Legal AF - 2/19/2026

26:14Karen Friedman Agnifilo:This is an administration, in my view, that cannot be trusted with the seizure of our ballots and also the effort to create a precedent going forward for seizing ballots based on conspiracy theories. And then the other part of it, I think, that is really also extraordinary is the head of the FBI for Georgia was not apparently involved in this search. The U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, which is someone who Trump appointed, was not the lead attorney on this. They brought in, in my view, a ringer from Missouri to move this case forward starting last fall. And according to reporting by ProPublica, who has been involved in pushing this case forward to a criminal investigation?

27:01Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Kevin Moncla and others who are part of this conspiracy group, these election deniers. So in my view, the warrant stinks. In my view, the challenge, the civil challenge against this warrant brought by Fulton County is well-founded, pointing out the significant errors in the process that led to the execution of this warrant. And I also think it's just extraordinary to have a president involved in, in essence, helping to direct an investigation like this that not only risks the integrity of those ballots that were counted, recounted, and counted again in Georgia, but also is basically a trial balloon for him asserting a right to seize ballots coming out of this 2026 midterm election.

27:45Karen Friedman Agnifilo:So those are your thoughts, Karen. Yeah. Yeah.

27:47Lisa Graves:Well, no, but what you said really, I think is the key here, which is, I think this is, he's testing out what he's going to do in the midterms, right? he's testing out they're testing out what can we get away with yeah how do we do this how do we you know seize ballots what's the playbook right how what do we have to allege how do we like can we get away with this if this you know in the midterms because of course they're going to contest places that he loses and i think that's the thing you know he's already said he wants to nationalize the elections which again the constitution specifically says the time place and manner of elections belongs to the states, even federal elections, especially federal elections.

28:30Lisa Graves:And it's really something that every state does it slightly differently. He wants to, you know, there's these bills that are pending the SAVE Act and, you know, others about not just whether there's voter ID required, but what type of ID, right? Also, you have to have citizenship papers, not just your identification. or everything that they can do to try and disenfranchise people. They don't want mail-in ballots. They don't want absentee ballots. They don't want anything other than, of course, if you're in the military or you have like a note from a doctor kind of thing. I mean, there's really a few exceptions.

29:10Lisa Graves:And they're trying to control the elections rather than keeping it with the states. And we know that they want to have ICE and DHS to be at polling places. And they're going to do everything they can to try and control and take the power away from the states at the midterms. And I think part of that control is, okay, what do we do after the fact? Can we get a hold of ballots? Can we seize them? And, you know, that's what I think of all the things that you said. I think that's kind of the most important piece of it and why I think this is such an important issue for us to keep talking about. Because this is just them practicing, right?

30:02Lisa Graves:And seeing what's going to happen. So, yeah.

30:07Karen Friedman Agnifilo:It really is. And I think that obviously this case will be litigated up through the appeals process, probably end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. I am concerned because the Roberts court has already shown its hand in terms of how how it is treating Donald Donald Trump with kid gloves. how in that immunity decision, that reckless counter-constitutional immunity decision that John Roberts wrote and orchestrated, that decision that not just paved the way for Donald Trump's return to power, but basically suggested that he could do no wrong when he was engaged in a so-called official act. And John Roberts asserted in that opinion that directing prosecution, directing the Department of Justice is an official act of Donald Trump.

30:51Karen Friedman Agnifilo:So he could not be prosecuted for engaging in criminal activity around these issues. But that doesn't make it okay. That doesn't make it legitimate. And I do think given the other statements by Kristi Noem and other loyalists of Donald Trump about the coming elections, refusing to rule out having ICE agents at polling places, refusing to rule out having military or police intimidating voters at polling places in 2026, we, the people, have a lot of work to do to make sure that our right to vote is protected and that every vote is counted and that ballots aren't seized and destroyed or somehow discredited by a president who has shown through his actions that he does not respect, and in essence, is inclined not to follow results he doesn't like, even when he loses, and asserting, in fact, that he wins places that he hasn't.

31:46Karen Friedman Agnifilo:There was a heat map that Rice University students issued about a week or so ago, which showed where Donald Trump had been sending ICE agents, you know, relative to the actual immigration levels in different states like Texas versus Minnesota. But the thing you could see in the pattern and the heat map was that Donald Trump had sent ICE agents in particular in these sieges into communities and cities that he lost, states that he lost, even states like Minnesota where he He claims he should have won when he is lost repeatedly. So we're seeing the weaponization, not just of the Justice Department, not just of the prosecutorial power, but we're also seeing the weaponization of other arms of the federal government, like the DHS arms in pursuit of his punitive agenda toward those who have a right as Americans to not vote for him.

32:36Karen Friedman Agnifilo:In fact, voted against him.

32:39Lisa Graves:Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. All right. we got to take our first ad break because that's what keeps the lights on here we we love our sponsors and so many people who have sponsored us have introduced us to products that now have become a part of my life and they're really wonderful they choose us they know what our point of view is and so if you're interested we recommend that you give them a try you know you You get a special discount code for watching the show. And so it's a really important part of us keeping the lights on here because we don't have a network that we have to answer to. We're not being told that you have to pull the interview of someone running for office in Texas off the air the way they did to Stephen Colbert the other day.

33:29Lisa Graves:We get to talk about what we want. We can speak freely. We interview who we want. And it's all because of the people who are watching this show right now and who support us and who are part of the Midas Touch Network and the Legal AF community. And so thank you so much for everybody, all of the support. And we're going to now go to our first break.

