Loading summary
Michael Popak
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.
Unknown Advertiser
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.
Michael Popak
We got two District Court cases on a rocket ship to the United States Supreme Court and they have to do with Donald Trump's attempts to fire independent watchdogs who were created by Congress in the 1970s in order to order to make sure that federal workers weren't retaliated against for political or partisan reasons. I spoke to you the other day about Hampton Dellinger, who's the head of the Special Counsel's office, which is part of protecting federal workers who have whistleblower issues or other issues to make sure they don't get summarily fired. And now we've got a new decision that just came out on the heels of one from yesterday by Amy Berman Jackson. We have a new decision by a Federal judge in D.C. named Rudy Contreras in favor of Kathy Harris, who is the head of the Companion of the Office of Special Counsel, the, the, the head of the Merit Systems Protection Board, the little known, little referred to but very important mspb created by Congress as a bipartisan entity with staggered terms to make sure that no one party can control this particular watchdog. And when the watchdog gets fired, it's up to the federal courts to step in. And that's what Rudy Contreras has done with a new opinion granting summary judgment and putting Kathy Harris back in her seat. That along with Hampton Dellinger's case are going to go fast track to the United States Supreme Court. I'm Michael Popak. You're on Legal AF and on the Midas Touch Network. Let's break it down for you. This new 35 page order. You are going to learn more about a little known 1935 case, case known as Humphrey's Executor than you ever thought you wanted to, along with a 2020 case called Celia Law. It stands for those cases stand for the proposition that a president in the case of Humphrey's executor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt can't fire an independent head of an independent body or board created by Congress without cause. Has to be for cause. Can't be on a whim, can't. Because they don't like the political stripes of the person just because in the executive branch they were created by Congress usually in a bipartisan way with the then President in order to, in the case of the Merit Service Protection Board to reform the civil servants civil service and to make sure that they were protected from ultimately retaliation by whoever was president at the time. And so in Humphrey's executor the Supreme Court said that when it related to the Federal Trade Commission, the ftc, that Franklin Delano Roosevelt couldn't dismiss the independent head without cause. Even though generally if there is an executive branch member who's part of the executive branch that's exercising executive power in general, the President As Article 2 officer, the only Article 2 officer can get rid of that person without cause. You know, they, they're not forced to work with people they don't want to work with who are exercising executive power. But here when you have what Judge Contreras refers to as an inward looking board that's just looking at federal workers that doesn't interact with the greater economy or the world at large. It's just about the federal, the beehive of federal workers and how they're treated then. And the Congress desired that be independent then. The very independent nature of the position requires that they only be fired for cause. And everybody agrees that there's absolutely no cause for Kathy Harris to be fired. She got into that. Listen to these numbers. They fired her with a one liner. Thank you for your service. I'm not making this up. It's almost like a joke. Thank you for your service. She was so successful that she took a backlog of tens of thousands of cases and got rid of 99% of that backlog in just a couple of years. I mean by any measure she's a sterling example of government service. So you don't just fire her. So what I find remarkable is when you lay Judge Contreras new decision and his reliance on Humphrey's executor, the case from the Supreme Court in 1935 and then Judge Amy Berman Jackson's decision to keep the two sides of the coin here, the Office of Special Counsel, who's the advocate for federal workers as well, when you keep those two sides together, when you, when you put the two cases together and the reliance on A Celia Law case which relied on Humphrey's executor from from a more recent vintage of the Supreme Court in 2020 is how similar Contreras decision and Amy Berman Jackson's decision are. I mean Contreras had the benefit of Amy Berman Jackson having just issued hers about 48 hours ago, but it's remarkable in structure and an argument and analysis. Let me read to you from some of the pages so you see what I mean. I mean not the compare or contrast, but just what this case is all about. Harris claims that her termination was ultra varies. That's a fancy legal term for outside and irregular outside the strictures of law, in violation of statutory authority, violated the separation of powers between Congress and the President and was contrary to law under the Administrative Procedures Act. She argues that this case falls squarely within the heartland of Humphrey's executor versus the United States for 1935 and its progeny, meaning the cases that followed after it and that the Board is a traditional multi member body that does not wield traditional executive power. In Humphreys executor, Judge Contreras continues on page 7 the Supreme Court upheld a statutory provision identical to the one at issue here restricting removal of the FTC members the Federal Trade Commission, because they were confirmed by the Senate and they're supposed to be bipartisan. In this case it was actually Hoover, not Roosevelt. I'm sorry. It was the Great Depression right before FDR came in. Starting this year, I really wanted to build better eating habits. But between work and life and everything else, planning healthy meals that actually taste good felt overwhelming. That's when I found Marley Spoon and it's genuinely changed how I cook at home. This podcast is sponsored by Marley Spoon and I'm genuinely excited about this because it's helping me fast track my way to eating well without all the stress. And with my code legal AF, you can get up to 27 free meals. Here's what I love. Marley Spoon gives you over 100 recipes to choose from each week. We're talking everything from cozy comfort food like the big batch Beef Stroganoff to lighter options like the Salmon and Creamy Mustard Dill Sauce Tray Bake. There's literally something for every mood. Oh, and the timing couldn't be better. Marley Spoon just launched their new 15 Minute Express recipes. They put three of these on the menu each