Legal AF Full Episode - 7/2/2025

26:31Michael Popok:Oh, and get this, colostrum bioactives have also been shown to reactivate hair follicle stem cells, optimize the hair microbiome, feed regenerative nutrients to the scalp, and work to combat hair loss by guarding against chemical-induced damage to the follicle. Fueled performance and recovery is possible by harnessing the closely guarded secret of elite athletes long prized for its unrivaled ability to take performance to its apex, colostrum has been shown in research to help enhance nutrient absorption, promote lean muscle building, and improve endurance while fueling cellular repair regeneration for faster recovery.

27:10Michael Popok:Specifically, colostrum has been shown to improve fitness endurance by 20%, decrease recovery time by over 50 % after intense exercise, improve stamina, and specifically build lean muscle mass. We've worked out a special offer from my audience. Receive 15 % off your first order. Go to tryarmrun.com slash legal AF or enter legal AF to get 15 % off your first order. That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A dot com slash legal AF. Welcome back to the midweek edition of Legal AF. I'm joined with our guest anchor, Rachel Cohen, who's on a Legal AF YouTube channel now with pragmatic optimist, along with her co-anchor, Senator T.R.

27:56Michael Popok:Mack. Let's break in now, and thank you to our pro-democracy sponsors there. Let's talk about this news that hit the wire that Jared Lane Wise, a former FBI agent who was in the middle of a trial when Trump pardoned him, and the jury had not yet returned a verdict, but was one of the guys that broke through the doors, wandered around in the Senate for nine or 10 minutes, but on along the way confronted law enforcement, yelled to have the police killed, said to the crowd to whip them into a frenzy, to go F them and kill them, and said you're an embarrassment to law enforcement when he got on their faces.

28:39Michael Popok:And he has now been rehabilitated by Pam Bondi, who's put him alongside Ed Martin. Why don't you talk about, Rachel, this weaponization committee and Ed Martin, who we were thrilled when pressure campaign and the Senate let it be known they weren't going to confirm him to be the U.S. attorney for Washington. That's why we have Jeanine Pirro. But he might be able to do a lot of damage running around with this weaponization committee in an unconfirmed position. Why don't you tell our audience about it? Absolutely. And I think that it also kind of goes together with just who all the Trump administration is willing to put forth in the first place.

29:18I know that we're going to talk a little bit about Alina Haba in a second, but I think that those concepts even go together, Emile Beauvais and just Ed Martin should never have been nominated for anything in the first place, let alone now brought into this position that does not require him to be confirmed by the Senate. Because when we platform these people who are really presenting this kind of alternate history and alternate reality about what's happening and what's against the law and what is unacceptable in American democracy, that's how we end up with then January 6th rioters being employed by them.

29:54And I think that all I can think of when I think about the January 6th kind of pardons and the total rewrite of history is the way that it was so challenging historically in the American South and beyond to get convictions for people who had committed hate crimes against people of color. because the sheriffs and the juries and everyone else was protecting them and pretending that, yes, we enforce the law and we can say that we enforce the law, but then vanishing as soon as there was a need to enforce the law against people who held power or were working towards the outcome that those sheriffs wanted.

30:41In that case, obviously a racial hierarchy. But I think now we're seeing Donald Trump very obviously signal to people that I think about it too, with the payouts to the family of Ashley Babbitt is we're signaling you can break the law so long as it is in furtherance of the Trump agenda. And then you can be punished for breaking the law when you have not actually broken any law at all. So long as the Trump administration doesn't like what you're doing. And so I think that Ed Martin kind of just opening the Pandora's box of him getting to imprint his own ideology or really the ideology of people like Trump and Stephen Miller onto the Department of Justice and the federal notion of justice broadly is really terrifying because there's a lot of guardrails in the American system that only exist when people are operating in good faith.

31:37Yeah.