33:55Karen Friedman Agnifilo:This episode of Legal AF, it's brought to you by Graza, makers of crazy fresh olive oil and other delicious stuff made with crazy fresh olive oil. Graza makes my olive oil of choice. It's top-notch olive oil at an affordable everyday price. Graza's got everything you need to roast and toast, grill and garnish with flair and flavor. Upgrade your favorite recipes with their high quality, single origin, single varietal oil. There's extra virgin olive oil for cooking and dressing, Frizzle high heat cooking oil for grilling and baking and brand new olive oil mayos for dipping and spreading. It's super fresh, bold and bright, delicious and tasty and a versatile do it all staple.

34:37Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Graza makes my olive oil of choice. Top notch quality and affordable everyday price and you can taste the difference. The flavor is of a deep olive freshness with hints of mellow body and a playful kick in the taste buds. It's quality you deserve. So head to graza.co and use Legal AF to get 10 % off your first order. And be sure to pick up Graza Mayo the next time you're at your local grocery store. Scaling a business doesn't mean doing everything yourself. The smartest teams, they delegate faster with the right freelance talent. And that's where Upwork comes in. Upwork is a one-stop platform to find, hire, and pay expert freelancers across web and software development, data and analytics marketing, business operations, and more.

35:22Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Upwork helps grow your business by giving you fast access to specialized talent across more than 125 categories. So you can fill skill gaps, launch projects faster, and scale support up or down without committing to full-time headcount. You can browse profiles, review past work, and get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence and get started quickly. With Business Plus, you can access the top 1 % of talent on Upwork, and with AI-powered shortlisting, you'll get matched to the right freelancer in under six hours. No endless searching required. Upwork also cuts down operational hassle by handling things like contracts and payments in one place, so you can spend more time running the business.

36:09Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Thousands of growing businesses already trust Upwork to hire flexible, high-quality freelance talent for everything from one-off projects to ongoing support. It's free to sign up and posting a job is easy. Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That's Upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's U-P-W-O-R-K.com, Upwork.com.

36:36Lisa Graves:We're back. And Lisa, let's just jump right in. I want to talk about this 40 page opinion by Judge Cynthia Roof, who ordered the Trump administration to restore these displays that discuss slavery at this site in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where George Washington lived as president and John Adams lived as well. This is in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where Judge Roof compared the display removals to government mind control employed in George Orwell's 1984. A couple of quotes. The government claims it alone has the power to erase, alter, remove, and hide historical accounts on taxpayer and local government-funded monuments within its control.

37:26Lisa Graves:She issued her ruling on President's Day, which I thought was interesting because most government offices, all of them were closed and the courts were closed, but she made sure that this ruling came out on President's Day. And she granted, I think it was symbolic intentionally, and she granted this immediate injunction requiring the installation, the reinstallation of, I think, 30 plus educational panels that were removed by the National Park Service from this site at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia. These materials included a video at the president's house site where Washington lived for most of his presidency and where Adams lived.

38:07Lisa Graves:And I think the White House was ready, was built and ready to move in around 1800. So this was a pretty important place where presidents lived prior to that. And some of the materials tell the story of a woman named Oney Judge, who was actually one of George Washington's slaves who escaped freedom and built a life for herself in New England. You know, it's part of our American history, our sad history that George Washington actually had slaves and so did others at that time. And if you remember, one of Trump's executive orders was to, quote, restore truth and sanity to American history, which called for eliminating divisive narratives from national sites.

38:54Lisa Graves:And so this removal was part of that executive order. And many museums and historic locations have responded by removing exhibits that discuss slavery and other challenges that disenfranchised or minority or marginalized groups have faced. And this opinion was very critical of the Trump administration. And this is a George Bush appointee, right? So she criticized the Trump, George W. Bush, she criticized the Trump administration as saying, quote, truth is no longer self-evident, but rather a property of the elected chief magistrate and his appointees and delegees at his whim to be scraped clean, hidden, or overwritten.

39:39Lisa Graves:And she's saying why? Because solely because the defendants say they have that power. But she said, no, no, no, that's not true. That's not correct. put those items back up there while we do this case. You can't just change history because you want to. And the administration, of course, is like, nothing to see here. We routinely change exhibits and we rotate them, et cetera. But Judge Roof wasn't buying it and said, look, the history of slavery is not contingent on the changing preferences of elected officials. and these displays were not just mere decorations to be taken down and re-displayed.

40:21Lisa Graves:This is a memorial. This is an actual memorial to enslaved people. It's a tribute to their struggle for freedom and an enduring reminder of the inherent contradictions of this country's founding. And P.S. this memorial, this monument was erected and is supported by taxpayer dollars. So this is not something that you could just get to kind of do what you want to do here. So So it was a pretty, you know, for a temporary restraining order, which means it hasn't been fully briefed. It means the parties haven't fully, you know, it hasn't made its way through the legal process yet. It's just kind of an emergency application, if you will, to press pause, keep the status quo while you litigate the issues.

41:04Lisa Graves:It was a pretty strong rebuke of this administration's whitewashing of our nation's history. And it's also, you know, coming on a week where we've lost one of the great civil rights activists, right, you know, happening at the same time. And we're watching all of these tributes, you know, to now the late, great Jesse Jackson and, you know, Reverend Jackson. and all of that he's done for people of color in this country and African-Americans and talking about really trying to right the wrongs of slavery. And it's such a stark contrast to what the Trump administration is trying to do and to completely whitewash this and really kind of take away people's experience and the real history of this country.

41:58Lisa Graves:Did you get a chance to look at the opinion, Lisa?

