Legal AF by MeidasTouch: "Trump Suffers Massive Loss by Supreme Court"
Episode Date: December 23, 2025
Host: Michael Popok (MeidasTouch Network)
Summary by [Your Name]

Episode Overview

In this episode, host Michael Popok dissects a landmark Supreme Court decision that delivers a significant blow to Donald Trump’s attempt to federalize state National Guard units for domestic law enforcement in blue states. The conversation breaks down the Court’s 6–3 ruling, its far-reaching implications for the balance of powers, and the potential domino effect on similar cases nationwide. Popok offers real-time legal analysis, connects the decision to events like January 6, and critiques the justices’ opinions, particularly the “ironic” stance of Justice Kavanaugh.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Breaking the Case Down

• [00:29–02:00]
  • Michael Popok summarizes the ruling: The SCOTUS decided, 6–3, that the President cannot federalize a state’s National Guard unless unable to carry out the law using regular military forces—and only with Congressional approval.
  • The case arose from Trump federalizing the Illinois National Guard during unrest around an ICE facility.
  • This decision will impact similar disputes in Oregon, California, and elsewhere, particularly in the 9th and 7th Circuit Courts.

“The beginning of the end of Donald Trump's unconstitutional illegal use of the National Guard in states, blue states, to federalize them… may be coming to an end because… the Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump may not use the National Guard... unless he's able to use the regular forces of the military… and then, only if Congress allows it.”
—Michael Popok [00:29]

2. Legal Statutes and Historical Context

• [02:01–05:30]
  • Discussion centers on the critical statute: 10 USC §12406.
  • The Court was interested specifically in the meaning of “regular forces.”
  • Trump’s administration argued these were civilian law enforcement; the states argued it meant military branches (Army, Navy, Marines, etc.).
  • Reference to the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement.

“Only Congress can empower the president to use troops… on domestic soil. Has to be a delegation from Congress.”
—Michael Popok [03:00]

3. How the Court Ruled

• [05:31–09:30]
  • The Court sided with the states, agreeing “regular forces” refers to the US military—not federal law enforcement.
  • The President may only federalize the Guard if unable to enforce the law with actual military forces, and even then, only where Congress specifically authorizes it.
  • The Insurrection Act is cited as a rare exception.

“We conclude that the term ‘regular forces’ refers to the regular forces of the US Military, siding with the states.”
—Popok quoting the Supreme Court majority [07:18]

4. The “Closed Circuit Loop”

• [08:00–09:00]
  • Popok notes the ruling creates a logical chain: the president must first check if he’s legally allowed to use the military via specific statutes—if not, only then consider the National Guard.
  • The current administration failed to provide lawful justification under existing statutes.

“It creates a little bit of a, of a closed circuit loop… The President would have to analyze whether he's allowed to use the military... If he can't, then you skip that step and you go right to federalizing the National Guard.”
—Michael Popok [08:33]

5. Potential for Trump to Use the Insurrection Act

• [09:31–10:00]
  • The decision hints that Trump might now be tempted to invoke the Insurrection Act to justify military domestic deployment.

“It's basically begging or baiting Donald Trump to use the Insurrection Act, one of several limited exceptions to the Posse Comitatus act… In order to do that first before you call for backup with the state militia.”
—Michael Popok [09:40]

6. Justice Kavanaugh’s Concurrence and Irony

• [10:01–12:45]
  • Kavanaugh joined the majority but criticized its reasoning—and invoked a hypothetical similar to January 6, focusing on threats to federal judges and courthouses.
  • Popok highlights the irony: Kavanaugh suggests future presidents may need the National Guard in a crisis like Jan. 6, but Trump himself didn't act to protect Congress or even call the Guard during the Capitol riot.

“Suppose a mob rapidly gathers outside the U.S. courthouse… threatening to storm the courthouse and attack federal judges… Sounds a lot like Jan6, don't you think?... Except Donald Trump didn’t [call out the National Guard during Jan 6].”
—Popok paraphrasing and critiquing Kavanaugh [11:25–12:30]

“Don't tell me about what a president should be allowed to do. How about this? First line of defense is if there's an insurrection, to declare an insurrection, call out the military... How about that?”
—Michael Popok [12:53]

7. Broader Impact

• [12:46–14:00]
  • The ruling bolsters other similar cases (notably in LA, San Francisco, and Portland), likely leading to a domino effect favoring state autonomy over federal force.

“This new law… is only emboldened by this ruling. It's supported by this ruling. Judge Breyer anticipated this ruling in San Francisco.”
—Michael Popok [13:31]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the political implications:
  “You also don't recognize even though you're willing to put a crown on Donald Trump's head and levitate the executive branch above the other two branches of government…”
  —Michael Popok [12:00]

• On Trump’s inaction during January 6th:
  “Donald Trump sat in his dining room for, what was it, three hours, four hours, letting the Capitol burn, not calling the Secretary of the Army, not calling the National Guard, doing nothing.”
  —Michael Popok [12:44]

Timestamped Highlights

• [00:29] Explanation of the Supreme Court’s decision against Trump’s use of the National Guard.
• [03:00] Breakdown of the need for Congressional delegation for use of troops domestically.
• [06:50] The Supreme Court’s official language on “regular forces.”
• [09:40] Implications for use of the Insurrection Act.
• [11:25–12:30] Kavanaugh’s concurrence and its Jan. 6 parallels.
• [13:31] Repercussions for related cases in other federal circuits.

Final Thoughts & Next Steps

• Popok’s closing:
  The ruling marks a significant reaffirmation of Congressional checks on presidential power and underlines the precedent for legal challenges to federalized use of force in the states.
  • Promises to follow up with interviews—especially with California AG Bonta—to gauge state reactions and long-term effects.

Summary Rating:
This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in constitutional law, federalism, presidential power, and the legal fallout from the Trump era. Michael Popok delivers sharp, passionate, and timely analysis with concrete legal breakdowns and an unflinching eye on history’s ironies.