to come forward and tell their story and to continue. The thing that I can't, that really is so surprising to me is after all the years of being shut down and had this powerful man to get away with it, and no one believed them, that they still have the power and courage to come forward and the strength to come forward to tell their story and to do this. And they said they want to do this so that this doesn't ever happen again, that the enablers of these predators have to be exposed so that you can't. That other people won't be victimized by other powerful predators. So that, that just to me is. Shows a level of strength and courage that is incredible. And they also called out Trump, by the way. They said, you know, they thought Trump was on their side because during the run up to the election, he was calling for all these things, too. And he's like, they said, we don't understand what changed and why. He did a complete360. They're really disappointed by that. And, and interestingly, what they were announcing today was the introduction of a new bill. And the bill is about. I think, I think I wrote down what it was called.

[Michael Popak]

This is Massey and.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Yeah, exactly. They were, they were, they were writing down. They're calling for the release of all the files. And it's called the Epstein Files Transparency act, and it's to both release all the files and provide resources to victims. And they called on Trump directly and said, basically, they also said, and this is bipartisan. They said, this is a bipartisan bill. They had members of Congress from both sides standing there, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, and they specifically said every single. They want to out every congressperson who votes against it.

[Michael Popak]

And.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

And that's what they're going to do. Well, really powerful conference.

[Michael Popak]

The political cowardice that we've been watching on full display in contrast to the bravery of these victims who, who have to live with this their entire life. They're not doing it for fame. They're doing it to reclaim some measure of dignity. Watching Ghislaine Maxwell's rehabilitation tour that Donald Trump's been participating in. Even when Congress leadership on maga's side meets with them, it's always behind closed doors. You know, two hours. I'm not going to credit Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, because he met with them for two hours behind closed doors. I'll credit him when he brings that bill forward. Doesn't require a discharge motion with 218 signatures to make that happen. By continuing to point to the spoon feeding that's going on with the Oversight Committee committee, which is under the control ultimately of Donald Trump. That's what we're watching. We're just watching spoon feeding of America of the stuff. And of course they're going to avoid. I assure you in the 33,000 pages, 97% of which we've already seen, there's no mention of Donald Trump. And what caused the 180 degree turnaround that the victims, which I'm sure they said tongue in cheek, which is the fact that Donald Trump and his people have seen the entirety of the 30 gigabytes of the tractor trailer filled the mountain of evidence because that was all searched and scraped and, and reviewed by the FBI in the month of March so that in the month of May, Pam Bondi could tell Donald Trump, your name is lousy all over those files. That's what changed. That's why we'll never see each and every scrap of paper unless people like Representative Massie. I never thought I'd be saying these words. Representative Massey, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and Representative Mo Khanna. Ro Khanna, sorry. And their bill gets passed. Otherwise we're just going to be given as little as possible to see if they can put an end to the Epstein scandal. It hasn't worked so far. Taking recession and avoiding it and hoping that the arrow would get taken out of the ball. Related to the Epstein scandal did not work. Donald Trump continuing to. And he just did it today after he had an opportunity to embrace these victims, get back on their side and get on the right side, not the hump side of this issue. And what did he do? He attacked the Epstein victims again and said it's fake news. And let's talk about something else as he generates fake news to avoid talking about all of his court losses and all of the courts holding him accountable, which we're going to talk about here. One of the things I wanted that when we come back from our break, we'll talk about kind of a speed round. We'll talk about the win for Harvard and for First Amendment speech and for our institutions of higher education. The courage of a judge like Judge Breyer to rule for the first time in history that a president has violated the Posse combatant, which we talk about it in shorthand, but it simply stands for the proposition that a president of the United States cannot use a standing army or the might of the US Military on domestic soil for civilian law enforcement purposes. They can't turn the turrets of the tanks and turn them towards the American people or people on domestic soil. And that has been a touchstone of our democracy since the Declaration of Independence, as noted by Judge Breyer. But he had to make a declaration that just shows you how rogue and immoral this presidency is. We'll talk about the Posse Combata SAC ruling, which is historic. Talk about the ruling just a few hours ago by the two to one panel of the D.C. court of Appeals or the U.S. district Court, the appellate court for the D.C. court reinstating Rebecca Slaughter to be the only Democrat on the Federal Trade Commission and their challenge and their rebuke of their bosses at the United States Supreme Court. I'll leave it at that. We'll get into it in more detail. And then we'll talk about how the 600 children who are now in a class or putative class of Guatemalans who were here for refugee status and had that attempted to be revoked by Donald Trump without due process, how that was stopped by Judge Sukh Nanan. But we'll also explain why Judge Sukhnathan is no longer in the case and it's been reassigned to Judge Kelly, who was a, who was a Trump, who was a Trump appointee. And what could be the differences now that a Trump appointee has been appointed to the case? But now we got to take a break to sort of, I don't want to say pay bills. That sounds pretty crass. But talk about how you can support Legal AF and Midas Touch. And I'll run through the list. Legal af, the podcast, which is which has always had your fervent support. And we are so appreciative of our audience and their commitment to us. And, and it makes this job easier. I'LL put it that way. We're top 15 in all YouTube podcasts. We're top 50 or so in audio versions of this podcast. But we need your help. So if you're a watcher, go download and listen on Spotify and Apple and the like and vice versa that leave comments, leave reviews and 5 star reviews and all that good stuff. That that is one way. Then we've got things devoted to the Legal AF ecosystem. There's a whole community that we've built from the podcast on legal F, the YouTube channel that I curate. Got about a dozen contributors there. We're about to hit 250 million views of our work in less than a year. That's all. You know, I'm doing the content side, but that's all because of you. And we appreciate you become a free member there. No paywall, no outside investors, no no corporate parent. Just us. So that's the way. And then from that it spawned a new thing. Legal A after substack where we now have about 80,000 subscribers in less than three months. And we are doing I'm doing lives there on a regular basis twice a day where I can put people together in a huddle of three to 4,000 people. We can talk about an issue in real time along with reporting and videos and commercial free versions of this podcast. All that good stuff is over on Legal AF Substack. So come over there and become a subscriber and if you can swing it, a paid subscriber. That's another way to support what we do. And then we've got our pro democracy advertisers and sponsors that are all about our audience and us. We curate these things. Jordy helps us with the brothers and these are these are sponsors that want to speak to our audience and products that we endorse because we've tried them, we like them, and the rest. So let's take a break. For our sponsors, 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 made sheets are inspired by NASA and use silver infused fabrics that are temperature regulating so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long. Using silver infused fabrics inspired by NASA, Miracle Mate 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 try miracle.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 purchase 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 Legal AF 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 LegalAF to treat yourself thank you Miracle May for sponsoring this episode.