42:01Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Yes, it's a really, really beautifully written opinion. I don't recommend that people read every opinion ever written by judges of the Supreme Court or the District Court, but this really is worth people seeing with their own eyes, reading her words, because they're so compelling and they're so right on. And I think it's also, like you said, it was symbolic to issue that ruling on President's Day about the power of presidents. Because in America, under our constitution, presidents aren't kings. And presidents are humans who have faults. And in this instance, our founding president, the first president of these United States under our system of government, was someone who had many great attributes, but he was also a slaveholder.

42:44Karen Friedman Agnifilo:and he held people in slavery and circulated them between his plantation and his homes in order to prevent them from becoming free while he was president. Upon his death, he freed the slaves that he had owned, hundreds of slaves that he had owned, but not the slaves that his wife had owned. So people who were enslaved by the Washingtons, some of them remained enslaved after his death. And that history is important. That's an important part of our nation and the contradiction between this assertion, this declaration that certain truths are self-evident and that these include these fundamental human rights that we as a country denied initially to Blacks who had been brought here from Africa and who were enslaved on these enslavement plantations in these work environments without pay under a tremendously cruel treatment of not being free, families being separated, people, spouses, people who were partnered being separated from each other, children separated from their parents.

43:52It is, in fact, an extreme chapter of

43:56Karen Friedman Agnifilo:American history. And then you have the arrogance of Donald Trump and his minions, you know, basically being vandals to our history, but also vandals in a real physical sense. To see those crowbars being used to tear down this memorial, it was revolting to see. To see the arrogance of these people who think they have a right to destroy this memorial about this part of our history because Donald Trump and because his minions wanted it done. I'm really glad that temporary restraining order was issued. A restraining order is available for precisely this sort of circumstance where there's a substantial likelihood of success, because what is the authority for Trump and his people to be tearing down these investments by the American people and the irreparable harm?

44:43Karen Friedman Agnifilo:There's irreparable harm, although we're going to try to repair it. But this destruction of things, I think we have seen this sort of, in my view, vandalism over and over again, including at the White House, the unilateral action to tear down the East Wing and to assert a right to take donations from corporations or people who want Trump's favor in order to build an outsized ballroom that no one needs, that couldn't even be completed by the end of the term of this president, of Donald Trump. It's outrageous. And we've seen similar things happen in other agencies. For example, we saw, you know, at the Pentagon, on an effort to erase the history of people of color who have served our country honorably, including raising the flag at Iwo Jima, this is a type of cleansing that is Orwellian.

45:38Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And I think Judge Roof was right to point it out. And as you noted, she was appointed to the federal district court by George W. Bush. This is not someone who's a liberal or progressive or what have you. She's a longstanding sitting judge who issued a compelling ruling that I hope everyone, anyone who's interested, really, please take a look at it. Please read it. Please share it. It's really powerful. And I think we're going to need it because this is not the only time this administration is going to be erasing history. They've been on a war path, in essence, for the past 12 months to try to erase history where they can, where they can get away with it.

46:11Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And it's been pushed back, even about a couple weeks ago, taking down the rainbow flag, the pride flag at the Stonewall historic site, doing so just out of spite, asserting, oh, we have a right to change flags and only the U.S. flag can be flown on any given site. You know, that's an assertion that they're making. But at every point, you see like two paths diverge into the woods, really like, you know, like the famous poem. And the Trump team chooses the path of destruction and erasure. And I'm glad to see people from both parties and judges from no party, but who were appointed in this case by George W.

46:51Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Bush, standing up and saying this is, at least at this stage in the proceedings, inconsistent with the law, not authorized. and there's going to be more to come, but I'm really, I was just really happy to see someone in a position of power say no to Trump.

47:09Lisa Graves:Lisa, what does the judge do when inevitably Trump walks in or the administration, I should say, walks in and says, we can't put them back up. They were destroyed. So we can't do it. What does the judge do there? Yeah.

47:22Karen Friedman Agnifilo:I mean, that is why the irreparable, you know, the irreparable harm, unfortunately, as it was It couldn't be, you know, there was no way to act fast enough to stop it in the midst of the crowbars coming down. And so I think ultimately the judge is going to have to order that those panels be replaced, that they be recreated and placed back on those walls. And, you know, that judges, it seems like, oh, can a judge actually order a physical act like that? Yes, judges can issue orders to require that certain acts or deeds be done. And if they're not done, the people who fail to do them face potential civil or criminal contempt for failure to do so.

47:57Karen Friedman Agnifilo:So unfortunately, Donald Trump has yet again cost the American taxpayer money through his destructive actions. And the effort to repair things that he breaks is costly. I hope the American people realize that it's us who are paying the costs of his destructiveness. But ultimately, the right thing here will be to get those panels back up. And if they've been destroyed, which they may very well have been or damaged in the crowbarring process, which was also just terrible to observe, that they will need to be recreated and replaced in order to restore our history.

48:29Lisa Graves:Yeah, absolutely. Speaking of judges ordering people to do things, let's pivot to Judge Paula Zinnis in Maryland and Judge Boesberg, who both have issued orders involving people who've been unlawfully deported without due process. And Judge Zinnis, who has been involved in the Abrego-Garcia matter, has ordered that he cannot be re-detained by ICE, which is a big blow because they were attempting to deport him again. And Judge Zinnis issued an injunction following an emergency order that blocked the administration from doing so in December. And essentially, if you remember, so Judge, they deported him to El Salvador and then they couldn't get him back, right?

