Trump Shockingly Reversed as MAGA Supreme Court Gets Ignored?!?

Summary

---

Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Episode Title: Trump Shockingly Reversed as MAGA Supreme Court Gets Ignored?!?
Date: September 6, 2025
Hosts: Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok, Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Summary By: [Your Name]

---

Brief Overview

In this episode of Legal AF, Michael Popok delves into a major appellate court decision where former President Donald Trump’s effort to fire the sole remaining Democrat on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Rebecca Slaughter, was blocked. The ruling reasserts a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent, Humphrey’s Executor, that limits a president’s power to remove FTC commissioners without cause. The episode explores the legal nuances, the court’s sharp challenge to the current Supreme Court’s willingness to overturn precedent, and the broader implications for the separation of powers and independent federal agencies.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Background: Recent Trump Losses and the FTC Commissioner Case

• Trump’s Legal Losing Streak:

  • Trump has suffered three major legal defeats in four days.
  • This episode focuses on his loss at the D.C. Circuit Court regarding the firing of Rebecca Slaughter, the last Democratic commissioner on the FTC.
  • The decision was split, 2-1, showcasing a clear rift in court interpretations.

• The FTC and Precedent:

  • The FTC is led by five commissioners, but by statute, no more than three can be from the same political party.
  • Trump fired Democrats Olivaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, leaving the commission all Republican.
  • The firing of Slaughter is challenged based on the Humphrey’s Executor precedent.

The Appellate Court’s Ruling

• Key Precedent: Humphrey’s Executor (1935):
  • Establishes that the president can only remove FTC commissioners “for cause” (e.g., inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office).
  • The appellate panel, Judges Millett and Pillard, ruled that since the Supreme Court has not overturned this precedent, they are bound to apply it.

“We’re not gonna do your job for you. You want to overturn Humphrey’s Executor, then you overturn it. But we see it as the precedent binding in this circuit.”
— Michael Popok summarizing court’s message to the Supreme Court [04:15]

• Direct Challenge to the Supreme Court:
  • The two-judge majority essentially tells the Supreme Court: Only you can overturn your own precedent, not us.
  • They reinforce that recent Supreme Court emergency docket actions (not formal reversals) do not change binding law.

“Specifically, 90 years ago, a unanimous Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protection... and the Supreme Court has repeatedly and expressly left Humphrey’s Executor in place.”
— Michael Popok reading from the appellate decision [06:50]

Judicial Pokes and Legal Posturing

• Tension with the Supreme Court:
  • The majority’s opinion has a “poke the bear” tone — daring the Supreme Court to do the work of overturning precedent if it chooses.

“‘We’re not going to do your job for you. So, we apply Humphrey’s Executor.’ That’s a bit of a dig at the Supreme Court.”
— Michael Popok [09:30]

• Procedural vs. Substantive Precedent:
  • The Supreme Court’s recent interventions allowed Trump to fire other agency heads (NLRB, Office of Special Counsel), but only on emergency/procedural grounds, not by overruling Humphrey’s Executor.

Dissent by Judge Rao (Trump Appointee)

• The Dissent’s Argument:
  • Judge Rao argues for blocking the stay (allowing Slaughter’s firing) and letting the Supreme Court have the final say.
  • She leans on a May 2025 Supreme Court decision (Wilcox) prioritizing the government’s “harm” from an unapproved officer over harm to the individual removed.

“The harm to the executive branch in having an officer exercise this power trumps the harm to the officer being removed.”
— Michael Popok, summarizing Judge Rao [14:20]

Broader Implications

• What’s at Stake:
  • Whether the FTC’s statutory protections for commissioners — meant to ensure agency independence — will survive new challenges by a conservative Supreme Court.
  • Similar questions loom over other agencies, such as the Federal Reserve.

“We have an all-Republican Federal Trade Commission, in violation of the statute creating it… The Supreme Court is just letting Congress create executive branches, executive agencies, put limits on the president’s ability, and say, ‘yeah, it’s still good.’”
— Michael Popok [17:10]

• Potential Supreme Court Action:
  • The Supreme Court could, if it accepts the case, decide whether Humphrey’s Executor should be overturned or distinguished due to the expanded role of agencies like the FTC.