31:38Michael Popok:So, I mean, look, the good news is that we were able to deny Martin the role of the U.S. attorney. He was already Elon Musk henchman trying to do investigations. We know he could do a lot of damage as the U.S. attorney. So far, Janine Pirro, although she's obscenely unqualified for the position, hasn't really, doesn't seem to be hell-bent on being Donald Trump's political hack in that role yet, but he can do a lot of damage in this weaponization committee. And now you can see the types of people that he's putting around the table with the permission of Pam Bondi. This is just the continued rewriting of history.

32:19Michael Popok:In order for Donald Trump to be able to continue to say out loud that the election was stolen from him and they're going to be investigating Joe Biden and how the election was stolen, and in order to do that, then you have to absolve all of your minions that took your clarion call and the discontent you fomented and turned it in to a violent attack, an insurrectionist attack on the Capitol. But you have to continue to kind of, you know, oh, what a tangled web we weave. We got to keep rewriting and revising. And well, if I didn't do anything wrong, and there was a big steal and these people that attacked, they didn't do anything wrong, then I have to pardon them.

32:56Michael Popok:And if I pardon them, then I can put them on blue ribbon panels to talk about the weaponization. Here we go. This is the whole chicken and the egg all over again. And it also becomes almost that 1984 of they contradict themselves. And I think we've seen that in even the fallout with Elon and Trump and that fight. Right. Like it just changes what the rules even are and whose side we're supposed to automatically be on at any given moment. But. So let's turn to Alina Haba for a moment. So Alina Habba, parking lot lawyer, literally, who worked near the golf course in Bedminster, found a way to worm her way into the inner circle of Donald Trump by handling a couple of his employment matters, one of which was ethically challenged at best.

33:45Michael Popok:and she had a settle of case related to it. She herself has said that her main role as the U.S. attorney is, she's admitted that it's to be a political hack to try to turn New Jersey red. I'm a born and bred New Jersey person. And there's been no major investigations about crime that have been announced in New Jersey. All it is is her going after the political enemies of Donald Trump. She's indicted and arrested Representative McIver, who's pled not guilty about being at an observation point at a federal detention immigration center, Delaney Hall in New Jersey, along with the mayor of Newark, along with other elected officials.

34:33Michael Popok:She's been indicted. The mayor of, Mayor Baraka, who is a political enemy of Donald Trump and is on the short list of people who may run for the 2028 presidential election. He was arrested, indicted, or had a criminal charge against him. And then that was dropped. And that was so bad that a federal magistrate judge had to excoriate Alina Haba in court and say, you need to do better because your office can't use indictments and arrest and the threats of it for political gain. That is in violation of the Department of Justice Manual. That's in violation of your ethical duties. She's been hit with a New Jersey bar complaint about not only filing criminal charges against Baraka and arresting him and doing a perp walk of him and the same thing of MacIver, but threatening to do that and opening a criminal investigation for leverage against two-time Democratic Governor Murphy and their Attorney General Plotkin.

35:39Michael Popok:And that's all she's been doing. So she's going to answer for those and, of course, all the terrible things she did as one of the criminal lawyers for Donald Trump. How do you think she's going? What do you make of Donald Trump doubling down on Alina Haba and trying kind of slide her through because he thinks he has the votes in the Senate. And what should the Senate Democrats do in terms of the confirmation hearing, including about Emil Bovey, who's, they're taking a break on that confirmation hearing too. I don't want to lose sight on that because he's, he's obscenely unqualified to be a third circuit court of appeals, lifetime appointed judge.

36:15Absolutely. And I'm sure that you've covered it, but I haven't been able to listen in the last week or so. I'm sure that you have seen at least the whistleblower letter about Emile Bove telling people within the Department of Justice that they might need to just say, fuck the court if there's a court order that hobbles kind of implementation of the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda. I think that all of those things are really indicative of the fact that the Trump administration is trying to see what it can get away with. That's how I felt this entire kind of Trump 2.0. Because something that was pointed out to me so early on in this administration is that there are often things that the Trump administration could do legally or could at least pretend it's doing legally that they choose to just do in a blatantly illegal way.