49:24Lisa Graves:Because Trump was like, oh, I have no control. And then somehow, then they did bring him back. But they charged him with this crime, this old crime that they'd ever charged him with before, but they went back and looked at all sorts of records and charged him with basically transporting, being part of a network of transporting people here who are not documented. And they charged him in Tennessee where the judge there released him. And so then they take him back into custody and they were trying to find a place where now he's in ICE detention, right? They keep like putting him in ICE detention, sending him to El Salvador, bringing him now, putting him in criminal detention, gets released, puts him back into the civil deportation detention.

50:18Lisa Graves:And they, but from a, like to punish him, the administration wants to send him to an African nation. he's saying I can't go back to El Salvador because I'll be persecuted there right that's why he was seeking asylum here uh people want to kill me there he's like but I'll go to Costa Rica but they don't want to send him to Costa Rica right he speaks Spanish they speak Spanish in Costa Rica he's like I don't know anyone in Africa I don't speak any African language like send me somewhere where I can like I'll leave but send me somewhere that that I can live right and they don't want to send him to Costa Rica because they want to punish him.

50:55Lisa Graves:And they, but they could, they somehow couldn't get their act together to send him to somewhere in Africa. And they were holding him too long. And Judge Zinnes just said, look, you know, A, you can't just punish him. And you know, that's like this punitive kind of send you to another country. He's willing to go to Costa Rica, but you can't get your act together to do it. So I'm releasing him and you can't re-detain him. So I thought that was really, really interesting. And at the same time, we have Judge Boesberg now ordering the administration to facilitate the return of, do you remember those 137 supposed alleged Venezuelan gang members who were unlawfully deported without any process, without, you know, sort of in the middle of the night, the planes already took off, like they lied to the court.

51:42Lisa Graves:I mean, this whole big thing about, you know, turn the planes around, but they refused. So that whole thing has been going on and that went all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said you shouldn't bring it in Washington, D.C. You're supposed to bring it in Texas, but you do require, you have to give them due process. And so, you know, Bozberg is like fed up. He's like, you've violated my orders. You know, I should hold you in contempt. But in the meantime, you need to return these people or at least facilitate their return if they want to come back. and essentially pay for their airplane flight and give them travel papers so they can get on an airplane, right?

52:23Like no one, the airline's not gonna let them in

52:25Lisa Graves:without a valid passport or some paper. So you have to give them a piece of paper that says you can come back and you have to pay for it. And, but it's unlikely that all of them or many of them will take them up on this because if they come back, they have to be detained, right? It's not like they're going to come back and be free. So I'm not really sure what import this kind of requirement. Of course, the government doesn't want to have to pay for it or give them any papers. But the judge says that's what you have to do. I don't know what it's going to do. I don't know what he's going to do if he's going to continue on with his contempt proceedings.

53:02Lisa Graves:But that's kind of what's happening there. What did you notice in those two cases?

53:08Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Well, in the Obrigo Garcia case, it really is outrageous, the punitive approach this administration has taken, not just to him, but in general. And there are many examples of it. But the notion that they want to return him or that they want to not return him, actually move him to a country in Africa and not to Costa Rica, it is, in some ways, I attribute this to the U.S. Supreme Court, to the Roberts Court in allowing these third country deportations or removals. That policy had really only been in place in very narrow circumstances. And those circumstances were, if you could not return a person to their country of origin, to their country, their nationality, for example, because we did not have diplomatic relations with Cuba or with Vietnam for a period or with Iran.

53:58Karen Friedman Agnifilo:But otherwise, people are typically returned to their home country at, you know, for example, if they've served a prison sentence, then they're returned to their home country or to a suitable other country if they cannot remain in the United States. And this administration has acted at every turn to try to deprive Abreu Garcia of his rights. And its claims about that have been, as you point out, repeatedly found to be false, false claims being made to the court, false assertions being made to the court. When one of the attorneys for the Justice Department who previously led the Office of Immigration Litigation oil in the civil division of the Justice Department actually told the truth to the court.

54:40Karen Friedman Agnifilo:That guy was fired. And then meanwhile, this administration has been defending and actually even promoting people like Emile Bove, Bove, who was appointed by Trump to the Third Circuit, even though a whistleblower attested that Bove said, told other lawyers at the Justice Department when he was at the helm of it to just blow off, in so many words, using the F word, to just blow off the court orders, to not follow them. And so you have this pattern of obstruction, recalcitrance, dishonesty, a deceit toward the court. And I think the courts are trying to respond to that, you know, using the power of the law to try to have justice and fairness in these processes.

55:25Karen Friedman Agnifilo:So I was glad to see Judge Zinnis' opinion. In terms of Judge Boesberg, this is a judge who has been acting with courage and integrity in defending that fundamental premise of our Constitution, which is due process, that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In response to his courageous independence as a judge, Republicans in Congress, including in the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, where I used to serve as the chief counsel for nominations. But in that Judiciary Committee, Ted Cruz and his fellow Republicans held a hearing asserting that they wanted to impeach Judge Bozberg for supposedly being a rogue judge.

56:04Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Now, where was Ted Cruz and these Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee when investigations were revealing the corruption of Clarence Thomas, the millions and millions of dollars worth of gifts that he's received from Harlan Crow and other benefits of other big billionaire benefactors? nowhere. But when a judge dares to use the law to its proper effect, which is to say, look, in the United States, part of being a free nation is due process of law. You cannot just whisk people out of the country without having a chance to have their cases heard. And in this instance, those men, the men who were taken, who were moved to that hellhole, to Seacott, where the administration claimed it had no power to get them back, even though we were paying CICOT for the detention of those individuals.