“For them to overturn Humphrey’s Executor, they’d have to say the FTC has gotten so big for its britches … [but] I don’t see major change here that justifies this.”
— Michael Popok [15:50]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Court’s Defiance:

  “We’re not gonna do your job for you. You wanna overturn Humphrey’s Executor, then you overturn it. But we see it as the precedent binding in this circuit.”
  – [04:15]

• Explaining ‘For Cause’ Standard:

  “You can only remove a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission if they have committed inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
  – [06:30]

• On Judicial Restraint and Precedent:

  “Now they’re poking the bear at the Supreme Court…They say only the Supreme Court can overturn precedent. So the only precedent we can apply is Humphrey’s Executor.”
  – [09:30]

• Summary of the Dissent:

  “Judge Rao … basically relies on Wilcox … the government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power, than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.”
  – [14:20]

• On the Broader Stakes:

  “The argument here is that they should keep Humphrey’s Executor in place and treat the FTC the way they treat the Federal Reserve… to make sure people don’t get fired unless there is proper cause.”
  – [16:24]

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• [02:03] – Introduction to Trump’s loss at the D.C. Circuit and background on the FTC case
• [04:15] – Summary of appellate court ruling and challenge to Supreme Court precedent
• [06:30] – Explanation of “for cause” protections per Humphrey’s Executor
• [09:30] – Judges’ explicit challenge to the Supreme Court
• [14:20] – Judge Rao’s dissent and the Wilcox precedent
• [15:50] – Likelihood and basis for Supreme Court overturning Humphrey’s Executor
• [17:10] – Broader concerns for agency independence and statutory compliance

---

Conclusion

This episode underscores the ongoing legal battles over presidential power and independent agencies. The D.C. Circuit's decision is a rare, open challenge to the conservative Supreme Court’s willingness to dismantle long-standing protections, particularly as partisan tensions and executive authority reach new highs. The next steps—potential Supreme Court review and the fate of Humphrey’s Executor—could have profound implications for the balance of powers in American government.

Host closing thought:

“We’ll continue to follow it and bring you these important updates right here on Legal AF.”
— Michael Popok [17:40]

---

Transcript

[A]

This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. When you visit the doctor, you probably hand over your insurance, your ID and contact details. It's just one of the many places that has your personal info and if any of them accidentally expose it, you could be at risk for identity theft. LifeLock monitors millions of data points a second. If you become a victim, they'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first [e-mail] podcast terms apply.

[B]

10 years from today, Lisa Schneider will trade in her office job to become the leader of a pack of dogs as the owner of her own dog rescue. That is a second act made possible by the reskilling courses Lisa's taking now with AARP to help make sure her income lives as long as she does, and she can finally run with the big dogs and the small dogs who just think they're big dogs. That's why the younger you are, the more you need AARP. Learn more at aarp.org skills back to.

[A]

School is better with Family Freedom from T Mobile we'll pay off four phones up to $3200 and give you four free phones all on America's largest 5G network. Visit your local T Mobile location or learn more@t mobile.com familyfreedom up to $800 per line via virtual prepaid card typically takes 15 days. Free phones via 24 monthly bill credits with finance agreement eg Apple iPhone16128Gigabyte829 99 eligible trade in eg iPhone11 Pro for well qualified credits end and balance due if you pay off early or cancel contact T Mobile.

[C]

Ever notice how ads always pop up at the worst moments when the killer's identity is about to be revealed during that perfect meditation flow on Amazon Music, we believe in keeping you in the moment. That's why we've got millions of ad free podcast episodes so you can stay completely immersed in every story, every reveal, every breath, every download the Amazon Music app and start listening to your favorite podcasts. Ad free included with prime in breaking.

