Supreme Court Makes FIRST MAJOR RULING on Trump ACTS - Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Summary

Legal AF by MeidasTouch: Supreme Court Makes FIRST MAJOR RULING on Trump ACTS

Episode Details

Title: Supreme Court Makes FIRST MAJOR RULING on Trump ACTS
Release Date: February 22, 2025
Host: Michael Popok
Produced By: Meidas Media Network

Introduction to the Supreme Court Ruling

In this pivotal episode of Legal AF by MeidasTouch, host Michael Popok delves into the United States Supreme Court's landmark decision against former President Donald Trump concerning the removal of Hampton Dellinger from his position as head of the Office of Special Counsel. This episode provides a comprehensive analysis of the ruling, its legal underpinnings, and its broader implications for the balance of power within the executive branch.

Background on Hampton Dellinger

Michael Popok begins by contextualizing Hampton Dellinger's role and qualifications:

“Hampton Dellinger is the product of the intersection of law and politics. His mother, the late Anne Dellinger, was a titan in the world of the School of Government at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill...”
[02:45]

Dellinger, appointed by President Biden, was set to serve a five-year term overseeing the enforcement of laws related to federal workers. Popok highlights Dellinger's impeccable qualifications and ethical standing, underscoring why Trump's attempt to remove him was both unprecedented and contentious.

Legal Proceedings and the Court's Decision

The crux of the episode revolves around Trump's unilateral decision to fire Dellinger without cause, thereby violating due process rights. Popok explains the legal maneuvers that followed:

“By firing without cause, he violated the due process rights of Hampton Dellinger, who obtained an emergency injunction and a temporary restraining order from a federal court...”
[04:20]

The Supreme Court's involvement was necessitated when lower courts ruled they lacked jurisdiction over temporary restraining orders. Trump administration's reliance on the All Writs Act was dismissed as inapplicable to the case's specifics.

Analysis of the Supreme Court's Ruling

Popok provides a detailed breakdown of the Supreme Court's stance:

“Chief Justice Roberts decided to defer to the full nine-justice panel, resulting in at least five justices advocating to hold the matter until February 26...”
[06:10]

He scrutinizes the dissenting opinions of Justices Alito and Gorsuch, who argued for the president's unfettered authority to remove officials without due process, irrespective of statutory protections.

Implications for the Future

A significant portion of the discussion centers on the potential long-term ramifications of the ruling:

“What they're arguing is that the president, regardless of what the statute says, regardless of the four cause requirement... that is a scary world to occupy right now.”
[11:07]

Popok expresses concern over the Court's leanings towards consolidating executive power, warning of a future where independent watchdogs and statutory protections may be undermined.

Conclusion and Host's Reflection

Concluding the episode, Popok reflects on the broader impact of the decision:

“It's not just about Donald Trump getting lost in the Supreme Court for now... but what does this mean for the language they're using and the analysis they're using...”
[10:50]

He emphasizes the importance of vigilant judicial oversight to maintain the separation of powers and protect institutional independence from executive overreach.

Notable Quotes

Michael Popok on Due Process Violation:
“By firing without cause, he violated the due process rights of Hampton Dellinger...”
[04:20]
On the Supreme Court's Jurisdiction:
“The Supreme Court has power under what is referred to as the All Writs Act. But that's very narrow in application.”
[05:15]
Expressing Concern Over Executive Power:
“That is a scary world to occupy right now... the pro president group who's all about unitary power in the hands of the president.”
[11:07]

Final Thoughts

This episode of Legal AF offers an incisive examination of a significant Supreme Court decision, shedding light on the intricate dance between law and politics. Michael Popok's expert analysis not only unpacks the immediate effects of the ruling but also invites listeners to contemplate its enduring implications on American governance and the rule of law.

For those seeking a deeper understanding of the evolving legal landscape and its intersection with political power, this episode serves as an essential resource.

Connect with Legal AF

YouTube Channel: LegalAFMTN
**Subscribe for more in-depth legal analysis and updates on the latest developments at the crossroads of law and politics.

Transcript

Samsung Representative (0:00)

I can say to my new Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra hey, find a keto friendly restaurant nearby and text it to Beth and Steve. And it does without me lifting a finger so I can get in more squats anywhere I can.

Commercial Announcer (0:11)

1, 2, 3 will that be cash or credit?

Health Expert (0:16)

Credit.

Commercial Announcer (0:17)

4 Galaxy S25 Ultra the AI companion that does the heavy lifting so you can do. You get yours@samsung.com compatible with select apps. Requires Google Gemini account results may vary based on input. Check responses for accuracy.

Samsung Representative (0:30)

Your data is like gold to hackers and they'll sell it to the highest bidder. Are you protected? McAfee helps shield you blocking suspicious texts, malicious emails and fraudulent websites. McAfee Secure VPN lets you browse safely and its AI powered tech scam detector spots threats instantly. You'll also get up to $2 million of award winning antivirus and identity theft protection, all for just $39.99 for your first year. Visit mcafee.com/incancel anytime terms apply.

Factor Meals Representative (1:00)

You know what's smart? Enjoying a fresh gourmet meal at home that you didn't have to cook meat. Factor your loophole in the laws of mealtime. Chef crafted meals delivered with a tap, ready in just two minutes. You know what's even smarter? Treating yourself without cheating your goals. Factor is dietitian approved, chef prepared and you plated. Pretty smart, huh? Refresh your routine and eat smart with factor. Learn more@Factor Meals.com have I got News.

Commercial Announcer (1:31)

For you is back for another season.

Health Expert (1:33)

Roy Wood Jr. Amber Ruffin and Michael Ian Black are finding the funny in.