56:56Karen Friedman Agnifilo:A number of weeks ago, there was a 60 Minutes report that showed what happened to some of them, that some of them were able to return to their home country, to Venezuela. And yet they have not had any real justice in American courts because the Trump administration denied them that by violating the orders of of Judge Boesberg. And so, you know, it is appropriate that they have a chance to have their claims be heard. And like you said, under the rules for travel to the United States, you have to have paperwork to do so. Usually that's issued by the embassy on the ground to get people to be able to board a plane.

57:32Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And that's certainly within the power of the Trump administration to order that to happen in response to a court order. But of course, this too will be appealed and we'll see what John Roberts, with his affinity for ruling in favor of Trump on any matter that doesn't involve perhaps an economic issue, which we'll talk about later on tariffs, for example, seems inclined to basically let Donald Trump do whatever he wants, regardless of the destructive consequences. So this is, in a way, a line in the sand, but it's drawing a line that's important to draw, which is to say that the Supreme Court has at least recognized that people do have a due process right, that people who are undocumented immigrants still have a due process right because it applies to persons under our Constitution and not just citizens.

58:19Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And so this is a judge, Judge Boesberg, trying to effectuate and give meaning to that fundamental right that doesn't just protect those immigrants, but protects us all from arbitrary and capricious or punitive action by the state without due process of law.

58:34Lisa Graves:Yeah, well, you know, speaking of due process, it's so ironic because the next topic we're going to talk about is Melania Trump and her arguing about her not getting due process and we're certainly not getting the process that she's, that she wants. So I think it's going to be very ironic because this lawsuit that she's trying to avoid, frankly, is really what she's trying to do. She doesn't, she doesn't want to be sued and She doesn't want to be deposed. We're going to talk about that. And the Supreme Court, when we come back from this break, we're going to take one more quick ad break and then we'll be right back.

59:12Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Don't settle for number two, even when, you know, you're going number two. Tushy is an everyday luxury bidet designed to modernize your bathroom routine with a cleaner, more comfortable approach to personal hygiene. It easily attaches to your existing toilet without additional plumbing. And select models, they include features like warm water, adjustable settings, and a built-in dryer to help refresh your daily routine. Using fresh water instead of excessive toilet paper, Tushy is designed to help you feel cleaner while upgrading your bathroom experience with a simple, sleek setup. Number two is Tushy's thing.

59:47Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Go take care of number one. For a limited time, our listeners get 10 % off their first bidet order. when you use code LEGALAF at checkout. That's 10 % off your first bidet order at hellotushy.com with promo code LEGALAF. Let's be honest, shall we? Modern life is rough on our bodies. Your liver, it's working overtime to filter all of that out. That's why there's Dose. Dose for your liver is a clinically backed liver health supplement. It's a daily two ounce liquid shot that tastes like fresh squeezed orange juice. Dose cleanses the liver of unwanted stressors, slowing it down, and promotes daily liver function with zero sugar, zero junk, and zero calories.

1:00:31Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Look, your liver, mine too, performs more than 500 functions every day. Energy, digestion, metabolism, and vitamin storage. And Dose is designed to support that work. It's also backed by two double-blind placebo-controlled studies showing positive impact on liver enzyme levels. Ready to give your liver that support it deserves? Head to dosedaily.co slash legal AF or enter legal AF to get 35 % off your first subscription. Your body, it does so much for you. Let's do something for it. That's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y dot C-O slash Legal AF for 35 % off your first month subscription.

1:01:17Lisa Graves:All right, we're back. And let's talk about this thing going on with Melania Trump, the first lady. There's a journalist, Michael Wolff, who filed a defamation lawsuit against Melania in New York state court in last October. And in December, she filed a notice of removal to the Southern District to have it sent to Florida, saying it shouldn't be in state court in New York, it should be in federal court in Florida, because I'm a Florida resident, this claim is going to be more than I think$75 ,000, which creates something called diversity jurisdiction, which means it gets removed from state court into federal court.

1:02:00Lisa Graves:The lawsuit itself is an anti-slap lawsuit, which basically is a type of lawsuit that is to protect against malicious lawsuits being brought to try to get you not to exercise your First Amendment rights. And it stems from a demand letter that Melania sent to Michael Wolff, basically telling him that she's threatening to sue him for defamation because he keeps talking about her and Epstein. He's been writing about the Epstein, you know, before we got this trove of documents, he's been writing all about the connections, who's connected to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and talking about the Trumps.

1:02:48Lisa Graves:And he included in there Melania Trump. And she said basically either, you know, retract what you said about me being connected to Epstein and Maxwell and issue an apology or I'm going to sue you for a billion dollars. And, you know, that's what she said. And he filed a lawsuit basically saying, you know, there's this anti-SLAPP law that basically says you can't do that. You can't try to curb people's First Amendment rights by essentially threatening a lawsuit. And so he filed the lawsuit and he was proactive and aggressive and attached a copy of this demand letter to his lawsuit to be like, look, look what they're doing.

1:03:33Lisa Graves:They're essentially trying to extort me and to silence me.

1:03:40Lisa Graves:And he's been trying to serve her because in civil court, that's what you have to do. If you're a plaintiff, you have to serve, you know, at least on TV with the process servers, they're hiding behind bushes and they're trying to jump out and hand, you know, serve someone with the papers because that's what you're required to do by law. But it's harder to do some, to serve someone with papers who's surrounded by secret service 24-7, who has armed guards everywhere at their homes. It's very hard to get close enough to get them to be served. And so even though she hasn't been technically handed or served the paper, she clearly knows about the lawsuit.