37:10I think the deportations of people over judges' orders are deeply indicative of that. But I want to come back to what you pointed out about Alina Haba when she speaking said, you know, hopefully I can play a role as U.S. attorney in the kind of aim of turning New Jersey red. Alina Hoppe does not need to say that. No one is, you know, pointing a gun to her head saying all the intrusive thoughts and nefarious schemes. Now you have to say them out loud. She's saying it because they're blatantly making it a priority to kind of show that there are no guardrails on them. That you can say the thing I helped when looking into filing New Jersey in personal capacity, filing New Jersey bar complaints against Alina Haba and put together an explainer of how people who are even not attorneys can file that because sometimes I think it feels like we're just screaming into the ether.

38:08And if I'm going to scream into the ether, let me scream into the ether to the New Jersey bar. But I think that when we were doing that, something that really stood out to me in terms of how those bar complaints function is that it's very, very challenging to file a complaint for, you know, a political prosecution unless the prosecutor has said something like, I hope I can play a role in turning New Jersey red. And then a month later gone and arrested two prominent Democrats. And I think that that is one of the the most concerning things to me and to your question about what I think Senate Democrats should do.

38:48They should do everything that they are already doing in terms of, you know, blocking and protesting these appointments. But I also would like to see from more federal level electeds an acknowledgement that we are so far outside the bounds of the normal. And I would like to see some actions on the Democrats side that kind of bear that out. And I don't know exactly what that looks like, but I think that there's many ideas and I've been glad to see Democrats stepping up congressional oversight visits to various ICE detention facilities because Representative MacGyver was exercising her, it's a kind of privilege of the office to engage in oversight visits of ICE facilities to make sure that people's human rights are not being violated.

39:40And the Trump administration is also trying to force people to only do visits if they've been given a certain amount of notice, right? To only do visits on certain days. And that's not how any of this works. And I think that it's important that Democrats continue to show up to those visits and broadcast them as much as possible. I'd like to see them bringing various news crews with them. I'd like to see them on the floor. I can't say refusing to follow necessarily rules or order, but I think that we are being a little bit handicapped when we do not acknowledge just how, just how outside the kind of rules the GOP is playing.

40:23because they will go on and just say that aloud constantly to their supporters and also just put it out onto the Internet. And I think that we need to be bringing top amounts of attention to that at all times, or Democrats need to be bringing those to the forefront. I'd love to see someone show up to an Emile Beauvais hearing in a shirt that says, might just have to say, fuck the court, Emile Beauvais. I don't think that we're going to see that, but maybe I'll wear that on one of the incoming people to the court like that.

40:56Michael Popok:Now, by the way, adding you already is paying dividends in the merchandise area. Jordi, Jordi Mycelis, attention, please. We have a tremendous idea. I want to see it like on the Michael Scott sign, like fuck the court, Emile Beauvais, legal AF. Absolutely. Well, and then when Adam Schiff said, or Adam Schiff said, and I've done this in cross examinations, when Adam Schiff said, did you say in the March hearing, as reported by Eris Reveni, the whistleblower, did you tell them that they should just tell courts to go F themselves and go tell? And he says, I can't recall. And so when I've done that, I've been like, I'll put that down.

41:35Michael Popok:I'll put you down for a yes. That sounds like a yes. You're not sure if you said we'll just have to say fuck you to the court order. Right. I use that phrase a lot for different institutions. So I can't remember that particular one. But they should just do what Michael Cohen did, one of our fellow podcasters here on Midas Dutch, when he was being cross-examined in one of the Trump cases. and Todd Blanche, who's now our number two in the Department of Justice, went through a series of things from podcasts, including Might Is Touch, including Legal AF, that Michael had said about Trump. Michael had a great line that cracked the jury up.