[D]

News in just four days, Donald Trump is on an epic losing streak, now suffering his third loss, this time at the United States Court of appeals for the D.C. court in a 2 to 1 decision has now blocked his efforts to fire the only remaining Democrat on the Federal Trade Commission, citing a 90 year old precedent which the Supreme Court may be chipping away at but has not removed entirely, called Humphreys executor. In fact, as noted by the two to one decision of Judge Millet And Judge Pollard against Judge Rao, a Trump supporter, a Trump nominee. The actual case of Humphrey's executor, which is the precedent going back 90 years that says a President cannot fire anyone from the Federal Trade Commission. This is what the case says from the Federal Trade Commission without cause, which has always been interpreted as inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. All those things happening in office. The actual case of Humphreys executor, Humphreys was a Federal Trade Commission commissioner. I can't think of a case that's on all fours more than this case. And what the 2 to 1 decision was. And they actually call out the United States Supreme Court. Finally I'm gonna, I'm going to. They're just getting tired of getting reversed by the Supreme Court. And what the D.C. appellate panel here, two to one said to the Supreme Court is we're not gonna do your job for you. You wanna overturn Humphrey's executor, then you overturn it. But we see it as the precedent binding in this circuit certainly about a Federal Trade Commission commissioner and the President having illegally fired that person. And that's the precedent we're going to file follow until you change it. Challenging the Supreme Court to quote unquote, do its job. I'm Michael Popak, I'm doing my job. I'm here on the Midas Dutch network and on Legal af. Let's get into the case of Rebecca Slaughter. The Federal Trade Commission, as noted by the two to one panel, is a commission that was formed 100 years ago, more than a hundred years ago. It's led by a group of five commissioners and by the way that the Congress established this, this independent agency. No more than three out of the five can be members of the same political party. They have to be nominated and confirmed by the Senate. Right now there are no Democrats. Donald Trump fired the two Democrats. He fired Olivaro Bedoya and he fired Rebecca Slaughter. Slaughter is challenging that because Bedoya apparently went off and got a new job. But right now it's an all Republican led Federal Trade Commission which legislate, which regulates in the area of, of trade and business regulation here in the United States. It's a very important thing. It investigates whether people are committing fraud in the area of business transactions. If they're running Ponzi schemes. It's often shut down by the ftc. But now we have no Democrats on here. And here's what the judges, the two judges in the majority in their pure per curiam order, meaning we're not sure who wrote it. It's the opinion of both of them. Here's what they say on page two. President Trump fired the Federal Trade Commissioner, Rebecca Slaughter without cause. The district Court ordered her reinstated. That means the trial court level. The government now seeks a stay on of that decision pending an appeal. That motion must be denied. The government has no likelihood of success on appeal given the controlling and directly on point supreme court precedent. Specifically, 90 years ago, a unanimous Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Federal Trade Commission Acts for Cause Removal Protection. Meaning you can only remove a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission under Humphrey's executor case law if they have committed inefficiency, which usually means theft of honest service. You're not doing your job, you're working two hours, you're getting paid for seven hours. Neglect of duty similar and malfeasance. You do something terribly wrong in office, all within office. And in Humphreys executor in 1935, Humphreys was a Federal Trade Commission commissioner. It's very rare that you get a case which is on all fours, including the facts. Over the ensuing decades, and fully informed by the substantial executive power exercised by the Commission, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and expressly left Humphrey's executors in place and precluded Presidents from removing commissioners at will. They're addressing an argument raised by maga, raised by the unitary presidential model, that the President has all the power in that particular branch and Congress can't do anything to impede it. And the bigger the agency and the more executive function that the agency or the Commission is recognized to possess, the more the President can fire without cause, the more it's seen as an infringement on presidential power by Congress if it is depending upon how much executive power this independent commissioner agency exerts. And so here they're saying out loud, everybody knows in the last 90 years what the Federal Trade Commission does, what its powers are, and yet the Supreme Court has reaffirmed Humphrey's executor time and time again. Then just four months ago, the ruling continues. The Supreme Court stated that adherence to precedent, like Humphrey's executor controls