Legal AF by MeidasTouch Episode: Trump Handed Major Loss by DC Circuit… Trump Judges Pissed Release Date: April 9, 2025

Overview

In this episode of Legal AF by MeidasTouch, hosts Ben Meiselas, Michael Popak, and Karen Friedman Agnifilo delve into a significant legal upheaval involving former President Donald Trump. The discussion centers around a landmark decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which marks a substantial setback for the Trump administration. The episode provides an in-depth analysis of the court's ruling, its historical legal precedents, and the potential ramifications as the case heads to the Supreme Court.

D.C. Circuit Court's Landmark Ruling

Michael Popak opens the episode with breaking news about the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision against the Trump administration. The court ruled 7 to 4 in favor of reinstating two officials, Gwen Wilcox and Kathy Harris, to their respective positions at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). These officials had been unlawfully dismissed by Trump, who cited the exercise of his Article II powers as justification.

"The seven majority found that both Gwen Wilcox and Kathy Harris need to be immediately reinstated into their positions... because they were unconstitutionally and illegally fired by Donald Trump." [01:26]

The majority opinion emphasized that these bipartisan, congressionally created bodies are designed to protect workers and federal employees, thereby limiting the executive branch's authority to remove officials without just cause.

Legal Foundations: Humphrey's Executor and Celia Law

Popak explains the legal backbone of the court's decision, referencing the Humphrey's Executor case from 1935, which has been a longstanding precedent governing the removal of officials from independent, multi-member boards.

"Humphrey's Executor... says you can't just fire them without cause." [01:55]

He further cites the Celia Law case from 2020, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed Humphrey's Executor, maintaining that the executive branch cannot unilaterally dismiss board members without due cause.

"Celia Law case from 2020... the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that it was not overturning the precedent established in Humphrey's Executor." [04:10]

These cases collectively establish that unless there is malfeasance or neglect, the executive branch lacks the authority to remove officials from such boards.

Court's Decision and Dissenting Opinions

The ruling saw a majority of seven judges supporting the reinstatement of Wilcox and Harris, while four judges, including three Trump appointees, dissented. The dissenting judges argued against the reinstallation, highlighting concerns about disrupting the status quo and upholding executive decisions.

"It's extraordinary. We, you know, the executive branch fired them. We shouldn't be rehiring them, you know, like that." [04:55]

The majority's decision also included denying the government's motions for en banc consideration and stays pending appeal, effectively forcing the reinstatement of the officials pending further litigation.

"Vacating and the government's motions for a stay pending appeal are denied. In other words, we're not going to stay our order. Get back to work, Ms. Harris and Ms. Wilcox..." [05:20]

Path Forward: Supreme Court Intervention

With the D.C. Circuit's ruling in place, the Trump administration faces a constitutional impasse that is likely to escalate to the Supreme Court. Popak outlines the possible scenarios:

1. Emergency Appeal to the Supreme Court: The Trump administration may seek an emergency stay from the Supreme Court, challenging the lower court's decision.

2. Supreme Court's Decision-Making Dynamics: Given the current composition of the Supreme Court, with justices like Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch potentially siding with the President, there is speculation about the Court's stance on upholding or overturning the precedent set by Humphrey's Executor.

"If they slide over, if one of the two slide over to the other side, they're going to block this again. And Wilcox and Harris can unpack their boxes again because they're not going to work." [12:15]

Popak anticipates that the Supreme Court may either uphold the appellate court's decision, thereby reinforcing the restrictions on presidential power to remove officials without cause, or side with the Trump administration, potentially setting a new precedent for executive authority.

"I think it's a stronger case now on appeal with seven judges... If they side with the other three, it's going to be five to four to affirm this decision and to put Wilcox and Harris back in their job." [10:40]

Legal Implications and Constitutional Crisis

The episode underscores the broader implications of this ruling, highlighting a potential constitutional crisis as the balance of power between the executive branch and independent regulatory bodies comes into question. The adherence to historical legal precedents versus evolving interpretations of executive power remains at the forefront of this legal showdown.

"We have a constitutional crisis that's going to get resolved one way or the other by the United States Supreme Court." [04:45]

The discussion emphasizes the importance of the Supreme Court's role in adjudicating such conflicts, reinforcing the judiciary's authority in maintaining checks and balances within the U.S. government framework.

Conclusion

Legal AF by MeidasTouch provides a comprehensive breakdown of the D.C. Circuit Court's pivotal ruling against the Trump administration, situating the decision within a historical legal context and exploring the potential paths forward. The episode aptly captures the high-stakes nature of the case, offering listeners a thorough understanding of the legal arguments, court dynamics, and the broader constitutional implications at play.

"We just launched the Legal AF YouTube channel... Go to YouTube now and free subscribe @legalafmtn." [13:56]

Stay tuned for ongoing coverage and analysis as this legal battle continues to unfold.

Notable Quotes:

• "The seven majority found that both Gwen Wilcox and Kathy Harris need to be immediately reinstated into their positions... because they were unconstitutionally and illegally fired by Donald Trump." – Michael Popak [01:26]

• "Humphrey's Executor... says you can't just fire them without cause." – Michael Popak [01:55]

• "It's extraordinary. We, you know, the executive branch fired them. We shouldn't be rehiring them, you know, like that." – Dissented Judge [04:55]

• "We have a constitutional crisis that's going to get resolved one way or the other by the United States Supreme Court." – Michael Popak [04:45]

• "If they slide over, if one of the two slide over to the other side, they're going to block this again. And Wilcox and Harris can unpack their boxes again because they're not going to work." – Michael Popak [12:15]

Stay Connected

Subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the intersection of law and politics. Visit YouTube - Legal AF to join the community and stay informed.