[Sponsor Announcer 4]

This episode of Legal AF is brought to you by Moink Box. Did you know four companies control over 80% of the US meat industry and that the largest share of US pork.

[Michael Popak]

Is now controlled by China?

[Sponsor Announcer 4]

These meat giants use mobster like tactics to crush American family farms, flooding our food supply with sketchy additives and low quality meat. So what can you do about it? Here's where Moink comes in. Featured on Shark Tank Moink is standing up for family farms and your food security. Their meat comes from animals raised outdoors like nature intended. Their farmers get an honest day's pay and Moink delivers straight to your doorstep at a price you can actually afford. This is real American meat born, raised and harvested right here in the usa. Moink is helping save rural America. I love it and you will too. Join the Moink movement today. Support American family Farms and join the Wait for it Moink movement today at moinkbox.com/legal af right now and get free bacon for a year. That's one year of the best bacon you'll ever taste, but only for a limited time. Spelled M O I n k box.com legal a that's mikebox.com legal af welcome.

[Michael Popak]

Back to legal af the podcast. Got a speed round coming up all because we got to cover all the losses that Donald Trump and his administration have suffered in the last four days. Harvard Posse Comitatus, Federal Trade Commission and 600 children who were almost removed in the middle of the night without due process. Not even an adult on board the planes. We're going to Cover it all right here. Thank you. Welcome back and thank you for our pro democracy sponsors and all the different ways we've gone over for you to support us. Kara, let's kick it off with Harvard and what happened there. So Judge Burroughs, who's been on this case as a federal judge of Massachusetts for like, five months now, we've already gone through and covered all of her temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and now we're going to talk about her summary judgment, which mean. Which means game, set, match against the Trump administration for cutting $2.2 billion worth of research grants. I want to make sure everybody understands these are research grants to help the American people. Because Donald Trump, under a, as the judge called it, a smokescreen of combating anti Semitism, decided they wanted to do a hostile takeover of Harvard. Tell them who they can hire, who they can tenure, what they can teach, who they can admit in. And Harvard said, go legal AF yourself. I mean, in their own Harvard style, a lot of veritas, which is their motto, a lot of truth and stand up and fight. And led by a very courageous president and Alan Garber. And finally, after winning every round, it came time for the summary judgments. Trump administration filed summary judgment, saying they should win. The Harvard said we should win on. On their end of their case is premised. Their case was premised on our First Amendment rights have been violated, who we can hire, who we can fire, what we can teach. They're being violated in retaliatory fashion and vindictive fashion by the Trump administration under the guise of anti Semitism. What they really don't like is our commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion. They don't like what we teach. And they're claiming it's because we have a poor record of trying to handle antisemitism on campus, a lot of which happened after Hamas attacked Israel. And the judge took a look at all of this, Karen. Right. And came up with her own conclusions in reinstating the grants. Why don't you take it from there?

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Look, she basically, well, she could have just ruled against the government and ruled in favor of Harvard, but she went on this very, very long description about why she was ruling, what she was ruling in her decision. And I thought it was really powerful. Powerful. She said, we have to fight against antisemitism and protect our rights, including the right of free speech, and neither goal should be sacrificed on the altar of the other. And so she basically said, look, the court's job is to step up and safeguard academic freedom, freedom of speech, and ensure that important Research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations or risk the wrath of the government, no matter the cost. I mean, pretty powerful language in there. My favorite part of the decision. Decision was one of the footnotes. I always love footnotes. That's where you kind of get some really powerful language sometimes. She basically said, look, the court is mindful of the Supreme Court in certain other agreements that basically. Certain other decisions. Sorry. That basically says, look, the court is not free to defy the Supreme Court decisions, and we're duty bound to respect the hierarchy of the federal court system. Okay? And she acknowledges that, but she says, consistent with these obligations, this court, like all district courts, are trying to follow the Supreme Court's ruling, no matter how misguided it may think that it is. And she said the Supreme Court's recent emergency docket rulings regarding grant terminations have not been models of clarity and have left many issues unresolved. And this is. She's sort of calling out this shadow docket, right? Because when you go on these emergency shadow docket rulings that the Trump presidency basically is. It's what's enabling the Trump presidency to do all these things that they're doing. What happens is they don't fully brief the issues. There's no oral argument. There's no presentation of both sides. And then there's no sort of decision. Right. There's no merits decision by the Supreme Court. Instead, they're getting these couple of paragraph rulings from the Supreme Court on issues that aren't fully briefed. And the problem with that, what she's saying is you're not giving any guidance to the district courts. And so we're trying to interpret this mess, this soupy mess that you're creating Supreme Court by making all these shadow docket rulings that are really not based in doctrinal law or precedent. So she kind of goes on to say that she talks about some of the recent grant decisions and grant termination cases and trying to make sense of them. But she says, given this, the court respectfully submits that it is unhelpful and unnecessary to criticize district courts for, quote, defying the Supreme Court when they are working to find the right answer in a rapidly evolving doctrinal landscape where they must grapple with both existing precedent and interim guidance from the Supreme Court that appears to set that precedent aside without much explanation or consensus. That was a direct. That was a direct message to the Supreme Court basically saying, you're not being helpful here. You got to give us some guidance because, because you're, you're basically lawless. And so we're trying to follow the law and follow what you say, but you're not really spelling it out. So I thought it was a really powerful decision.

