Panicking Trump Lashes Out in Court over Blocked Invasion

Summary

Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Episode: Panicking Trump Lashes Out in Court over Blocked Invasion
Date: November 12, 2025
Host/Analyst: Michael Popok

---

Overview: Main Theme and Purpose

This episode delivers a hard-hitting analysis of an extraordinary legal confrontation in Chicago, where a federal judge has issued an order to restrain the Trump administration’s federal forces from using excessive force—including physical violence and vehicles—against First Amendment protesters. Michael Popok breaks down the legal maneuvers, dramatic courtroom moments, and the latest developments as the case heads to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, unpacking both the legal implications and the startling necessity of such court orders in the current political climate.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Judge Ellis’s Unprecedented Order ([00:00]–[05:00])

• Michael Popok opens by underscoring the shocking premise:
  “A federal judge has to tell the Trump administration and its federal forces not to hit Americans with a car who are First Amendment protesting… has to enter an order for them to comply with the United States Constitution. I mean, the Trump administration appears not to be just content with, with starving Americans and cutting off their food payments, but they want to beat them as well. With court permission.” ([00:00])

• Background on the case:

  • Judge Sarah Ellis issues a preliminary injunction against federal agents to curb their use of force against protesters, journalists, clergymen, and other citizens exercising their rights in Chicago.
  • The Trump administration is appealing the order, seeking permission to continue tactics that the judge has explicitly banned.

• Comparison to Other Rulings:

  • A separate related ruling from Judge April Perry limited the National Guard; the Seventh Circuit agreed with Perry, and the issue is now in the Supreme Court.
  • The current episode focuses on Judge Ellis’s order, which addresses federal (not National Guard) forces specifically.

2. Core Elements of Judge Ellis’s Injunction ([05:00]–[07:30])

• List of Prohibitions for Federal Agents:

  • Banned from dispersing, arresting, or using force against journalists unless probable cause for a crime exists (excluding failure to disperse).
  • Barred from giving crowd dispersal orders except in emergency, exigent circumstances.
  • Specifically forbidden to:
    • Use riot control weapons or kinetic projectiles
    • Deploy tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper balls
    • Strike protesters with vehicles
    • Tackle, body-slam, chokehold, or apply neck restraints
    • Arrest non-resisting class members
  • Ordered to wear identification and use body cameras, even if undercover.

• Popok’s tone is incredulous:
  “The fact that a federal judge has to write in an order, don't use non-lethal weapons, don't use rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper balls, gang tackle, hit people with your cars, that's just not a natural compliance with the Constitution. It's, it's just mind-boggling.” ([01:56])

Memorable Courtroom Moment:

Popok references video evidence and an incident in which a news producer is identified and thrown to the ground by law enforcement, underscoring the real-world implications of the judge’s order.

---

3. Trump Administration’s Appeal: The Legal Arguments ([07:30]–[08:30])

• Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal:

  • The Trump administration claims plaintiffs (journalists, clergy, veterans) lack standing—arguing they have no right to bring the case.
  • Asserts that Judge Ellis has exceeded her judicial authority and encroached on executive power.

• Reference to a Previous Mandamus Order:

  • On Oct 31, the Seventh Circuit had previously said the judge overstepped by requiring daily use-of-force reports from a DHS official, Greg Bevino, likening the court to an “inquisitor rather than… a neutral adjudicator.”
    • Quote from court:
      “It sets the court up as a supervisor of Bevino's activities and intruding into decisions of the executive branch.” ([07:57])

---

4. The Greg Bevino Incident: Perjury and Evidence ([08:30]–[10:07])

• Highlight of Misconduct:

  • Chief Patrol Agent Greg Bevino allegedly lied in court about his justification for the use of tear gas.
  • Judge Ellis found his testimony “perjurious.” Popok plays his video deposition, showing evasiveness and refusal to acknowledge illegal use-of-force.

