Legal AF Podcast Summary

Episode: "Trump's DOJ Lawyers May Lose Law Licenses after Appeal"

Podcast: Legal AF by MeidasTouch
Date: January 1, 2026
Hosts: Michael Popok, with commentary by Ben Meiselas
Special Mention: Karen Friedman Agnifilo (Not present in transcripted portion)
Episode Theme:
A deep-dive into ongoing legal battles concerning Department of Justice officials under Donald Trump, focusing on accountability for violations of court orders in relation to the forced deportation of individuals and potential criminal contempt. The conversation centers on Chief Judge Boasberg’s efforts to hold Trump-era officials accountable—potentially to the point of pursuing their disbarment.

Main Topics and Discussion Points

1. Chief Judge Boasberg Vs. DOJ: The Contempt Case

• Background
  • Chief Judge Boasberg in D.C. is overseeing a high-profile case (referred to as "jgg") involving deportations of 250 people (mostly men) to El Salvador—allegedly without due process and in violation of court orders. Additionally, 137 have formed a class action.
  • The Trump administration allegedly transferred these individuals to Venezuela following a contested prisoner exchange, circumventing U.S. jurisdiction ([00:59]).
  • Boasberg initiated a criminal contempt process after determining Trump officials continued deportations in defiance of his orders.
• Legal Process
  • Boasberg’s authority allows him to enforce orders through progressive disciplinary steps—up to criminal contempt ([04:05]).
  • Previously, a Trump-friendly D.C. Circuit panel halted these proceedings. Later, a broader (en banc) panel allowed Boasberg to resume fact-finding.
  • Trump’s team responded by seeking an emergency writ of mandamus—an unusual move to halt ongoing judicial fact-finding ([01:50–04:10]).
  • Quote:
    “You can't say, ‘Well, I think your order is going to be overturned, Judge, so screw you, I’m flouting your orders.’ That’s called contumacious conduct.” – Michael Popok ([05:47])

2. DOJ and Trump Administration Tactics

• Deflection and Stonewalling
  • DOJ officials and Trump administration lawyers, including Kristi Noem and now-3rd Circuit Judge Amel Bove, provided evasive, non-informative affidavits in response to the judge’s requests.
  • The DOJ has insisted the judge should simply refer possible contempt to the department for (non)action, rather than creating a public record—a position characterized as “outrageous” ([08:50]).
• Attorney-Client Privilege Arguments

  • Trump’s team asserts sweeping attorney-client privilege, both to protect communications and to shield against scrutiny.

  • Popok pushes back:

    • In government contexts, attorney-client privilege is more limited than in private practice, as established in prior cases involving Bill Clinton and Ken Starr ([11:37]).
    • Privilege does not shield government lawyers when criminal misconduct or fraud is at issue.

  • Key Quote:
    “The privilege takes flight when there’s been...the privilege is gone under certain circumstances. Takes flight, flies away when you are relying on it as a defense or you're committing a crime or a fraud.” – Michael Popok ([11:37])

3. The ACLU’s Involvement and Legal Arguments

• Active Role in Litigation
  • The ACLU has filed briefs urging the D.C. Circuit to deny the DOJ’s mandamus request and continue the fact-finding process.
  • ACLU’s position: The judge should not blindly defer to DOJ’s refusal to act, especially while there remain facts to be discovered about willfulness and intent ([08:42]).
  • The ACLU will join Legal AF as regular commentators on these and similar matters.
• Bar Licenses at Risk

  • As a consequence of judicial findings, DOJ lawyers and Trump-era officials could face non-criminal sanctions, including potential bar referrals, jeopardizing their law licenses ([13:50]).

  • The judge has broad inherent authority to sanction misconduct, beyond merely referring matters for criminal prosecution.

  • Key Quote:
    “...referral to a bar authority, bar regulator, look out bar licenses, adverse inferences in the related litigation or any other non criminal sanction.” – Michael Popok ([14:35])

4. Key Case Law and Precedent

• Limitations of Government Attorney-Client Privilege
  • Referenced:
    • In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum (Ken Starr v. Bill Clinton, 1997)
    • The privilege for government attorneys is narrower, tied to their public responsibility ([13:10]).
  • Cited Example:
    • "When criminal misconduct is at issue, the attorney-client privilege does not apply to government attorneys in the same way it does to private attorneys." ([11:44])
  • Accusations that the judge is “biased” or “vindictive” have been dismissed, referencing the Michael Flynn case, which set a high bar for proving judicial bias ([13:35]).

5. Open Questions and Developments

• The future of the contempt proceedings depends on the D.C. Circuit’s response to the DOJ’s emergency pleadings.
• The host promises ongoing coverage of how the Trump administration will respond to demands for due process for deported individuals ([16:00]).
• The episode ends with news that the ACLU will provide regular updates on Legal AF and encouragement to follow their reporting for future developments.

Notable Quotes and Timestamps

• On judicial authority:
  “Judges…have inherent authority…to enforce their orders in their courtroom through contempt proceedings…”
  – Michael Popok ([03:57])
• On administration’s attitude:
  “They submitted affidavits…which were nothing—pound sand ‘F U’ affidavits back to the judge.”
  – Michael Popok ([07:10])
• On privilege and government attorneys:
  “The privilege for government officials is narrower because of the government attorney’s duty to the public interest.”
  – Michael Popok ([11:52])
• On the significance of the proceedings:
  “Even though they leave office, it doesn’t mean they can’t be found in criminal contempt in the future…”
  – Michael Popok ([02:05])

Key Segment Timestamps

• [00:59–05:10] – Background of the case, role of Chief Judge Boasberg, and summary of Trump administration’s alleged misconduct.
• [05:11–09:55] – Legal back-and-forth, judicial powers, DOJ/Trump responses, mandamus request explained.
• [11:37–15:00] – Attorney-client privilege limitations for government lawyers, relevant case law, and possible sanctions outside of criminal contempt.
• [15:01–16:30] – Latest developments, summary judgment for the ACLU, and preview of what’s next in the litigation.
• [16:30–17:04] – Outro: Announcement of ACLU’s role on Legal AF, subscription info.

Summary

This episode unpacks the high-stakes legal fallout from the Trump administration’s defiance of court orders concerning the forced removal and alleged “disappearance” of asylum-seekers. Chief Judge Boasberg is at the forefront, leveraging every tool at his disposal to ensure accountability—even in the face of appeals, evasive affidavits, and procedural maneuvers designed to thwart fact-finding.
Michael Popok and the ACLU stress that government lawyers—unlike private counsel—cannot use privilege to shield themselves from scrutiny when misconduct is involved. The show highlights the real risk for careers and law licenses as judicial scrutiny expands, and previews expanded coverage with regular input from ACLU legal experts.

For ongoing updates, subscribe to Legal AF and follow the ACLU’s contributions to future legal analyses.