Loading summary
Transcript5 lines
- [00:01]
Shopify Advertiser
This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Upgrade your business with Shopify, home of the number one checkout on the planet. Shop pay boosts conversions up to 50%, meaning fewer carts going abandoned and more sales going cha ching. So if you're into growing your business, get a commerce platform that's ready to sell wherever your customers are. Visit shopify.com to upgrade your selling Today.
- [00:23]
FanDuel Advertiser
It's tourney time and with FanDuel's Dog of the Day, you could get a daily profit boost during the college conference championships to bet on any underdog. So get ready to to celebrate some upsets.
- [00:34]
Michael Popok
No one saw that coming except for me, baby.
- [00:38]
FanDuel Advertiser
21 plus in President select states opt in required minimum plus 100 eyes required bonus issued is non withdrawable profit boost tokens restrictions apply including token expiration and max wager amount. See terms@sportsbook.fanduel.com Gambling problem. Call 1-800- Gambler Are you running scared?
- [00:54]
Michael Popok
I don't mean the audience. I mean Donald Trump. That's the question that the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, the leader of the fifth largest economy in the world, is asking in his social media posts. You think the president is the only one who can taunt people with social media posts with, you know. No. Gavin Newsom can do it too. As one of the leading candidates for the 2028 election and on the heels of filing a new lawsuit that he filed just 48 hours ago in the Northern District of California federal court in order to challenge Donald Trump usurpation of Congress's exclusive core presidential core constitutional function under Article 1 to impose tariffs. That's not a presidential core function, that's a Congress core function. And now finally somebody's filed a lawsuit to challenge it. We've been talking about it as an academic exercise for the last two weeks, but it was, it was California's governor along with his Attorney General, Rob Bonta, that filed the suit. But Donald Trump doesn't want to be with the judge that was appointed. Oh, it's a Biden appointed judge. She's a very fine judge. But he does, he doesn't want to be in front of her. Judge Jacqueline Corley up in the Northern District in San Francisco, now that he's seen the writing on the wall. Oh no, I' got to take the case somewhere else. Where can I take it? Oh, there's a court in New York called the Court of International Trade. Oh, we're going to have a little pop legal AF breakout session here. Court of International Trade with seven people. There's Some Trumpers aren't on there. Aren't there? Let's try to get it there. Yeah. Let's break it down here on the Midas Touch Network. And on Legal af, we had a lot of discussion and debate and breakdown and analysis about Gavin Newsom's filing. Right. It was smart, smart filing because the power that Donald Trump cites, the International Emergency Economic Power Powers Act, I. E. But doesn't allow for tariffs. It's never allowed for tariffs. No president has ever tried to use it for tariffs. Because tariffs are the exclusive constitutional core function of. Wait for it, Congress and Article 1 Power, Article 1, Section 8, where if you go through it, and I'm, I'm not going to take the moment, but if you go through it, it talks about Congress's power to do taxes, duties, imposts, impositions and excises. Those are all tariffs. Nowhere is that for the president. The president has his own Article 2 powers, presidency has their own Article 2 powers. Core constitutional powers, you know, make treaties, you know, commander in chief, that kind of stuff. You know, faithfully execute the laws of Congress, but not this one. Now, Congress in 1978 created IPA, gave the presidency one bundle, one stick from its bundle, and said here, if there's an emergency, a war, an economic emergency, a real emergency, you could do certain things related to the economy and some things that kind of rub up against our duties, our, our role, but you have to, you have to color within the lines. Of course, Donald Trump said, I'm going to do tariffs under ipa. Wrong. So the lawsuit gets filed, no surprise, on Northern District of California, not only because it's a California lawsuit, because he could have filed it, and wherever Sacramento's federal court is, LA or that kind of thing. But the reason for Northern District is it's filled with judges that are, are doing God's work in imposing injunctions against the Trump administration. Not only was the number one injunction. It's so hard to, hard to remember which one it was, but I do know the number one injunction this, this administration, this particular administration was hit with five days after its administration was on birthright citizenship. Judge Kofnor, where? Northern District of California, San Francisco. And it's no surprise, of course, that's now up at the United States Supreme Court with a big hearing in May. But even the very first injunction in the first Trump administration, 45 about Muslim travel ban, Northern District of California, it's the place to go. You know, if you're fishing for bass, you go to a hole that's known for bass. Fishes and bass. Fish. Sorry, fishes. Been a long day, people. So here we go. They file the suit. It's right. It's a declaratory judgment action. It's asking for the judge and it's been assigned to Judge Corley to take a look at the Constitution, all of the case law in the area and say that Donald Trump and his attempt to impose tariffs is unconstitutional. And we've got an injured party. Withstanding California, $3 trillion GDP, economy, fifth largest in the world, getting hammered with these. Mexico, Canada, China and the rest. Tariffs in global trade. It sits at the intersection of the US and global trade, especially Pacific Rim. So we got an injured party. Good filing, great filing. Donald Trump scared, doesn't want to have Judge Corley peeked under the hood, said, no, I don't want Judge Corley. Where else can we put it? Well, it's tariffs. Somebody said in his little roundtable, his little inner circle tariffs, tariffs. That should go exclusively in another article 3 court specialty court that sits in New York, right? I think it's a. I think it's at 1 Federal Plaza or somewhere like that. The Court of International Trade, Right. The Court of International Trade has seven members, unlike the Supreme Court that sits always on banc, meaning all nine. All the justices sit