  Key Exchange from Deposition:

  • Attorney: “Can you look me in the eye and acknowledge that the use of force applied against Reverend Black that is depicted in the video and in these photographs is unacceptable and inappropriate and should not have happened?”
  • Bevino: “I can tell you that I don't know what the use of force was here and I can't make a judgment either way because I don't know.” ([09:17])

• Popok’s assertion:
  “So I think she had every right to supervise Pavino, don't you?” ([10:07])

---

5. What’s Next? Fast-Moving Developments ([10:07]–[11:37])

• Seventh Circuit’s Current Stance:

  • The court has not yet blocked Judge Ellis’s injunction—so the order remains in effect as of the episode’s recording.
  • Full briefing is ordered by Thursday, with a likely decision over the weekend.

• Urgency and Ongoing Risk:
  Popok notes: “Trump administration could violate it. And it’s probably violating it as we record before the ink is dry on this video.” ([10:28])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Michael Popok, summarizing the constitutional stakes:
  “It's just mind-boggling... everything I'm going to read to you about the preliminary order, this is what the Trump administration wants permission to do. There's no other way to interpret their emergency stay application to the Seventh Circuit.” ([01:56])

• On journalistic protections:
  “They are enjoined from dispersing, arresting… threatening or using physical force against any person whom they know or reasonably should know as a journalist. Unless the federal agents have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime by failing other than failing to disperse.” ([03:56])

• Popok’s sardonic summary of the government’s appeal:
  “They’re arguing that the journalists and the clergyman and the veterans…don’t have standing. …Then they say that the judge has unilaterally exceeded her authority as a judicator, as a judge, and she's infringing on the powers of the executive branch.” ([07:03])

• On Greg Bevino’s deposition:
  “Bevino lied in her courtroom. He said he was hit with a rock and that's why he fired tear gas. And yet she found that to be untrue. Here's a clip of his video deposition testimony that she found to be perjurious. A lie.” ([07:53])

---

Timestamped Segments of Importance

• [00:00]–[02:00]: Shock of the order and its necessity; what the Trump administration sought to defend in court
• [03:56]–[04:19]: Real-world example: treatment of journalists and video description
• [05:00]–[07:30]: Detailed rundown of the injunction’s restrictions
• [07:30]–[08:30]: Trump administration’s legal arguments for the appeal
• [08:30]–[10:07]: Greg Bevino’s deposition and the court’s prior mandamus order
• [10:07]–[11:37]: Current standing of the injunction and anticipated timeline for next steps

---

Tone, Language & Style

• Direct and Unfiltered: Popok’s delivery is urgent, at times sardonic, and unafraid to call out the apparent absurdity of needing judicial orders to prevent such force by federal agents.
• Critical, Legally Detailed: Popok unpacks complex legal arguments in accessible terms, explicitly linking court actions to constitutional principles.

---

Final Thoughts

This episode of Legal AF delivers a timely, sobering look at the intersection of civil liberties and executive power in America—spotlighting both the granular legal maneuvers and the fundamental constitutional questions at stake. The ongoing nature of the case means more developments are imminent, with Popok promising further updates. For anyone concerned about the rule of law, this episode serves as a vital, unvarnished briefing.

---

Host Attribution:
Main analysis and all quoted content by Michael Popok unless otherwise specified.
(Co-hosts Ben Meiselas and Karen Friedman Agnifilo did not appear in this selected transcript segment.)

Transcript

[A]