in resolving stay motions. So now they're poking the bear of the Supreme Court. And let me translate that. This is Judge Millet and Judge Pollard saying, look, you just told us it's not up to the Federal District Court judges to make rulings to overturn precedent. We only we at the Supreme Court can overturn precedent. You apply precedent. So like, okay, the only precedent we can apply is Humphreys executor about a Federal Trade Commission commissioner just like Rebecca Slaughter. So we are going to apply it. Now here's the other little dig at the United States Supreme Court. They say we're going to we're not going to stay the matter. We're going to reinstate her. We're going to keep her in her chair at the Federal Trade Commission. And she's already issued statements and saying I'm back at work. And Donald Trump keeps issuing statements that says no, she's fired. Now here's where they poke on page three the key substantive question presented by the government's appeal is whether the statute providing the commissioners for cause removal protection unconstitutionally infringes on a president's article to power the government is highly unlikely to succeed on appeal because meaning to the Supreme Court or or or a substantive appeal on the matter because the exact question was already asked and unanimously answered by the same Supreme Court adversely to the government's position 90 years ago and then citing even in 2021 and 2020 the Supreme Court affirmed Humphrey's executor. Humphrey's executor controls this case and binds this court and recent developments on the Supreme Court's emergency docket do not permit this court to do the Supreme Court's job of reconsidering that precedent. This episode is brought to you by Price Picks. You and I make decisions every day, but on Prize Picks Being right can get you paid. Don't miss any of the excitement this season on Prize Picks where it's good to be right. I'm so excited to see Saquon Barkley take the field this season. I'm thinking in that first game he can even have more than one rushing touchdown. Prize Picks is simple to play, just pick more or less on two to six player stat projections. If you get your picks right, you could cash in. Prize Picks is also the best way to get action on sports. In more than 40 plus states including California, Texas and Georgia, Prize Picks invented the Flex play, which means you can still cash out if your lineup isn't perfect. You can double your money even if one of your picks doesn't hit. Prize Picks is the best way to win cash this football season. Which players are going off, which ones aren't? Make your picks in less than 60 seconds and turn your takes into cash all season long on Prize Picks. Prize Picks is the best place to win cash while watching sports. Join millions of users and sign up today. Download the app today and use code LEGAL AF to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup. That's code LEGAL AF to get 50 dollars in lineups after you play your FIRST $5 lineup. Prize picks. It's good to be right. What are they talking about there? Well in at least three different cases over the spring, the Supreme Court related to the National Labor Relations Board, the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board and the heads of all of those allowed Trump on an emergency docket without getting into the substance, allowed these people to be fired and did not find that Humphrey's executor required that a 4 cause termination be the basis for their termination, allowing Donald Trump just to whack off, just to whack and take out all of these commissioners and agency heads even if Congress had said it can only be a 4 cost termination, even though they didn't reach the merits, they only did it on the emergency docket on a procedural basis. Here's where, here's the dig by these, these two judges which is if you want to change it even though you've made some different changes about different people, National Labor Relations Board, Office of Special Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board on your emergency docket, then you reconsider precedent. We're not going to do your job for you. So they don't. So what does this mean? They go through the analysis, they affirm the stay at the supreme at the this court level that was issued by the lower, lower court, the federal district judge and now they're setting it up for an appeal to the Supreme Court. If they want to take away Humphreys executor, they can take away Humphreys executor as the leading precedent in the area. But they need to do it and now it's set up for that. Now Judge Rao, who is a Trump supporter so far I've watched every one of her cases over the last two years. You know, she's a Trump appointee. I've read every one of her decisions. I think except for once she's always sided with the Trump position. Always. So in her, in her order in her dissent she effectively says well there, this is something that should go to the Supreme Court and in the meantime we should block the stay and allow her to be fired and let it go up to the United States Supreme Court. This is, this is how they operate. Just let, just let her be fired. We'll fix it later. Here's what she said in her dissent on page one of her dissent. This case presents a now familiar set of facts. President Donald Trump fired