[Michael Popak]

Oh, absolutely. I'll just read one. And consistent with that, I'll read one thing that she says in her conclusion on page 79 where she, she just spent 20 pages using Donald Trump's own words against him. Like, in other words, I'll give the summary. Don't tell me this is about anti Semitism, that, you know, there's anti Semitism that needs to be better handled on campus. I agree. There's research grants that have zero to do with combating anti Semitism. It's not like they're doing research on, it's not like, you know, during the Holocaust when they were doing research on Jews and we needed to cut the funding because it's, it's anti Semitic in the, in the, the style of their research. There's no link between the two things. What you're really doing is you're taking away their money to penalize at higher education institution because you don't like their viewpoint, you don't like their First Amendment views, and that's exactly what you cannot do. And she pointed to all the places where for about, about 10 weeks straight, Donald Trump didn't talk about in his bashing of Harvard, which became the evidence in the case, didn't talk about on his social media. You know, I'm taking the money away in order to get to fight anti Semitism. He said it's about their left woke, you know, bird brain faculty teaching, you know, teaching students to fail. It was all about their viewpoint, what they're teaching their curricula, not about the research grant. So he screwed himself providing evidence of the, of the discrimination, the First Amendment discrimination, in his own social media post. But this is now like the 12th judge who's been able to use or more that's been able to use Donald Trump's own words against him as evidence. Here's what she says to end the, to end the decision after she goes through the fact that there is anti Semitism on campus. That said, there is in reality little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism. In fact, a review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country's premier universities. Because it's not just Harvard. It's Duke, it's Columbia, it's Princeton, it's ucla, it's Berkeley. It's. He's gone after. You know, there's a. There's a guy. I'm gonna do a hot take on him one day. There's a guy within the administration that is their guy to. To go after, quote, unquote, these woke universities. He's almost like the Laura Loomer of. Of the education police for Donald Trump. And they're just following his list. So it's not. She knows it's not just about Harvard, but she said. But to do so, in a way is a smokescreen for targeted ideologically motivated assault on the universities in a way that runs afoul of the Administrative Procedures act, the First Amendment and Title 6. Further, their actions have jeopardized decades of research. Think about that. They were in the middle of research that had to be ended because the grants were taken away. And the welfare of all those who could stand to benefit from that research as well as reflect a disregard for the rights protected by the Constitution. And what is it with this administration? It's the worst administration I've ever seen in history against public health. Between RFK Jr. Who's about to get run out on a rail from this town and what he's done to destroy public health as the chief public health official, and the attack on ripping away these grants to make us less. Well, this is what's on the agenda, I think, Karen. Health. Not just the president's failing health, but the failing health of America caused by Donald Trump and of course his economy are all gonna be fair game for the Democrats to bring to the attention of the American people coming into the midterms. Right?

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Yep, totally. We'll see. I mean, you're 100% right.

[Michael Popak]

This is what we have to use. So we got. I mean, I was joking earlier today on something else where I said if people were wondering what a failed presidency looks like, this is it.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Yeah.

[Michael Popak]

You know, and he has to do all of this, all of this tambourine shaking to try to convince you that he's not failing. And the more he does it, the more he's failing. You know, and I'm trying to think of what is the constituency that is turned on and ignores everything about his administration by. We bombed 11 people out of existence today without due process in international waters. Who is this group that is buying the 33,000 pages of nonsense that was released to try to deflect from the Epstein scandal?

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

I mean, how did. How did Alex Jones's Infowars get to be so popular. How did Laura Loomer get to who she is? I mean, it's there.

[Michael Popak]

They love a conspiracy.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Yeah, I mean, they love it. It's crazy.

[Michael Popak]