in here. The Court of International Trade rarely sits on bunk. They sit in groups of generally one. One member of that court, like a federal judge, hears the issue, maybe three under special circumstances, but no more than that and never seven. Now, why is Donald Trump want to put it there? Let me give you the stats. There's three Trump appointed judges, three Obama appointed judges, and one Biden. So Donald Trump looks at his odds. He's like, well, I got a three in seven chance it's better. I mean, it's not 50, 50, but it ain't bad. It's 40% or so of getting a Trump judge. And I know I got 100% chance of having a Biden judge where the case is right now. Get me out of there. Or as Gavin Newsom put it, you're running scared. Of course he's running scared. You know, it's got to be attorneys General in the 22 blue states that are going to bring these types of cases. We've been saying it since the election. I mean, literally on November 6th here on legal LAF and on the Midas Touch Network, we were saying, all hope is not lost. Do not surrender hope here. Right? Justice is done here. We are the foot soldiers for democracy and to protect our Constitution. And So are those 22 attorneys general, led by Letitia James and Rob Bonta for California. And they, along with a lot of other attorneys general, are filing these suits in multiple jurisdictions, getting overlapping injunctions. And their batting average is tremendous. In this administration, it's over 90%. They've got 65 or so injunctions. They got over 110 cases. Sure, they've had some losses at the appellate level and at the Supreme Court level. Of the 10 cases that have been filed or so, it's gone three, two in favor of Trump for now. But that's not bad batting average either. These cases are important and where they are tried is important, too. So if what Trump did, and this is the report here, is he filed a, what we call a notice of removal. It's like a venue transfer. When you file a case in the wrong court, if it were state court and you needed to take it to federal court, that device is called a removal notice. You are removing it from state to federal court. Then why, you may ask, since we're in federal courts, is it still removal? Because you're taking it from a General Jurisdiction Article 3 court in California to a specialty court created by Congress and the judiciary to deal with international trade sitting in New York. And so that would be a removal, kind of. It's all within the Article 3 powers, judges, but it's moving it over to a specialty court. You could call it a venue transfer. You can call it removal, either one. That's going to be considered by, look, the chief, if it goes to the chief judge of the International Trade Court, that's an Obama appointee, and they'll say thumb up or thumb down on jurisdiction. If they say thumb down, they'll deny the notice of removal, the motion for removal, it'll be litigated. California will have the opportunity to come in with its lawyers. They have a whole group of federal litigation lawyers within their state attorney general office because states have a lot of federal litigation because of the nature of our federalism. So don't worry. And I'm sure they have some trade experts and trade lawyer experts in California, given the tremendous size of its economy as it points towards, towards the Pacific, the Pacific Rim. And internally, you know, it's, it's one of the breadbaskets for the, for the world and for America. It generates tremendous amount of agriculture and, of course, technology and, and other exports. So they will decide the court of international trade at a hearing. It'll be brief. They probably hold oral argument. We'll report on it here on the Midas Touch Network. And then if it's thumbs down. It goes back to Judge Corley. Now, for now, she can't take another move while the issue is being litigated on the removal, which means her jurisdiction. She can't take any other move. So she sits, you know, in stasis, a pin in it. When the, when the removal is denied, I don't know, a week, two weeks, three weeks, a month, if it's denied, she automatically holds a status conference, gets this case back up and running. My, my guess is 70, 30. It's going to go back to the federal court in California because when you look at the exclusive jurisdiction that was given to the Court of International Trade, it's really about, oh, you don't like your tariff, you don't like your tariff or your customs duty. And you're fighting it out with the Customs Bureau, you know, the Customs Enforcement Bureau or something like that. But when you're talking about fundamental separation of powers, a state versus the federal government, that over. Over tariffs at the most fundamental constitutional core, separation of power issues, that's federal court. That's general jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, Federal Judge, Article 3, not specialty court. Over. I don't like how much I'm getting charged for this freight coming in, Judge. That's different. See what I mean? So that state and fed should stay in the court that it was filed in by California. I know that Gavin Newsom and his lawyers knew that they were going to try this and has already out foxed him and that's why they're taunting him. It's a great move by Newsom in this particular area and it shows you how weak Donald Trump is. Oh, let me try to get a Trump judge. I don't think it's going to help him here, but we'll continue to follow it all right here on the Midas Dutch network and of course on Legal AF, the YouTube channel. Look, do me a favor. This is one of those plea moments, plea deals. Here's the plea deal. Come over to Legal, a YouTube channel as well. Hit the subscribe button. We went over 550,000 subscribers in seven months. We're trying to get to a million in a year. We're going to do it with your help. And then we got that podcast, Legal. A podcast. We talk a lot about the Midas Touch podcast. At number one, it is amazing. We're at number 10 and in between is a whole bunch of like, bro podcasters, MAGA broadcasters, right wing podcasters. Let's crush them. Let's move us up to number two behind the Midas Touch podcast. Give us one and two on the podium. That's what I'm asking for. I'm Michael Popo. Until my next reporting. In collaboration with the Midas Touch Network, we just launched the Legal AF YouTube channel. Help us build this pro democracy channel where I'll be curating the top stories the intersection of law and Politics. Go to YouTube now and free subscribe at Legal AF. That's at Legal AFMTN.