week, and if you got a few extra minutes to spare, they got some great 20 minute options too. They'll help you get dinner on the table faster without compromising on quality or flavor. I especially love Marley Spoon's collection of Martha's best recipes. They feature at least two of Martha Stewart's incredible recipes every single week and they taste even better than you can imagine. I just recently made their creamy smoked salmon pasta. Marley Spoons sent me the baby spinach, the penne, the onion, the parmesan, the salmon. Everything needed to make the dish myself. The best part about all this? I'm actually cooking at home more, spending less time stressing out about meals and honestly eating better than I have in a long time. It's like having a personal chef who's done all the planning and prepping and you just get to do the fun part. This is what really sold me. Marley Spoon has a registered dietitian who looks at every recipe. So when I'm trying to eat healthier, I'm not just guessing anymore. This new year, fast track your way to eating well with Marley spoon. Head to marleyspoon.com offer legalaf and use code legal af for up to 27 free meals. That's right. Up to 27 free meals with Marley Spoon. One last time. That's Marley Spoon.com offer legalaf for up to 27 free meals. And make sure you use my promo code Legal AF so they know I sent you. In the more recent on page nine, the judge said in the more recent cases, the Supreme Court ruled that four cause removal provisions applying to independent agencies with a single director violated the separation of power. Okay, well we don't have a single director in that way. The judge went on to say that neither of these cases is related to a multi member body of experts heading an independent agency. Here you have multiple experts. No two can be from any one party. They serve staggered seven year terms to insulate them from political retribution. And that's exactly what Donald Trump has done. He's just walked right into the trap. On page 11 of his order, Judge Contreras says Humphrey's executor, that case we've talked about remains alive and well and it dictates the outcome here. The mspb, the Merit Service Protection Board, is a traditional independent agency headed by a multi member board or commission. It is a multi member body of experts that is balanced along partisan lines. It is supposed to be nonpartisan. Its board members serve on overlapping staggered seven year terms, meaning that the President will have the opportunity to shape its leadership and therefore influence its activities over time. It does not wield substantial executive power. On the bottom of page 12, here's what else the judge said on the bottom of page 13 which is the heart of his decision, though we call it the ratio of his decision. The MSPB's mission and purpose require independence. This is almost exactly the language out of Amy Berman Jackson's decision about Hampton Dellinger, the Companion Federal Special Counsel's Office in enacting the Civil Service Reform Act, Congress exercised its power to regulate the Civil Service, defining certain prohibited personnel pract to include discrimination or loyalty oaths. Is that all about Donald Trump? Loyalty oaths, coercion to engage in political activity and retaliation against whistleblowers. Direct political control over that board would have limited effect on the President's implementation of his policy agenda. In other words, he doesn't need to control this board in order to implement the will of the people or what he interprets it to be. It would instead neuter the statutory scheme by allowing high ranking government officials to engage in prohibited practices and then pressure the Marriage Service Protection Board into inaction. So the judge has granted the summary judgment, has granted the preliminary injunction and has ordered as followed. Here's the conclusion, declared this on page 34 that plaintiff Kathy A. Harris remains a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board having been confirmed by the Senate in May of 2022 and she may be removed by the President prior to the expiration of her term only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office pursuant to a certain statute. And everybody conceded that she's doing a fantastic bang up job. Further ordered that the plaintiff shall continue to serve as a member of the board until her term expires unless she is earlier removed for those cause reasons. Defendant Secretaries Besent and others are enjoined for removing her from office without cause. And it is further ordered that the court's temporary restraining order is vacated because he is issuing this summary judgment being granted without trial and therefore the permanent injunction is in place. This will now join together like a conjoined twin to go to the United States Supreme Court with the Hampton Dellinger case. The Hampton Dellinger case is already kind of primed and idling on the rocket pad for the United States Supreme Court. Justice Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts already stepping in a little toe, a little pinky toe into the case about a week or so ago saying why don't we just wait for all the preliminary injunctions to happen so this court has jurisdiction. We don't want to get involved with temporary restraining orders, but let us know when it's all done. It's all done. It's all done. Chief Justice Roberts. And so now this will go on Fast Track together about the fundamental question about whether Donald Trump has the power as president under Article 2 to fire somebody, even though the statute says by Congress it has to be independent and the person has to be fired for cause. When you fire the watchdogs who were looking over a partisanship and whistleblower, you might end up in the United States Supreme Court. Let's hope they do the right thing. I'll certainly cover it right here on Legal af and on the Midas Touch Network we've got a podcast. Hopefully you've heard about it after five years. It's called the Midas Touch Legal af. If you didn't know why we called it that, now you know. It's every Wednesday and Saturday at 8pm Eastern Time right here on this YouTube channel. And then on audio podcast platforms of your choice, we have a channel devoted to Legal af. It's called Legal afmtn. Help us continue our march to half a million. We're at 490,000 as of this recording. Help us get to 500,000 subscribers. And then I've got a new show called Popoc Live right here on the Midas Touch Network, a new podcast devoted to me speaking about law and politics and other things unfiltered, unhinged, at times completely uncensored. Popoc Live Tuesday nights on the Midas Touch Network. So until my next reporting, this is Michael Popak. 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 a FMTN that's @legal AFMTN.