Even Nick Fuentes, who's a white nationalist of the first order and maga, maga to the extreme, hung out at Mar a Lago with Donald Trump. Even he and his podcast said something's going on with Donald Trump's health. Even it got to him because they're getting obviously bored with the Epstein scandal, so they need to move on to some other shiny object. And now they're moving on to maybe he is dying. Well, obviously he's dying, but as we all are. But dying faster than others, let's just put it that way. So Harvard, it's a win, and I think it's also a win and gives them tremendous leverage now to push back against Donald Trump, who just last week in his, in his high chair was saying, I want $500 million. I want $500 million from Harvard. And. Yeah, well, I have a toddler, so I like, I like using that imagery. I want 500. He's not going to get $500 million, not with this major win for Harvard. And I was wondering what was happening to those negotiations I heard about. I think they were waiting to see what Judge Burroughs was going to do. They knew they were going to win with her. So it's off to the First Circuit, where there'll be likely another win. They're not going to vote against the hometown team of Harvard, I assure you. And then it's off to the United States Supreme Court, where a lot of those judges went to Harvard, including Chief Justice Roberts and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who's a double crimson and whatever they call it there. So we're gonna see, and this is gonna end up there sooner rather than later, you know, because they need the money to do all that great welfare, social welfare stuff and public health stuff. Let's move on, Karen, to Posse Comitatus. You've got Judge Breyer, the brother of the Supreme Court justice, retired Stephen Breyer, who had a three day trial and issued a ruling with a lot of courage and even took on the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against him on an earlier related matter about whether Donald Trump could federalize or commandeer the National Guard, the state's National Guard in California. This is the case, for those that are wondering literally, of Trump versus Gavin Newsom. And I just had Rob Bonta, the Attorney General for California, on the day that this decision came out. And you can come over to Legal AF substack and see the interview. Amazing interview we had. We'll put the put it down in notes so you can find it here on tonight's podcast. But he was very proud, of course, of what he was able to accomplish because the judge effectively adopted all of the Attorney General's arguments. So what did you take away from the ruling, the injunction, the stay of it for a period of time. But tell brief our audience about what this means and what it means going forward.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Yeah. So this was a great decision also because it talks about the history and the founding of this country and what this country, how it came about and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And most court decisions don't read like this. These are written for the ages. These are written so that people can understand and really get an explainer about sort of they know that this is going to be watched by many and commentated on by many. And so they really take the time. And this is another example of that, of really teaching the history of this country and really basically said, look, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were a reaction. They weren't created in a vacuum. And they were a reaction to the fact that we came from England, we came from a king, and they wanted to create separate but equal branches of government without this powerful king. In fact, they made Article 2 be the president, not Article 1. And part of what they were reacting to was the colonies, the original 13 colonies had British military troops patrolling it. And they did not want that. That was something that they were reacting to. And so it was created as a way to kind of say, look, the police function is going to be with the states. It's not going to be this federalized thing. Okay, so that was that. Then fast forward 100 years later, you have slavery and reconstruction, and you had basically, you had military in the south that was preventing newly enfranchised people of color, you know, former slaves, from voting. And they passed the Posse Comitatus Act, Congress passed it essentially to ensure that black people and former slaves now can vote and that the military is not going to be used against them. And it was just really, when you hear that history and you see how that has been the case for so many years, it's almost 100 years later. And yet here we are. You have the government you have of Trump trying to turn the military on its people under the guise of, oh, we're just protecting federal property, and we're allowed to protect federal property. And the judge here basically said, look, and it was Interesting, because he had people testify from the military at this trial, and the military people who testified were very much, were very clear about what they're allowed to do and what they're not allowed to do. And they were taking the interpretation of whether what they were doing was in violation of the Posse Comitatus act from above, from Pete Hegseth and from this administration. But these were, you can tell these were heroes, frankly. These are the men and women who sign up to serve this country and they stand by the fact that they are here to serve this country and not to enforce laws. But they kind of had the wool pulled over their head and were told that they were allowed to do basic things like enforcement and things like that, which they're really not allowed to do. And you know, they actually had a list of things that you're not allowed to do, but then they highlighted some of them in red, basically saying, oh, but you can do these four. And the judge said, no, no you can't. That's actually not allowed. And the posse, you are in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. And I think that was huge. It was really a great decision. And again, Talked about Marbury vs Madison, which is one of foundational cases in our country that says that courts can interpret laws and that, you know, that the President isn't all powerful and that the court is interpreting the law here. And basically you can't do that. It was a resounding, resounding victory for California.

[Michael Popak]

What this case is about is the fact that our founding fathers from the Declaration of Independence, saw the threat of a President King having a standing army that he could use domestically to enforce his power and flex his muscle. And it literally, you know, I rarely see, as you said, it was written for the ages. I rarely see a court order that references language from the Declaration of Independence, our founding document, in or in one of our founding documents, in order to make the point, which is that was the problem with the colonies is that King George had these roving bands of British army troops who were lawless and were not responsive to a civilian authority and certainly not to the Americans colonists that were there running roughshod over their civil liberties, which were really non existent. And, and for those around the world that join us, we have a tremendous following all around the world. 140 countries, plus Canada, Australia, first two among them, you know, who were, who were interested and intrigued by this thing we call the American experiment. And we're still trying to get it right, as you can tell, and, and, and not. And not end it. And so the R US Military, we don't have, we're not supposed to have, as in other countries, like in Latin America and Central America and dictatorships, federales, federal troops on the streets. We have a federal system where law enforcement, civilian law enforcement is in the hands of the state and subdivisions of the state, like municipalities and cities. That's what sheriffs and cops are for. That stands in contrast to the US Military, which is outward, supposed to be outward looking. And Donald Trump has blurred those lines to create, as Judge Breyer said, a national federal police force with him as the chief. And that's a scary chill down your back moment because that's a federal judge calling out for everyone to see what's happening, not just in D.C. but what's being threatened in Chicago, in Philadelphia, what happened in California and throughout the country with Donald Trump trying to scare the crap out of America and bend to his power by having his own, his own paramilitary force. And there's different components of it, right? There's the, there's ice, there's Border Patrol, there's the FBI, there's the takeover of the National Guard in blue states and red states, volunteering to give Donald Trump a standing army. And that's what the Judge Breyer is fighting against. And he said, I looked at the statute it talks about. I can, I can issue fines and I can find people in criminal violation. I'm going to make a declaration and I'm going to do an injunction with my inherent authority. And, and he also then spent a lot of time chastising the 9th Circuit for allowing Donald Trump to federalize the National Guard. And he gave a series that I went over these with, with, with Attorney General Banta. I almost said, Governor Bata, it'll be Governor Banta someday, trust me. Or he'll be the Attorney General of the United States if Gavin Newsom becomes president. And he would, he would be a fine Attorney General for the United States if that were to happen. But there were these scenarios where he said, what's to stop a president based on the ruling, the murky ruling of the ninth Circuit about the National Guard. What's to stop him? And then he had this one example on, on anecdotal evidence or, or lies about voter fraud. What's to stop the president from using the National Guard to interfere with an.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Election and seize voting machines?