A federal judge has to tell the Trump administration and its federal forces not to hit Americans with a car who are First Amendment protesting has to issue an order to stop them from tackling them and using unnecessary, unreasonable force against them as First Amendment protesters has to enter in order for them to comply with the United States Constitution. I mean, the Trump administration appears not to be just content with, with starving Americans and cutting off their food payments, but they want to beat them as well. With court permission. We got a new ruling coming out of Judge Ellis in Chicago, but with the Trump administration running another couple of days ago into a 7th Circuit court asking to have Judge Ellis's order, a simple order, not to abuse journalists, clergymen, veterans and other First Amendment protesters on the streets of Chicago, they ran into court to say, no, we want effectively to abuse Americans to use unnecessary and unreasonable force to hit them with our cars. I'm Michael Popo. I'm gonna catch you up right here on Legal AF and on the Midas Touch Network about what is happening with an order that was issued by Judge Ellis, an appeal that was taken by the Trump administration and a seventh Circuit which I'm gonna have to try to evaluate cuz they once blocked this judge back on on Halloween about something that was related into the case. But I'm not sure that will make them rule for the Trump administration this time around. And I'll catch you up because it's a fast moving story. We're going to get a new development by Thursday and I want you to know what's happening right now. Thanks for being in here. Hit the free subscribe button, come over to Legal AF, the YouTube channel, do the exact same thing. Let's start with Judge Ellis. Sarah Ellis. Two different cases in Chicago, one involving a Judge April Perry who issued an order to stop the National Guard. This is not a National Guard update. The National Guard, that issue went to the 7th Circuit, they agreed with Judge Perry, went over to the Supreme Court and it's being briefed there right now. This is Judge Ellis who was dealing with the attack by federal forces of Donald Trump's office on domestic soil who are just doing First Amendment protest. And the fact that a federal judge has to write in an order, don't use non lethal weapons, don't use rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper balls, gang tackle, hit people with your cars, that's just not a natural compliance with the Constitution. It's, it's just mind boggling. So everything I'm going to read to you, I'm going to show you some video as well. Everything I'm going to read to you about the preliminary order. This is what the Trump administration wants permission to do. There's no other way to interpret their their emergency stay application to the Seventh Circuit. Let's start with the preliminary injunction. I posted it on Legal AF substack for you. It is hereby ordered that defendants, who she refers to as the federal agents are enjoined in this district from. And as I talk about each thing will roll a clip from the streets of Chicago so that you can see what I'm talking about. To illustrate what I'm talking about, interactions with journalists. This they are barred from. They are enjoined from dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, threatening or using physical force against any person whom they know or reasonably should know as a journalist. Unless the federal agents have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime by failing other than failing to disperse. They may order the journalist to change location, but they can't abuse them. Let's show a clip here of a producer being thrown to the ground and identifying herself as a producer for a local television station. Let's roll that clip.

[B]

What's your name? What's your name?

[C]

Debbie Brownman. I work for wgn.

[B]

Let them know I got you.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

Debbie Browning Brockman, sir.

[A]

What?

[B]

What's your name? In the back. What's your name? Say that one more time. What's your name?

[A]

They also can't issue crowd dispersal orders, meaning a lawful command given by a federal agent to leave an area that requires any class member. That means the people that are protesting to leave a public place that they lawfully have a right to be unless there's exigent emergency circumstances. Here. Now here's the list that is really appalling that she had to tell the government not to do. And for which they are now seeking permission. Using riot control weapons. Kinetic impact projectiles. It's about as bad as it sounds. Compressed air launchers will show some video. Less lethal specialty impact chemical munitions against the person who's protesting. Using riot control weapons. Deploying gas canisters of various types. Firing compressed air launchers. How about this one? Striking any class member with a vehicle just to tell them not to hit people with their cars. Using hands on physical force, such as pulling or shoving to the ground. Tackling or botting slamming any class member. We've got video of that. Using chokeholds, carotid restraints, neck restraints, or any other restraint technique that applies prolonged pressure to the neck. Seizing or arresting a member, class member who is not resisting a lawful Crowd dispersal order. She also orders that they wear identification numbers on their uniforms, even if they are undercover. That they use body worn cameras, that they wear cameras so that she can monitor. Now that was entered on the 6th of November in an 8 page order I posted on legal AF substack that led to the Trump administration going to the Seventh Circuit to try to convince them to allow them to do all those things. An emergency motion for stay pending appeal. Now, the primary argument here is that is twofold. One, they're arguing that the journalists and the clergyman and the veterans that brought their case to don't have standing. They can't bring the case. They don't have the right injury to even be in court. So the injunction is invalid. Then they say that the judge has unilaterally exceeded her authority as a judicator, as a judge, and she's infringing on the powers of the executive branch. Now where they're getting that from is about a week or so ago, she ordered that Greg Bevino, who ended up being found to have lied to her in court as the chief patrol agent for the U.S. customs and Border Protection, that he report on the use of force each day. The 7th Circuit didn't like that. I'm going to leave a. I'm gonna give you a clip about Bavino in a minute. Didn't like that and said that she had exceeded her authority. It put the. Because According to the 7th Circuit, from October 31, it put the court in the position of an inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator of the party's adversarial presentations. It sets the courts up as a supervisor of Bevino's activities and intruding into decisions of the executive branch. So they issued the mandamus then. Does that mean they're going to side with the Trump administration now? I'm not so sure about that. Let's talk about Bovino for a minute. Bevino lied in her courtroom. He said he was hit with a rock and that's why he fired tear gas. And yet she found that to be untrue. Here's a clip of his video deposition testimony that she found to be perjurious. A lie. Let's play the clip.