Unknown Advertiser
Like your favorite travel guide, T Mobile's network knows all the spots because T Mobile helps keep you connected from big cities to your hometown on America's largest 5G network. Switch now. Keep your phone and T Mobile will pay it off up to $800 per line via prepaid card. Visit your local T Mobile location or learn more at t mobile.com. keepAndSwitch. Up to 4 lines of your virtual prepaid card left 15 days qualifying unlock device, credit service port in 90 plus days device knowledgeable carrier and timely redemption required. Card is no cash access and expires in six months.
Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Episode Summary
Episode Title: Trump Blindsided by Second Fed Up Judge Reversal
Release Date: March 6, 2025
Hosts: Ben Meiselas, Michael Popak, Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Executive Producer: Meidas Media Network
In this compelling episode of Legal AF hosted by Michael Popak, the discussion centers around two pivotal District Court cases poised to ascend to the United States Supreme Court. These cases scrutinize former President Donald Trump's attempts to dismiss independent watchdogs established by Congress in the 1970s to safeguard federal workers from political retaliation.
Michael Popak delves into the specifics of the cases involving key figures like Kathy Harris, head of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and Hampton Dellinger, head of the Special Counsel's office. Both individuals were targets of Trump's attempts to remove them from their positions, actions that challenge the foundational principles set by Congress to ensure the independence of these bodies.
“Kathy Harris was so successful that she took a backlog of tens of thousands of cases and got rid of 99% of that backlog in just a couple of years.”
— Michael Popak [04:30]
A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to discussing Judge Rudy Contreras of the D.C. Federal Court, who issued a 35-page order in favor of Kathy Harris. This decision not only reinstates Harris but also sets a precedent by reinforcing the 1935 Supreme Court case Humphrey's Executor and the 2020 Celia Law case.
Key Points:
“Harris claims that her termination was ultra varies, outside and irregular, in violation of statutory authority...”
— Judge Contreras [09:15]
This ruling emphasizes that the MSPB is a multi-member, bipartisan body designed to operate independently of presidential influence, and therefore, any attempt to remove its members must adhere strictly to legal standards.
Parallel to Harris's case is that of Hampton Dellinger, whose legal battle similarly challenges the authority of the executive branch to remove independent officials. Judge Amy Berman Jackson recently issued a decision supporting Dellinger, underscoring the judiciary's stance on maintaining the integrity and independence of these watchdog agencies.
“The MSPB's mission and purpose require independence... It's almost exactly the language out of Amy Berman Jackson's decision.”
— Michael Popak [11:45]
The convergence of these cases signals a critical examination of presidential powers under Article II of the Constitution, particularly concerning the removal of independent agency heads. If the Supreme Court upholds these decisions, it would decisively limit the president's ability to unilaterally dismiss officials tasked with oversight and protection of federal employees.
“When you fire the watchdogs who were looking over a partisanship and whistleblower, you might end up in the United States Supreme Court.”
— Michael Popak [13:30]
Judge Contreras highlighted that Trump's attempt to remove Harris lacked justifiable cause, serving instead as a politically motivated act that undermines the statutory framework established to protect the independence of federal oversight bodies.
The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Roberts already showing interest, is expected to hear these cases soon. The decisions made here will have lasting impacts on the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies, reinforcing the separation of powers intended by the framers of the Constitution.
“Chief Justice Roberts... said, why don't we just wait for all the preliminary injunctions to happen so this court has jurisdiction.”
— Michael Popak [14:10]
As these landmark cases progress towards the Supreme Court, Legal AF underscores the importance of judicial independence and the protection of federal workers from partisan interference. The outcomes will not only define the limits of presidential authority but also strengthen the mechanisms designed to uphold the integrity of the federal civil service.
“This will now join together like conjoined twins to go to the United States Supreme Court...”
— Michael Popak [13:50]
Stay tuned to Legal AF for in-depth analysis and updates on these critical legal battles that shape the intersection of law and politics in the United States.
Legal AF is a must-listen for anyone interested in the dynamic interplay between legal frameworks and political power. Subscribe and stay informed with the latest developments every Wednesday and Sunday.