a Commissioner of a so called independent agency. You see where this is going already without cause. The district court held that such removal was unlawful, ordered reinstatement and entered a permanent injunction. While while it is true that the removed officer here is a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and the Supreme Court upheld the removal restrictions of the commissioners in Humphrey's executor in 1935, a stay is nonetheless appropriate. So wait till you see how she gets there. The commission unquestionably exercises significant executive power and the other equities favor the government. Because we are required to exercise our equitable discretion in accordance with the with the court's directive, the district court's order must be stayed. She basically relies on a ruling for from the Wilcox case from this summer in May, in 2025 by the Supreme Court where in Wilcox they said that the government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power that are wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty. In other words, the harm to the executive branch and having an officer exercise his power, Trump's power is more than the harm to the officer being removed. Now this is now going to go up at the United States Supreme Court level. It's hard for me to actually, I'm going to try it here, but it's hard for me to actually predict what's going to happen. For, for the. They would have to make the ruling that the Federal Trade Commission has gotten so big for its britches, has outgrown Humphrey's executor, has taken on responsibilities and roles that, that impinge on the executive branch in ways that it didn't in 1935. In order for it to overturn Humphrey's executor. It could do that. I just don't see. There's been a major change in how the Federal Trade Commission operates and they've known about the Federal Trade Commission and whatever its growing powers have been and they haven't reached out and tried to overturn Humphreys executor in the last 35 years. In the last, sorry. In the last 90 years. Certainly not in the last 20 years. So I think the argument here is that they should keep Humphrey's executor in place and that treat the Federal Trade Commission the way they treat the Federal Reserve, which is to put a ring fence around it to protect it and to make sure that people don't get fired from those positions unless there is proper cause, which again is inefficiency, neglect of duty and malfeasance in office. I mean, one of the big debates that's gonna go up to the Supreme Court this term is going to be about Lisa Cook, who's on the Federal Reserve, which they also said has to be a for cause firing. Now Donald Trump says whatever I say it is is the for cause firing. And she committed mortgage fraud. I'm not sure mortgage fraud rises to the level of inefficiency, neglect of duty and malfeasance in office. She didn't commit these, that alleged fraud in office. And that's not the four cause termination grounds. But that's for the Supreme Court to decide about that. Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission. We now have an all Republican Federal Trade Commission in violation of the statute creating it by the, by Congress. I mean Supreme Court is just letting Congress create executive branches, executive agencies put limits on Trump's ability or president's ability to take away their independence, allow them to take away their independence and say, yeah, it's still good. Well, it's not, it wasn't the basis for what the, what the Congress did to create the agency. So why should we allow the Supreme Court to alter the terms of the creation of that agency or commission? It is outrageous, but we'll continue to follow it. You're here on the Midas Touch network. Take a minute, hit the Free subscribe button, slide over to Legal AF, the YouTube channel, do the exact same thing. And then cases like this and orders like this, I put up on Legal AF substack so that you can read them for yourself as well. And we do lives on Legal A F sub stack all to help you learn more about law and politics. So until my next report, I'm Michael Popak. Can't get your fill of Legal af? Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called wait for it Morning af. What else? All the other contributors from link layout for there as well. We got some new reporting, we got interviews, we got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes where Legal AF on substack. Come over now to free subscribe. Support American made tariff free clothing with American Giant. With American Giant they aren't affected by tariffs because their clothing products never left the U.S. get 20% off your first order when you use promo code [e-mail].

[C]

Fall is all about cozy comforts. And with HeroBread, you can enjoy all your favorites and still hit your health goals. From breakfast bagels and meal prepped enchiladas to mouth watering burgers and cheesy noodles you won't believe. Herobread's options have 0 to 5 grams net carbs and are high fiber from the taste and texture. And right now, Herobred is offering 10% off your order. Go to Hero Co and use code fall25 at checkout. That's fall25hero co. All figures are per serving of HeroBread. Contains 2 to 18 grams of fat per serving. See the product nutrition panels on Hero Co for more information.