1:04:20Lisa Graves:How do we know she knows about it? Because she brought this removal petition to federal court in New York saying, I'm not a resident of New York. I live in Mar-a-Lago. You know, I live in Florida. So New York can't have jurisdiction over me. And number one. And number two, I wasn't served. And what she didn't do, which I thought was interesting, was she didn't bring a counterclaim, right? She threatened to sue him for defamation. He didn't apologize. He didn't retract it. But so countersue him for defamation. Bring your lawsuit, Melania. But she didn't. Instead, she's trying to get it removed to federal court where people think, you know, the judges down there are people like Eileen Cannon, who will be much more favorable to the Trumps.

1:05:06Lisa Graves:And there's other judges down there as well. And so I think they're hoping to get it to a more favorable judge down there. Or if not, who cares? Because it'll wind its way eventually to the Supreme Court where we know those judges are favorable and much more favorable to the Trumps. So, you know, the Trumps don't want things in New York state court because we see what, you know, Trump's Donald Trump and his his children were sued in New York state court. And they have more than a 200 million dollar finding against them for for a civil case in New York. Right. Like it's they're not going to do so well in New York.

1:05:44Lisa Graves:So that's why she wants to get it to Florida. So Michael Wolfe, though, came back and said, I did everything I could to try and serve her. But it was impossible. But I'm telling you, she doesn't live in Florida. We know she doesn't live in Florida. First of all, the Melania movie just came out. And she's basically in New York the whole time, right? And so she's basically in New York, number one. And number two, I went and I spoke to someone who works at Trump Tower, who not only said she lives here and this is her resident, they gave me the apartment number. And guess what? It's not the penthouse where Donald Trump lives.

1:06:26Lisa Graves:She has her own apartment. And he gave her the apartment number. And this is where she lives. Yes, she lives here. Yes, she's a resident here. And, you know, he talked about speeches that she's given, you know, during the election where she in 20, I think it was 2024 election where she's like, you know, I love New York. I live in New York. You know, her son is here. She spends a lot of time here. And so he basically spelled out how, look, she's actually a resident of New York. And so New York does have jurisdiction. But P.S. I tried serving her. I did everything I could. And she clearly knows about it because she's here and she's filing this.

1:07:03Lisa Graves:So, and, you know, he just basically said, look, she's intimidating me, trying to punish me for and inhibit me from exercising free speech. and it's kind of a big deal. And meanwhile, since this lawsuit's been going on, guess what? The Epstein files have been released and there are emails in there mentioning Melania Trump, right? There's an email exchange between Melania Trump and Ghislaine Maxwell where they're going back and forth and calling each other love and dear and trying to get together And Melania is complimenting Ghislaine Maxwell on a New York Magazine article that a nice thing, basically a nice story about J.E.

1:07:50Lisa Graves:in New York Magazine. And it's clear they were close, right? And it's clear that they had a relationship. So, you know, I don't know how she's, I don't think her defamation suit is going to be as successful as she'd like, but maybe bring it, you know, and see where it goes. So it's just, it's an interesting thing that's been going on. Did you get a chance to take a look at that, at those filings?

1:08:16Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Did you know it was interesting because it's been a long time since I looked at the International Shoe case, which is a famous case you learn in law school about minimum contacts as part of due process as you began this segment. So in order to have someone be held to account in a particular state court, for example, you have to have minimum contacts or your due process rights are violated if you're sued somewhere where you don't actually have minimum contacts. But I would say that Melania Trump has maximum contacts with the state of New York. Not only is there the residence in Trump Tower, but as you pointed out, as Wolf has described from actual investigation on the ground there, she has an apartment in that Trump building.

1:09:02Karen Friedman Agnifilo:In fact, in a sort of bizarre Our revelation, I think, came out during the 2018 financial filings for Trump that in 2016, she purchased this$1.5 million apartment. So she got an apartment somehow in the midst of right before she got the chance to become First Lady of the United States and live in the White House. And that is apparently the apartment where she, according to Wolf's assertions and attestation, where she really lives, where she's really been. And in fact, there have been a number of reports over the past 12 months that she's not at the White House often. There have been other sightings of Melania at Mar-a-Lago.

1:09:47Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And in the 2024 election, she voted in Florida in the primary and in the November election in Florida. but it sure looks a lot like she also lives or lives in New York. And as you point out, the real substantive issue underlying this case, this effort to prevent a slap suit, to have this anti-slap suit that Wolf is pursuing is the questions that have been raised and, you know, in fact, have been shown in the Epstein files about the fact that she did have a relationship, a cordial friendly relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. There's more in those files that suggest a narrative of Epstein introducing Melania to Trump.

1:10:33Karen Friedman Agnifilo:There are other claims that we've seen over time about their intimate relationship and the Trump's intimate relationship and Epstein and more. I don't know, wasn't there, don't know if it's true, but what is clear from photographs and from the partial revelations we have from the Epstein files is that she did know him. That doesn't mean that she engaged in any wrongdoing herself. It doesn't mean that she should be charged with any crime. But if the underlying case is defamation, I share your question, Karen, like why did she not reply in part to this suit with pursuing the threat that she had made against Wolf about defamation?

1:11:13Karen Friedman Agnifilo:I don't think she has a leg to stand on in that particular instance. That's my opinion. But, you know, it really is interesting, I'll say, to see this case move forward now that we have more information than we had before based on those Epstein files, which, quite frankly, reveal all sorts of awful depravity. This part of it is this part of that relationship is a small part. There are other stories in there that I think are, you know, significant and really horrifying. But the question of who's telling the truth about that relationship, I think there's material in those Epstein files that really bears on that.