[Michael Popak]

Yeah, he didn't say that. Yeah, that's, that's where it goes. Sees voting machines, seize ballots, end voting, end mail in voting, end absentee voting. He gave Other examples, but that's the one he ended with that I was like chilling, prophetic, hopefully not about what this president could do. What he wants is he wants the 9th Circuit, when they get this case back, to fix the problem by putting limits. This is something that he said over and over again in the trial. What are the limits? I am struck by the, the Trump administration telling me there are no limits to this power and this takeover. So he set the guardrails and he set the limits. Now it's going back to the ninth Circuit.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Will they get a new panel or the same panel?

[Michael Popak]

So it's funny you said that AG Bhatta said he thinks it could 50, 50, it may go to a new panel. I joked with him and I said, I'd like a new panel. He goes, I'd like a new panel. He said, but if we get the same panel, then fine, it could go on bonk, meaning all 20 or so in the 9th Circuit eventually. But it'll be, this will be the case that eventually gets to the Supreme Court, who's been sitting on the sidelines because they haven't had any appellate case in front of them to rule in anything. But they are going to have to make a ruling for the first time since 1789 or whatever it was about the effing Posse Comitatus act and a president violating it with this. And you know, we got maga, maga right wing Supreme Court justices that think the president can do no wrong. You know, he's got all the power now. We'll see what happens about the limits of that power as we move forward. So we're going to talk about the two. Well, really one remaining thing. I want to talk about Judge Sparkle suknanen and the 600 children and what happened there and the Federal Trade Commission and the ruling there by the, by the D.C. appellate Court and why it matters. We'll cover all of that. But we're going to take one final break here on Legal af. The ways to support our channel and our podcast is to help us with the views and the downloads, which keeps us at the top of the charts, which keeps this content coming to you, signals to us that you want this content, makes us work harder to continue to deliver it. That's the way you do it. So pick us up. Just put in Legal AF in Spotify and in Apple and there will be. Some people only know us from the audio. Some people never realized we were on YouTube. The YouTubers didn't realize we're on audio. We need to put those two groups together and continue to raise organically our, by word of mouth, our audience, Legal AF YouTube, come over there. About 10 videos, new videos every day, about every hour at the intersection of law and politics. Some fascinating analysis with people that you've heard of or some that you haven't heard of that I curate for everybody over on Legal AF, the YouTube channel, and a companion Legal AF substack as well, which is growing beyond my wildest dreams. It forces me with great enthusiasm to get on and do lives at 10 o' clock at night where I get two or three thousand people together and then the video goes up after that to just talk about issues that have just happened. Things are happening, you know, Memorial day, Monday and 3 o' clock in the morning on Saturday with this administration and we gotta be there for it. So Legal AF substack is the way to do it. And then finally, for those that I think know this, I formed a new law firm called the Popoc Firm about a year ago where I'm focused on something that really helps our Midas touch and Legal AF community, which is catastrophic personal injuries. That could be motor vehicles, that could be rideshare, Lyft and Uber. That could be truck, tractor, trailer. Anything on the motor vehicle side that has turned your life or somebody, your life's life upside down, including unfortunately, wrongful death, that kind of personal injury, medical malpractice, civil rights violations of an extraordinary degree. Any of the kind of, you know, kind of big cases that need law lawyers around the country that I've assembled who have recovered $5 billion in their total verdicts for all of their cases. Then you're going to want to contact the Popoc firm. And it's easy. We made it easy for you. There's a 1-800-number 1877, Popoc AF. And there's a live person on the other side of that that will help screen and do a free case evaluation. Or you can go to the website, which is the Popoc firm dot com. And now we've got our sponsors and our last word from our sponsors. So let's take our break.

[Sponsor Announcer 4]

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 every day, 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 A F again if you're 21 or older, check out [e-mail] and use code legalaf to get 15% off free shipping over $100 plus your free gift when you're new Please support our show and tell them that we sent you. Enhance your everyday with via if you've.

[Michael Popak]

Been noticing hair loss, thinning or shedding lately, you have to hear this. The scientists at One Skin have developed a scalp serum called OS one Hair that targets the dysfunctional aging cells that cause hair loss. In clinical studies, participants saw an average average 40% increase in hair density after six months and in a consumer perception study, 75% noticed new hair growth after just three months. As someone who's tried one skin before, I can say the results are impressive. I wasn't sure what to expect at first, but the lightweight water like texture makes it so easy to use and it doesn't interfere with styling at all. I personally noticed my hair feeling fuller and healthier and seeing baby hairs start to grow around my hairline was a pleasure pleasant surprise for those familiar with one skin. You know their patented OS1 peptide is scientifically proven to target aging at the cellular level. It's what powers their skin and sun care. Now it's targeting age related hair loss and thinning and customers are loving it. One Skin is the world's first skin longevity company and by focusing on cellular aging they help your hair and your skin look and act younger for longer. For a limited time, try OS1 hair and get 15% off your first first 3 months supply with code legal AF at OneSkin co. That's 15 off at.

[Sponsor Announcer 4]

OneSkin co with code legalAF.

