Summary of "Trump Meets His Fate on LA Troops in Federal Court" Episode of Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Podcast Information:

• Title: Legal AF by MeidasTouch
• Host(s): Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok, Karen Friedman Agnifilo
• Description: Legal AF delves into the week's most significant developments at the crossroads of law and politics, offering hard-hitting analysis and thoughtful discussions. This episode, titled "Trump Meets His Fate on LA Troops in Federal Court," released on June 17, 2025, examines the legal challenges surrounding former President Donald Trump's attempts to mobilize National Guard troops in California.

Introduction

The episode opens with a series of advertisements before transitioning to the main legal discussion. Michael Popok, the national trial lawyer strategist, spearheads the analysis of a high-profile case involving Donald Trump and his attempt to federalize the National Guard in California. The focus is on understanding the legal ramifications and the potential outcomes of the ongoing federal court proceedings.

Background of the Case

Lower Court Rulings

• Initial Ruling: On the previous Friday, Judge Breyer of the San Francisco Federal Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Trump administration. The ruling found that Donald Trump had engaged in illegal activities by violating the 1903 Militia Act and the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

• Violations Highlighted:

  • Sovereignty of California: The administration did not seek consent from California’s governor before attempting to federalize the National Guard.
  • Separation of Powers: The act was seen as an overreach of executive authority, infringing upon state sovereignty.

Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

• Panel Composition: The appeal is being heard by a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Miller, Bennett, and Sung.
• Presiding Judge: Judge Bennett, a Trump appointee and former Attorney General of Hawaii, is noted for his pragmatic and moderate stance.

Oral Arguments at the Ninth Circuit

Key Points Discussed

• Jurisdictional Questions: A significant portion of the oral arguments centered on whether the Ninth Circuit has the authority to review the TRO issued by Judge Breyer. Michael Popok critiques that the panel overlooked fundamental jurisdictional issues, which he believes should have been the primary focus.

• Trump Administration's Position:

  • Rebellion Claim: The administration characterized Trump's actions as a rebellion, asserting his inability to execute federal laws without federalizing the National Guard.
  • Political Question Doctrine: They argued that this case presents non-justiciable, political questions beyond the court’s purview.

• Opposition's Argument:

  • Legality of Actions: California’s representatives contended that Trump’s actions were unlawful and violated state sovereignty.
  • Executive Overreach: Emphasis was placed on maintaining the balance of power and preventing executive overreach.

Notable Discourse

• Judge Bennett’s Leadership: Michael Popok notes that Judge Bennett steered the questioning in a manner unfavorable to the Trump administration. At [08:25], he states:

  "Judge Bennett led things is not good for the Trump administration... we can review the decision of a president as a judge at the Judiciary branch."

• Potential Directions for the Court:

  • Remand for Further Evidence: The panel may direct the lower court to develop a more comprehensive record.
  • Stay of Temporary Restraining Order: They could uphold the TRO while awaiting the preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for Friday.
  • Jurisdiction Affirmation: Alternatively, the court might affirm its jurisdiction to hear the case fully.

Judges’ Perspectives

• Judge Bennett: Identified as a pragmatic and moderate figure, his approach during the hearing suggested skepticism toward the Trump administration’s claims.

• Judge Miller and Judge Sung:

  • Judge Miller: Described as a federalist and former Scalia clerk, indicating a conservative leaning.
  • Judge Sung: A Biden appointee and the newest member of the panel, her questioning was comparatively reserved.

Michael Popok anticipates that the panel may either require more substantial evidence before making a definitive ruling or side with the lower court's jurisdictional stance, potentially curbing Trump's efforts to federalize the National Guard without due process.

Potential Outcomes

Likely Scenarios

1. Affirmation of Jurisdiction: The Ninth Circuit could affirm its authority to review the TRO, thereby allowing the case to proceed.
2. Remand for Further Proceedings: The court might send the case back to Judge Breyer for a more detailed examination of evidence and legal arguments.
3. Combination of Orders: A nuanced approach where the TRO remains in place pending the outcome of the preliminary injunction hearing on Friday.

Michael Popok’s Prognosis

At [08:25], Popok offers his expectations:

"They're going to find that this decision by Trump to declare the federalization to commandeer the National Guard, they're going to find that they have the just. They have the power and the jurisdiction to, to provide oversight over that, to make a decision about that."

He suggests that the Ninth Circuit is likely to uphold the lower court's jurisdictional challenges to Trump's actions, signaling a potential loss for Trump in this legal battle.

Conclusion

The episode provides a comprehensive analysis of the ongoing legal confrontation between Donald Trump and California’s state government over the federalization of the National Guard. With the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals poised to make a significant ruling, the legal community and political observers are keenly awaiting the outcome, which will have profound implications for the balance of federal and state powers.

Michael Popok emphasizes the importance of the upcoming preliminary injunction hearing and anticipates a ruling that may limit Trump's ability to unilaterally mobilize federal troops without adhering to legal protocols and respecting state sovereignty.

Additional Resources

Listeners are encouraged to subscribe to the Legal AF Substack for in-depth court filings, oral arguments, and daily legal analyses. Exclusive content and ad-free versions of the podcast are available to subscribers.

Note: This summary excludes advertisements and non-content segments to focus on the substantive legal discussions presented in the episode.