[D]

No. All uses of force have been more than exemplary.

[A]

I see.

[E]

So they have been actually, what would be the word, more than exemplary is the use of force that is shown in the video and in these photographs. In terms of the striking of the pepper balls, is that exemplary?

[D]

I won't make a decision on a hypothetical situation. A situation that either I'm not involved in, nor do I have any direct knowledge of. I don't know.

[E]

How about better than exemplary? Is that a better than exemplary use of force?

[D]

I'm able to comment on what that use of force is or anything else. I was not there.

[E]

Next question. As the commander of the agents on the ground in Operation Midway Blitz, can you look me in the eye and acknowledge that the use of force applied against Reverend Black that is depicted in the video and in these photographs is unacceptable and inappropriate and should not have happened? Can you tell me that objective form?

[D]

I can tell you that I don't know what the use of force was here and I can't make a judgment either way because I don't know.

[A]

And here's the video of him throwing the canister. Let's play that clip.

[C]

For citizens terrorizers, traffickers. Get the out. Where is my people?

[A]

So I think she had every right to supervise Pavino, don't you? 7th Circuit Court got the motion and said, not so fast. Trump administration, we want full. Not going to block the preliminary injunction just yet, which means it's still applicable, which means the Trump administration could violate it. And it's probably violating it as we record before the ink is dry on this video, they want full briefing by Thursday, this Thursday, in which at which time they will either hold an oral argument and or issue their decision, likely a decision sometime over the weekend. So to stay in touch so you know what's happening, come over to Legal AF, the YouTube channel. We're about to crash through the 1 million subscriber barrier that makes us the top law and politics dedicated YouTube channel out there with your help and gives us the street cred we need to continue to do the reporting, the commentary, get the interviews, the playlists, the contributors that you have come to rely upon. So check it out, see if you're a subscriber. If you're not, hit the free subscribe button. Come over to Legal AF Substack where we post all of these filings so you can read them for yourself as well. And think about becoming a paid member. That's what pays the bills and keeps legal af the 40 videos that I do a week and all the other contributions. That's what keeps it rolling along. It's about $7 a month and I promise you we'll give you the content. You'll get the return on your investment. So until my next report, I'm Michael Popak.

[F]

Can't get your fill of Legal af.

[A]

Me neither.

[F]

That's why we formed the Legal AF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called Wait for It Morning af.

[A]

What else?

[F]

All the other contributors from ligoleyef are there as well. We got some new reporting, we got interviews, we got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes where Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe.

[G]

Hey new to TikTok, here's a gift just for you. Join TikTok today and claim your $20 no minimum spend voucher completely free. Simply download the TikTok app, search for get tick that's G E T T I K and your voucher will be ready to use right away. Spend it freely on TikTok. Shop fashion, gadgets, beauty and more. Don't wait. Download TikTok today and grab your $20 a voucher now.

[H]

Kay Jeweler's early Black Friday sale is happening now. Get up to 50% off Black Friday deals and up to 40% off everything else. Don't miss this sale. Start your season with savings only at k exclusions apply ck.com exclusions for details.

[I]

Introducing Family Freedom from T Mobile we'll pay off four phones up to 3, 200 and give you four free phones, all on America's largest 5G network. Visit t mobile.com familyfreedom up to 800 per line via virtual prepaid card typically takes 15 days. Free phone via 24 monthly bill credits with finance agreement. Example Apple iPhone 16128 gigs 829.99 Eligible trade in example iPhone 11 Pro for well qualified credit. Credits end in balance due if you pay off early or cancel. Contact us.

[J]

Today we'll attempt a feat once thought impossible overcoming high interest credit card debt. It requires merely one thing. A SoFi personal loan. With it you could save big on interest charges by consolidating into one low fixed rate monthly payment. Defy high interest debt with a SOFI personal loan. Visit sofi.com stunt to learn more. Loans originated by Sofi Bank NA member FDIC terms and conditions apply. NMLS 696891.