[Michael Popak]

After you purchase they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support the show and tell them we sent you. Welcome back. We're in the home stretch of Legal AF with Michael Popak and Karen Friedman Agnifolo two last cases to tie together. This is all this week, Pop, by the way, for those that are joining late, this isn't like, oh, Polak and Kara are talking about like, like a month's worth. This is like an administration's worth of cases. No, this is this week. So we, we just went through the Harvard case. We went through the things related of course to the Epstein matter. We talked about the Posse Comitatus case. We got two left. Federal Trade Commission and the 600 children. It's a pick em for Karen. Karen, which one do you want to do first?

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Let's do the FTC Commissioner first and we'll end with the children because.

[Michael Popak]

Yeah, that's a good way to end.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

That's a powerful one to end on.

[Michael Popak]

Yeah, agreed. So Federal Trade Commission, interesting one, right? Karen, we've talked for a long time, more than I ever thought I would have to, about a 1935 case called Humphreys Executor. I've been doing videos on Humphrey's executor, I feel like since 1935, which stands for the proposition or stood for the proposition, that at least when it comes to the Federal Trade Commission and I think the Federal Reserve also Donald Trump can't fire commissioners in a structure created by Congress without a for cause reason. He can't just fire them. And even the for cause has to be a limited for cause has to be like something they did on the job, job or not did on the job. And Donald Trump, that stands in contrast to things like the National Labor Relations Board and the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board and other agencies where the the Supreme Court said, yeah, Humphreys Executor doesn't apply because they set up a scale. The more an agency or a commission exerts presidential executive power, the less, the less the Congress can control what the President does with the people's employment on those commissions or agencies. So that if they exert a lot of executive power, you can't limit the President's ability to fire them in any way. If they exert a little and not as much so it's at scale, then a President has to abide by what Congress wants, which is a four cause termination that came up in a case from 1935 involving a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. I mean Humphreys was a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. Rebecca Slaughter, who's fighting for her job now, just got reinstated, is a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. And what the argument for the Trump administration is is that the Federal Trade Commission today is so powerful and so different than in 1935 that it now is using up more and expending more executive power and therefore Trump should be able to fire it. Well, the counter argument to that is the Federal Trade Commission has been doing the same thing one way or the other for like the last 95 years and certainly for the last 20 years. And every time the the Supreme Court touches Humphrey's executor, they leave it standing and they know what the Federal Trade commission is today versus then. So they obviously agree. But here's how the three judges, or two of the three judges on the D.C. panel, Millet Pollard and in dissent, Rao the Trumper. The 2 to 1 decision, which was powerful for me because there was a line on it where they effectively challenged the United States Supreme Court in a couple of different ways. They said, first of all, Humphrey's executor is exactly. Rebecca Slaughter in this case is on all fours, as we say in the law. It's directly on point. It's the same agency and the same position. So you've told us this is my artist rendering of their decision. You've told us that we, as appellate court judges and district court judges below you, Supreme Court cannot avoid the application of precedent. We can't change precedent at the Supreme Court level. Only the Supreme Court level can do that. Okay. Humphrey's executor is still on the books. You did not remove it, you did not take it away as it relates to the Federal Trade Commission. So it is the extant precedent that we need to apply. You've told us that the fact that you've chipped away in various emergency shadow dockets back to that shadow docket that you referenced before, Karen, at things like the National Labor Relations Board and the, and the Marriage Service Protection Systems Protection Board allowing Donald Trump to fire, that is those were on procedural, non substantive grounds. And you haven't reversed Humphrey's executor. We are not going to do your job for you. I mean, that's barely a paraphrase, you Supreme Court. If you don't like Humphreys executor and its application in this case, then you need to change it. But we are going to rule consistent with it that she gets her job back. How did you take the order and the ramifications of it moving forward?

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Yeah, I mean, look, it was just, it was a reminder that the ftc, when it was created by Congress, was supposed to be bipartisan and it's supposed to be five commissioners. No more than three are members of the same political party. They're nominated for seven year terms. They're supposed to be cross administrations. I mean, and that's not for all agencies. Right. But there's certain agencies like, like the Federal Reserve, that when they were established, they wanted to be above politics. They wanted to be putting the American people first, putting science first, putting data first, putting information first instead of just politics and ideology. And Trump has tried to fire two of the Democrats. One of them decided to resign, but this one, Ms. Slaughter, decided to fight it. And she's won, at least for now. And I think it's just a good reminder of a, what Trump is trying to do and run roughshod over our institutions. And I'm grateful that she's fighting back and we'll see what they say. But as you said, this notion, this doctrine that the Humphreys executor case created so long ago is still in existence. And let the Supreme Court continue to do Trump's bidding for him if they want. But, but the, I'm happy to see that the lower courts aren't doing that.

[Michael Popak]