1:11:53Lisa Graves:And for those of you who, we were talking about anti-SLAPP and an anti-SLAPP lawsuit. For those of you who don't know what that means, SLAPP is an acronym. It's S-L-A-P-P. It stands for Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. participation. It's essentially a lawsuit that's filed not to win on the merits, but to intimidate, punish, silence, to do that to people for speaking out, reporting, protesting, or participating in public issues. So it's designed to stop those lawsuits.

1:12:30Lisa Graves:And New York has a pretty good anti-slap statute. So that's what he brought it under, saying her threat to sue me for defamation is her trying to silence me. She's not doing it because she's actually going to be defamed, but because she's trying to silence me from reporting this. So it's an important tool. I think good for him to bring it. And we'll see where this ends up going. It's kind of a to be continued. But it was very interesting to see the efforts he made to show where she, the contacts she has to New York. and the investigation that was done there. Lisa, let's turn to the Supreme Court because we're right smack in the middle of a term and big things are gonna be coming down the pike, you know, really big things.

1:13:22Lisa Graves:So why don't you give people sort of a preview of what's gonna be happening over the coming months and what you predict and what you see happening.

1:13:29Karen Friedman Agnifilo:This week, the court does have a day that's marked on its calendar as a potential decision day. And so there are a lot of reporters who are looking at the court's docket to try to get ahead, be prepared for any potential decision that could come down this Friday on the 20th. There are a couple of cases that have already been argued and that people are watching closely for. One of those is the Calais case, which is a case out of Louisiana involving an attack on the Voting Rights Act and the assertion that it's unconstitutional to try to protect against a white legislature diluting the votes of black residents, of black citizens.

1:14:10Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And so that case could well come out this Friday. I don't think it will, in part because the Roberts Court issued an emergency order about a month and a half ago involving Texas, where it allowed Texas's new maps to go forward, even though the court had not ruled on this particular challenge to the Voting Rights Act. And even though the lower court in Texas had found that race was being used to basically move Black Americans out of their seats in Texas as part of this redistricting, and the Roberts Court allowed it to go forward. And then just a couple weeks ago, the Roberts Court allowed California's response to redraw five districts in response to Texas.

1:14:53Karen Friedman Agnifilo:They allowed those maps to stand for this election. And so I don't think that we will end up with a voting rights decision this quickly. you know, from this court, because I think John Roberts is determined to eviscerate that law, and they don't need to do it quickly in order to accomplish their results, the results of basically helping to, helping white legislatures to bleach out parts of the Black caucus, Black leadership in the South that has been protected through the Voting Rights Act provisions to try to prevent the vote from being meaningless, from not having a chance to elect someone to represent you by having what happened initially in Louisiana, which was a map that was drawn after the 2020 census that even though Black Americans represented, you know, constitute more than 33 % of the population in Louisiana, the white legislature drew a map that was five white majority districts and one Black majority district.

1:15:48Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And that was held to be in violation. They redrew a new map. And now those new maps with two districts that would be a Black majority district is what's being challenged by the court. But the case I think that, now I bury the lead, the case I think that people are anticipating could very well come down this Friday is the case on tariffs, which is where Donald Trump, through his Solicitor General, has asserted this broad power to the court, a claim that under the International Emergency Powers Act, IEPA, the president can impose tariffs unilaterally without Congress, even though the Constitution Constitution expressly says that the power to impose tariffs is a power of Congress under Article One of the Constitution.

1:16:33Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Not ambiguous. It's very clear in the Constitution. This is not a presidential power. It's the power of Congress. And that's in part because I think the founding fathers, I'm not going to say I know all their thoughts, but this was not a power they wanted to have in the hands of one person, one man to act unilaterally. And now we can see why, because we've seen these irrational tariffs being imposed by Trump, like what looked like the AI tariffs that he announced on the White House lawn that put a tariff on all the countries in the world except for his buddy Putin in Russia, North Korea, the dictator there.

1:17:09Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And I think those are the two. And then he even imposed tariffs on penguin islands, islands that are not populated by humans or in any significant way. And then since walking back on that initial round of really outlandish, irrational tariffs, Trump has then used the tariff power to basically reward countries that give him gifts, like expensive gold watches, and to punish the countries if they have a leader who he thinks doesn't kiss his ring enough. And so that tariff power, even under longstanding law, is not something that a president should have. These are things that Congress should be involved in.

1:17:47Karen Friedman Agnifilo:But you also have this claim that because the International Emergency Powers Act allows for the assertion of an emergency tariff, for example, you know, right after Pearl Harbor was attacked to have a tariff on Japan immediately, like that would be an immediate reaction, for example. But really, it's about a broader actual war that we're engaged in. And then Congress comes through and ratifies that. That's not here. That's not this. What we're seeing is irrational tariffs. And even at the oral argument in that case, you heard Neil Gorsuch, who is one of the Trump appointees, saying, if this IEPA is allowed to mean this, there's no way any president would sign into law a change to change that statute to claw back that power, that it's a one-way ratchet.

1:18:37Karen Friedman Agnifilo:it. I think he's right. I don't think Neil Gorsuch is right much of the time, but I think he's right about that. And because the John Roberts court has really been so heavy handed on matters of class in favor of the wealthiest, you know, parts of our society, big corporations, and because corporations and big corporate interests like Koch Industries and Charles Koch, billionaire who does not get along with Trump, but who has helped him return to power and helped him have a majority of control in the Senate and the House, Koch and some of the other right-wing billionaires or right-wing interests oppose these tariffs, oppose these arbitrary tariffs because they disrupt trade and they're chaotic and they make it hard to plan.

