Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Episode Title: Trump Gets Rude Awakening as Newsom Gets Major Win
Date: December 10, 2025
Hosts: Michael Popok, Ben Meiselas
Guest Mentioned: Attorney General Rob Bonta (upcoming)

Overview

In this episode, the Legal AF team examines a landmark ruling by Senior Federal Judge Charles Breyer (brother of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer). Judge Breyer’s decision delivers a major legal blow to the Trump administration's attempt to federalize the California National Guard under questionable pretenses. This episode details the judicial order, explores the constitutional stakes (federalism, separation of powers, the use of the military in domestic contexts), and celebrates California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta’s legal victory.

Key Discussion Points

1. Judge Breyer’s Ruling Against Trump’s Federalization of the California National Guard

• Summary: Judge Breyer issued a preliminary injunction mandating that control of the California National Guard return to Governor Gavin Newsom, blocking the Trump administration’s efforts to extend federalization without adequate legal justification.
  • Popok clarifies, "[Judge Breyer] called out Donald Trump's attempts to create a national standing army in violation of our constitutional principles and the founding of this nation..." (00:29)
  • The judge found the Trump team engaged in “shocking” attempts to maintain federal control over state military resources, under the guise of purported unrest which no longer existed.

2. Constitutional Stakes: Checks and Balances, Federalism, Posse Comitatus

• Foundational Issues: Judge Breyer invoked core principles from the Federalist Papers, especially regarding the feared emergence of a national standing army and threats to “individual liberty and to the sovereignty of the separate states.”
  • Notable quote (Judge Breyer):
    "Adopting defendants' interpretation would permit a president to create a perpetual police force comprised of state troops..." (02:27)
  • The ruling directly references James Madison and Federalist No. 51 to underline the dangers of unchecked executive power (04:38).
• Checks on Executive Power: The Trump administration’s argument—that once federalized, National Guard control could be perpetually maintained and extended without court review—was decisively rejected.

3. Statutory and Legal Analysis

• Legal Mechanism: Popok breaks down Section 12406, allowing limited federal takeover of state militias only under specific circumstances (executing federal law, suppressing insurrection, etc.).
  • "[Trump] can just reauthorize without court review because he says so, and the judge says no. And that's a shocking display of raw power to create a standing army..." (08:37)
• Judge Breyer concluded that there was no evidence the use of “regular forces” (federal law enforcement, ICE, local police) was exhausted or insufficient.
  • "There is no showing in the record that Donald Trump called up the armed forces or properly used security forces and... still could not execute on federal law and therefore needed the National Guard." (10:00)

4. Litigation History and Appeal Process

• Previous Related Rulings: Judge Breyer had previously ruled on related aspects (including the Posse Comitatus Act), with some findings reversed by higher courts.
• Current Status: The decision includes an automatic stay to allow for Trump administration appeals to the Ninth Circuit. Michael Popok details what will happen next and how the legal battle may reach the Supreme Court (09:14).
  • "He said, I'm gonna stay my order on my own until Monday. File your motion, emergency motion, if you will, to the Ninth Circuit..." (09:36)

5. Impact and Coming Coverage

• Victors: California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated as protectors of state constitutional rights.
  • Rob Bonta is announced as an upcoming Legal AF guest for exclusive coverage of this case’s logic and impact (04:11 & 12:47).
• Significance for 2026 and Beyond: The team notes the importance of legal vigilance heading into future election cycles and the ongoing need to defend constitutional boundaries.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On the Federalization Tactic

Michael Popok:
“When a federal judge once again has to cite to the Federalist Papers and our founding, you know we’re in trouble, but we're also in a good place by having a judge like Breyer protecting democracy.”
(01:02)

On the “Blank Check” Power Grab

Judge Breyer, quoted by Popok:
“The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. Defendants [Trump] make clear that the only check they want is a blank one.”
(04:27)

On Separation of Powers

Judge Breyer, citing the Federalist Papers:
“So it’s the friction between the various co-equal branches — the judiciary, the legislative and the executive — that we get our checks and balances, not the blank check.”
(05:40)

On Legal Process and Real-Time Litigation

Michael Popok:
“They can’t just sit around… waiting around for the United States Supreme Court to get off its ass and issue a ruling…”
(11:04)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:29 – 02:55: Judge Breyer’s order overview and its “shocking” findings
• 04:04 – 06:34: Constitutional checks & balances; reference to Federalist Papers
• 07:49 – 10:00: Prior Posse Comitatus litigation; extension of federalization authority
• 10:01 – 12:35: Statutory analysis, “regular forces,” and impact of Supreme Court guidance
• 12:47 – 13:44: Announcement of exclusive interview with Attorney General Rob Bonta

Tone & Style

The episode is analytical, urgent, and occasionally incredulous—mirroring the Legal AF brand of breaking down complex legal issues with clarity and robust skepticism of overreaching executive power. The use of vivid historical references (Federalist Papers, Founders’ intent) and sharp quotations gives the episode both gravity and contemporary relevance.

Summary Takeaway

This episode dissects how a federal judge’s injunction, grounded in core constitutional doctrine and statutory interpretation, thwarts an attempt by the Trump administration to unilaterally militarize domestic politics through control of the National Guard. It frames the outcome both as an immediate victory for Newsom and Bonta, and as a crucial bulwark for state sovereignty and democratic checks heading into a politically fraught 2026.

For further reading, case filings, and oral arguments, the team encourages listeners to visit the Legal AF Substack.