And she got her job back. I mean, Trump doesn't like it. Oh, she's fired. She's not. She's been reinstated and she's, and she's already posted on her own social media that she's happily back at work doing the job. The sad part is because he fired both the Democrats. So there was no, there was no, there was no. What's the word I'm looking for? No. No other rationale than politics. He fired only the two Democrats, leaving three Republicans, one Democrat. He went off and got a private sector job. So he didn't fight for his job back, leaving only one Democrat. It's supposed to be no party having more than whatever amount of seats, but it's not supposed to be just four seats and three of them Republican for various very good reasons. I'm so sick and tired of the Supreme Court interfering with Congress when Congress sets up and woe be Congress the next time they set up an agency or commission thinking that they'll be able to control the Supreme Court in how they set their rules. I'm so tired of the Supreme Court taking out a big red pen or a blue pencil and saying this delicately balanced commission thing and agency thing that the Congress created as an executive agency and then turn it over to the President. Oh, now all those requirements and limitations and restrictions, we're getting rid of those. Well, maybe Congress would not have created the commission or the agency had they known that the Supreme Court was going to get rid of all of the protections that they built into it. Anybody ever think of that, that maybe they would like to get their agency back and their commission back? And certainly, I think an argument that should have been made and could be made in the future is this is going to have a chilling effect on future Congress's willingness to set up commissions and agencies for the protection of the American people for fear that the Supreme Court is going to rewrite the statutory scheme. I've never seen that argued. I just argued it here. I liked it.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Congress is a complete. Has completely. It's like a dereliction of duty. Congress does not exist anymore as a check to this president. They are not over and over again, they're not doing their job and they're not forcing any issues. They're just kind of like, Trump's gonna get away with it. I'm gonna support it. And I was reading today there was an article, I think it was in the New York Times, where Laura Loomer of all people, stopped Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who's the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and he's a long serving member of that panel. He was going to go visit an agency I didn't even know existed, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. And this is under the Pentagon. It's highly classified. He has oversight over this agency. And Laura Loomer got wind of it through Tulsi Gabbard and as a result, they canceled his visit there. It was supposed to be classified. It wasn't supposed to be public. No one was supposed to know about it. This is what they do. They go and they're supposed to have oversight. They're supposed to see what's happening. And now what they're basically saying is, gee, sorry, we're taking away the oversight capability of, of the, of Congress and we're just going to do what we want in the intelligence community. I mean, it's just bananas. And Congress just is going along with it. They're just these willing participants and they're not doing their job. And I really hope they get smacked in the midterms because that's outrageous. You know, they're supposed to be separate but equal branches of government.

[Michael Popak]

There's not even time to talk about other things with the 5th Circuit just destroy the National Labor Relations Board coming into Labor Day saying that its entire existence, the way it regulates workplace grievances and other attacks on, on employees, is, is unconstitutional, that that's the Fifth Circuit, and which will end up back at the United States Supreme Court. So let's turn to and end the show with the plight of 600 Guatemalan children in a refugee resettlement program. I mean, the Statue of Liberty must be spinning on its, on its axis that we are rejecting through the Trump administration, spreading our wings of freedom that was used to protect children like this who don't want to be and their parents don't want them to be in Guatemala for obvious reasons, because their own lives there, you know, being subjected to torture and other things. These kids were sent here much the way that a group of Cubans were sent here in the 1960s in the Peter Pan movement to bring children, sometimes unaccompanied, over to the United States for refugee resettlement. But because these are Guatemalan children and Donald Trump wants to get rid of anybody who is black or brown, I guess he put them on a plane, he revoked their refugee status without due process. Stop me if you've heard this before, everybody. He put them on a plane at one o' clock in the morning to send them back to Guatemala, announcing that he was doing, get this, talk about Orwellian. A family reunification program, pilot program is what they called it in court. It gets. Once the planes are up and running, immigration rights groups spring into action. They file a lawsuit within 58 minutes in federal court. When you do that, you get assigned an emergency duty judge who happened to be Sparkle Sukhnanan, who herself was a Horatio Alger story up from her bootstraps, is an immigrant who came from Trinidad and Tobago, who got honors and everything she ever accomplished in academia, had top jobs, top leadership positions in the Department of Justice under Joe Biden. Biden, including in the civil Rights division, was an appellate lawyer in the Civil Rights division, was in a major law firm in Washington and was appointed by Biden. At the end, she was assigned she because she was the emergency duty judge. She picked up the phone at 3:30 in the morning, Karen, as soon as she got assigned the case and started calling the Department of Justice and got no answer. Remember that old political ad, what's, you know, who do you want picking up the phone at three o' clock in the morning? You know, this presidential candidate or this one, nobody picked up the phone. She said her hearings and then we're off on 15 separate orders by this judge over the course of a single day, Labor Day Sunday, to force the Trump administration to get 76 of those children that were actually on the planes, off the planes and back into custody of the Refugee resettlement program and then certified, or at least temporarily certified, created a putative class of 600 similarly situated Guatemalan children who are on that plane, you know, remind everybody unaccompanied, in order to make sure that they get the due process that they deserve. That's what happened. But then we've got a development that happened next. Why don't you pick up from what you observed in the case and then we'll talk about the assignment now of Judge Kelly to the case.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Yeah, I mean, look, not, not that saying not all heroes wear capes. I would say some wear robes. And that, that's this judge. I mean, when you read what happened, the reason she was up at 3 o' clock in the morning trying to get someone on the phone. These were young children who are asleep in bed in a shelter, essentially, who were woken up in the middle of the night, pulled out of bed, terrified. There was testimony that some were vomiting in fear. I mean, pulling these children out of bed, you know, as a mother, you know, like anyone who, who knows what that would be like, how, what the terror that would be like for those children was just so unsettling and so upsetting that, that this administration would do that to these young children who are just really were so terrified of what was happening to them. Put them on a plane, have them pack lunches. I mean, it was just outrageous. And she was up all night trying to get, to figure out what's going on, and she ordered that they come back and put them back into their beds. And, you know, unfortunately, after the weekend when the emergency was over, so she, she fixed the emergency, she got them back where they belong, then it went to a regular judge, you know, because this was the emergency judge, the one that was on duty. It got wheeled out and it got wheeled out to not the greatest judge. So I'd love to hear what you think about who got the case.