1:19:20Karen Friedman Agnifilo:It's possible that the Roberts court will rule in favor of Charles Koch and not Donald Trump in this rare instance when it actually has a pattern over the past year, particularly in the emergency orders of ruling in favor of Trump. So that's the ruling we're waiting on. And if the court does knock down Trump's asserted power, then there's going to be a scramble over how to pay back the tariff money that has been obtained to the countries or companies that have paid it. And meanwhile, some of those tariffs have already been imposed on ordinary people through the cost of goods, and we're not getting that money back.

1:19:54Karen Friedman Agnifilo:We, the people who paid already for these tariffs due to Donald Trump's reckless, arbitrary policies, that money is not coming back to us.

1:20:03Lisa Graves:Yeah, that's true. I mean, the cost of so many things have already gone up. It's so much more expensive to purchase certain things or do certain things. And the stated reason is tariffs, right? People are saying it's tariffs. It's the tariffs. So it'll be very interesting to see where they come down. And that's certainly one to watch. What are some of the big oral arguments coming up in the coming, in the near term?

1:20:28Karen Friedman Agnifilo:Yes. So in a few weeks, there will be the oral argument on the assertion that the president can unilaterally claim that if you're born in the United States, you're not a citizen. This is the so-called birthright citizenship attack or challenge where Trump, right after he was sworn in, asserted that you are not a citizen if you're, in essence, that they could decide whether you're a citizen or not, that you don't get automatic citizenship based on being born in the United States. That provision is the very first line, the very first paragraph of the 14th Amendment. It is a provision that has always been interpreted to mean that if you're born in the United States, you're a citizen, period.

1:21:13Karen Friedman Agnifilo:The Trump team has gone in search of obscure claims by, you know, random right-wingers basically asserting, oh no, you could deny it, you could deny this. But in fact, a longstanding precedent by the U.S. Supreme Court from long ago, over a century ago, in the near in time to when that language was passed, made it very clear that if you're born in the United States, you're a citizen, which is what the plain language means. But Donald Trump walks around claiming that he can deprive people of their citizenship. For example, he's asserted that he wants to take away Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship, or some star moves abroad and he wants to destroy their citizenship, even though they are native-born citizens and can, you know, can in fact retain their citizenship, have done nothing wrong, and under the First Amendment should not be punished for having their own personal views and speaking out in opposition to Donald Trump.

1:22:04Karen Friedman Agnifilo:But Trump wants to assert a power to define who is a citizen and who's not. That would be extraordinary and wrong. He is supported by some of these right-wing groups that are funded by right-wing billionaires and other dark money. I hope that this Roberts court does not rule in his favor and rip out the language of the 14th Amendment. I would have said before the Supreme Court, the Roberts court's decision, the counter constitutional decision on immunity in 2024, I would have said, even with the Roberts court, this citizenship claim, this assertion of the president's power to deny people their citizenship is a total 100 % loser.

1:22:44Karen Friedman Agnifilo:But after that ruling in the immunity case where John Roberts invented immunity for Donald Trump that pardoned him effectively retrospectively and paved the way for his return to power and asserted that in his official acts he could not be found or charged with a crime, that is so counter-constitutional, so contrary to the text that a president has a duty to faithfully execute the law, which is the opposite of breaking it, let alone breaking it criminally. Before that ruling, I would have thought this was a slam dunk loser if Trump or anyone else asserted it. But since that ruling, all bets are off.

1:23:21Karen Friedman Agnifilo:This is a court that has invented so-called doctrines, like the major questions doctrine, which I consider to be the major questions fiction, since the Roberts court said, hey, Joe Biden can't forgive a small amount of student debt, people making immediate income about$50 ,000 a year. But Donald Trump can issue all sorts of extreme orders that are contrary to longstanding law. No question of major questions doctrine there. So this court, this Roberts court, in my view, is not behaving like an ordinary Supreme Court or like an ordinary court. It's behaving like an arm of this president in many ways.

1:24:01Karen Friedman Agnifilo:And so that oral argument is coming up. I think it's the first week of April. We'll be on the lookout for it and we'll have more to share about who's behind the briefs and what the arguments are. But that's a case that should have been laughed out of court, basically. It should never have gone this far that it's even a question because it's such a slam dunk under any rational assessment that the president does not have the power to change how citizenship, how people become citizens if they're born here, period.

1:24:33Lisa Graves:Well, maybe at the end of the oral arguments, they'll do what's called a dig, right? Dismiss as improvidently granted or something like that, right? So that's a very rare thing that they sometimes issue and just be like, we shouldn't have taken this case. It's not worthy of, but of course they won't because this is too important. But I agree with you. This shouldn't even be a question. Yeah. All right. Well, we've reached the end of another midweek edition of Legal AF. I am Karen Friedman Agnifolo with Lisa Graves, who I'm just honored to have on the show and to have your insight and your experience.

1:25:15Lisa Graves:And I miss Michael Popok, but he's out doing important work interviewing 13 attorneys general, state attorneys general, who are doing really important work and helping maintain our democracy. So make sure you tune in to those interviews that is going to be on the Legal AF YouTube channel. and please watch Legal AF on Saturdays and Wednesdays. Saturdays is with Ben Mizellis and Michael Popak and every Wednesday is with me and usually Michael Popak. So great to see you, Lisa. And thanks everyone for being here and for watching. Thank you so much.