Commercial Announcer (1:38)

The week's biggest stories. Have I got news for you Saturday at 9 on CNN and stream next day on Max United States Supreme Court has just ruled against Donald Trump and his efforts to remove from office the head of the Office of Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger. What does it mean? What did I glean from the five pages and what does it mean from the future that Justices Alito and Gorsuch both opposed Justice Roberts in allowing Hampton Dellinger to remain as head of the Office of Special Counsel for at least five more days until the trial judge holds her hearing. I'm Michael Popo. You're on the Midas Touch Network with breaking news and Legal af. Now let me give you a little bit of an aside what this is about and then tell you. I know Hampton Dellinger relatively well. He was appointed by Biden by President Biden to serve out a five year term. He just got the appointment a couple of months ago to be the head of the Office of Special Counsel, that's a special creature. It's not what it sounds like. It's not an office devoted to prosecution like, like Jack Smith, special counsel. It's a term of art being used for an organization that's respons responsible for things related to the enforcement of laws related to federal workers. An important position nonetheless. And Hampton Dellinger overly qualified for the position. If you ever wanted an ethical, stand up, trustworthy fellow or woman to take that position, you want somebody that looks and acts exactly like Hampton Dellinger. But Donald Trump doesn't want Hampton Dellinger. He doesn't want independent watchdogs. He doesn't want anybody serving out a five year term on his watch. And so he fired him without cause. And the problem is by firing without cause, he violated the due process rights of one Hampton Dellinger, who ran in on an emergency injunction and obtained it, a temporary restraining order from a federal court judge in the District of Columbia and then went up to the D.C. appellate court and in a 2 to 1 ruling, they said, we don't have jurisdiction over temporary restraining orders. The way it works in court, a little bit of a legal breakout session is if you have a temporary restraining order which is only in place for a short amount of time, in this case, it's only in place for about five days. You wait until there's a preliminary injunction, at which time then the courts of appeal have jurisdiction. They generally don't have jurisdiction over temporary restraining orders. Now, they tried to bring this case the Trump administration, by claiming that the Supreme Court has power under what is referred to as the All Writs Act. But that's very narrow in application. It doesn't apply to the facts of this case. First stop on the train is Chief Justice Roberts. Why? But not just because he's the supreme, he's the chief of the Supreme Court, but because he anything, any appeal that comes out of the D.C. appellate courts goes firstly to Chief Justice Roberts on an emergency application. He could have denied this on his own, but he decided, I guess, anything related to Trump, he's gonna throw it back to the entirety of the nine justices of the panel. And there were at least five justices who said, let's hold this matter in abeyance until 26 February when the trial court judge hears the entirety of the case and rules on their preliminary injunction, which is one step up in the injunction food chain. All right, that's where we are so far. Hampton Dellinger takes the appeal or the Trump administration takes the appeal. And the response from Hampton Dellinger is, I got Five days to get to a preliminary injunction. I just want to stay in my job. Corsic and Alito don't like it. They believe in the unitary power of the president. Their comment, and I'll read you from aspects of it, their comment in their order was a president shouldn't be forced to work with somebody for even five days if they don't want to work for. Oh, here we go. What about due process? What about the fact that the statute says you can't fire the guy or the person unless there's a for cause, meaning there's he did something wrong. He's done nothing wrong other than he's the wrong party. Now, I know Hampton Dellinger reasonably well. I just happened to be wearing my Duke Law polo shirt today. I played pickup basketball with Hampton Dellinger at, at. At Duke. Not because he went to Duke and talk about the intersection of law and politics. Hampton Dellinger is the product of the intersection of law and politics. His mother, the late Anne Dellinger, was a titan in the world of the school of Government at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. For those that are sports fans, you're not going to believe that there was a Duke professor and a Duke and a UNC professor who lived together happily in Chapel Hill and gave birth to Hampton Dellinger. She's passed, but she was a titan and a very nice person. We had a number of parties and picnics at her house when I was in law school. Walter Dellinger, the late Walter Dellinger, was not only my constitutional law professor and taught me everything I need to know about con law at the time, but he was also the Solicitor General of the United States under Clinton. He was the head of the White House Counsel's office. So Hampton Dellinger, you know, has this law and politics in his veins and in his blood, and he is unassailable in terms of character, in terms of the exact person that you would want if you were being independent and fair minded, you'd want Hampton Dellinger on that wall. You need Hampton Dellinger on that wall not to be removed. Now, let me read to you from the actual order which we just got our hands on. Although it is acknowledged. This is from Robert's writing for the court. Although it is acknowledged that this court typically does not have appellate jurisdiction over temporary restraining orders. The government urges us. That's Trump. To construe the TRO as a preliminary injunction. In his opposition, Dellinger repeatedly notes that the TRO will expire by its own terms in eight now five days and last only a very short duration. In light of the foregoing, this is the ruling of the court in Bessant v. Dellinger, Beset being the office the Secretary of the treasury, which is where that office sits. In light of the foregoing, the application to vacate the order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the D.C. trial judge TRO presented to the Chief justice and by him referred to the court, is held in abeyance until February 26, when the TRO is set to expire, and then will consider it again here at the court. That wasn't good enough for Gorsuch and Alito. Gorsuch and Alito wrote that he was removed, that Dellinger was removed on February 7, that Mr. Dellinger sought interim interim equitable relief, restoring him to his post while the lawsuit unfolds, and that he obtained a temporary restraining order as a result. It says he they then go on to say as a starting port. Here's on page three. As a starting point in that review, consider what we know about the remedy the district court ordered. The court effectively commanded the President and other executive branch officials, that would be the Treasury Department, to recognize and work with someone whom the President sought to remove from office. Whether labeled a TRO or a preliminary injunction, that order provided an equitable remedy. Then they go over the court's precedence dating back to a case from 1999, and what they're arguing there is what worries me for the future.