[Michael Popak]

Yeah. Tim Kelly is not Sparkle Suknan. He is a Trump appointee. He worked, he's a protege of Chuck Grassley, who's still, you know, 85 years old. He's on the, he's the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He worked on the Senate Judiciary Committee as a lawyer. Is he maga? I don't know. He's had some cases where it looks like he is. He's had other cases where he's ruled against the Trump administration. But he's not what I thought was the perfect judge for a case involving immigrants and the, and the deprivation of their due process rights. In Sparkle Sukhnanan I'll tell you that. So she, before she departed, however, set a couple of briefing schedules which are going to occur this week into early next week. One about the class action status. So she's got a couple of briefs that she's ordered due there and a series of briefs about the preliminary injunction, starting with today, that the lawyers for the immigration rights lawyers are filing to move from a temporary restraining order, which she already entered, into a preliminary injunction which will be considered by Judge Kelly now. Now, to answer the question, does Judge Kelly have to accept this briefing schedule? Not necessarily. Could he modify it? He hasn't yet, but he could. Could he make this different findings and different rulings than she made on temporary restraining order? Yes, completely. And so we're going to see if the change in judges affects the outcome in this case. It shouldn't. I'd like to say it won't, but there's a good chance that he's going to see this through a different life experience. He's walked in a different pair of shoes, if you know what I mean, than Judge Suknan. So we will report on what happens. Briefs are going to be flying in. Two different tracks of briefs will be coming in over the next several days to have a hearing in the middle of September about whether these children are going or staying. Remember, remember, there are refugees who are asking to be left in America. Now, the Trump administration, this will be another scandal, I'm sure, I think, offered something to the Guatemalans to get them to stand up and say, we're just reunifying all the families and take them back. I don't know if it's on the tariffs or financial payments. Something happened there. And we're going to get to the bottom of that as well as the record is developed in that particular case. But look what we've accomplished in this particular legal af carrot. 4 losses or 5 and 8 days? 4 and 4 days, 5 different courts, all for the Trump administration answering the question, why does it matter? It matters because when you put, when you pressure the Trump administration, you put their feet to the fire. He makes mistakes, and when he makes mistakes, it benefits the cases. He doesn't appeal everything. And ultimately the Supreme Court doesn't take every case. So you've got to win at the trial court level. You gotta win at the first level of appeal, and then you gotta take your best shot, your best swing at the United States Supreme Court. Sure, he's won 16 cases at the United States Supreme Court, but he's lost eight. And not every case gets There. And he folds.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

He doesn't appeal everything.

[Michael Popak]

He folds along the way. Exactly. Billions of dollars of federal aid have gone back to the states for schools and other things because he's folded. He stopped using the Alien Enemies act as a tool to remove people without due process. Last time he effectively used it was in March, even though. Yeah, we actually, we didn't even cover that. We'll have to do a whole nother segment about the Alien Enemies act ruling that came today. It's fine. It's really six and five days. You know, we had a panel that. We had a panel that ruled in the fifth Circuit, of all places.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Yeah, that's what I thought was bonkers. This is a 5th Circuit which is normally conservative.

[Michael Popak]

Yeah, I mean, it was a Biden, a Bush in and then a tryout, a person to Judge Oldham, who's trying out to be on the United States Supreme Court on the Trump side. But they declared that Donald Trump doesn't have the right under the Alien Enemies act to deport anybody, remove anybody, because he declared war improperly or predatory incursion, which there isn't one. Of course, he covered up that story. I have a hot take up on this. By bombing 11 people out of existence without due process and then acting like a tough guy, like, we're at war with Venezuela. Not the first time we've ever used a bombing of a ship as a pretext to a war. So, you know, we'll cover that more in detail on Saturday edition of Legal af. Karen, always great to do this with you. Any last words for our audience?

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

I just really hope that somebody like Melania gets involved and like she did the first time Donald Trump was separating children and families during, Remember when that was going on back in the first administration. I think, I think that a lot of women, including his wife, got involved and got him to stop doing that. What's happening to the Guatemalan children, I think is on that level. And I really do think, hopefully somebody will basically say to him, these are children. You can't do that with their lives. And I hope somebody gets him to think better of that, because it just really upsets me when children are the victims of, of, of politics, which is what's happening here. So, but that's, you know, that, that's, that's my last plea to Melania Trump to please, please save these children.

[Michael Popak]

That's what we're left with. We're in deep.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

I know, but, you know, she did it last time, so maybe she'll do it this time. I just, yeah. Yeah, like I said, when it comes to kids, I just can't like that. That's, that's what that. It gets me.

[Michael Popak]

I think it was more Ivanka than Melania, but we'll find out.

[Karen Freeman McNiffalo]

Okay, Ivanka, do something. Somebody do something. Somebody. Just, you know, don't, don't, don't do that. You know, of all the things like just leave the kids alone. You know, we're here to protect them. We're not here to hurt them. So.

[Michael Popak]

Thank you for joining Legal af and thank you to our pro democracy sponsors, to my co anchor Karen Freeman McNiffalo, to our legal A offers and the Midas Mighty. Join us on Saturday where we'll do another version. Catch up with the new developments between now and then with Ben, myself and me. Meantime, check out Legal AF YouTube channel, Legal AF substack, and of course the Legal I have podcast both in audio and in YouTube version. Until our next time together, I'm Michael Popak with Karen Freeman. Nickname.

[Sponsor Announcer 5]

It's that time of year again. Back to school season. And Instacart knows that the only thing harder than getting back into the swing of things is getting all the back to school supplies, snacks and essentials you need. So here's your reminder to make your life a little easier this season. Shop favorites from Staples, Best Buy and Costco, all delivered through Instacart, so that you can get some time back and do whatever it is that you need to get your life back on track. Instacart, we're here.