42:14Michael Popok:I had a New York Times reporter who did a whole article about the trial. And Michael said he would read it out loud. Did you call him a shit stain, this, that, the other thing? And Michael just looked at the jury and said, sounds like something I would say. Listen, I appreciate the honesty. Like I can't recall, but that sounds like me. It's giving Gary, I smoked, but I did not inhale. Right. Or saying you want to deport people over judges' orders. Exactly. Well, now you're seeing a little bit of a taste of this brand of pragmatic optimists that Rachel Cohen, along with her podcast partner, Tiara Mack, are going to be bringing to the Legal AF YouTube channel.

42:53Michael Popok:One of the reasons that I sort of picked Rachel to be with me today and sitting in for Karen Freeman at Niffolo is to continue to bring these amazing points of view. It's not generational. I don't want to even, oh, he brought a generation, whatever your generation is. Millennial. Millennial. Fringe millennial. Thank you. I heard my daughter's alpha. I think that's the next one, which is great. Oh, yeah. We're starting all over. We're back to the beginning. Right. We're back. We're back. Batted around. We're back at the top of the order. It's not that. It's you, as I said in one of my introductions for your shows, I said, she speaks to all generations.

43:31Michael Popok:It's just, you just have a voice that needs to be heard on a regular basis, and I'm glad you're here for it. And there's a lot of ways to support what Rachel's doing, what all the other contributors are doing on Legal AF. We've got Legal AF, the YouTube channel, which is going to cross the seven, the odometer is going to roll to 700 ,000 in the next day or so. We need some help there to continue to grow that pro-democracy channel. And it's cheap, it's easy, it's free. Just hit the free subscribe button. We don't have anything behind a paywall, but this demonstrates that you want and you need this kind of content at the intersection of law and politics.

44:08Michael Popok:And we set up a whole channel just as Rachel was very appreciative about her decision to leave big law before her firm bent the knee. We decided we needed this channel before the election. And so in September before November, when we saw some writing on the wall that we were not happy with, we said, we better get this channel up and running because this is going to be a break the glass moment. And I've been so thrilled to have contributors like you join. So we've got Legal AF there. Legal AF, the sub stack, another place, free subscribe. We're posting everything there. If it relates to Supreme Court, it's SCOTUS AF.

44:42Michael Popok:If it relates to court cases like we'll talk about today, it's filings AF. I do a morning AF. You see the pattern? You see the theme here? Okay, Legal AF, the sub stack is another. We got Patreon for the Legal AF community, which is, it's like a law school class. It's like a law school meets TED Talk meets whatever we're doing here on Legal AF on the Patreon for some exclusive content there as well. These are the ways that you can support us. The podcast always needs your love, to be frank. You're here. You're watching us. We get 8, 10, 12, 15 ,000 people watching us. A lot of people don't realize that we are not only on YouTube, we're on audio podcasts.

45:23Michael Popok:I can't tell you how many people I bump into. They're like, they're audio podcasts. People are like, wait, you guys are on YouTube? We can see what you look like. Or the YouTubers who are like, wait, there's an audio podcast? Yeah, yes. And so go back and forth between the two. Rank and rate us and five-star review us on the audio podcast, wherever you get your audio podcast from. That's another amazing way to support what we're doing. And then we've got these sponsors. And they're handpicked by Midas Touch, the Midas Touch Brothers, Legal AFers, for us, for our audience. and they want to speak to this group.

45:55Michael Popok:They know what we're all about. And that's why they're here. It's not in spite of it. It's because of it. And we're thrilled to have them. And many of them have been with us almost from the very, very start. So here's a word from our next set of sponsors. Delete Me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. As someone who covers legal and political news events for a living. I'm well aware of how exposed our personal information is. From data brokers to sketchy websites, it's all out there.

46:30Michael Popok:And that's why I use DeleteMe. DeleteMe does all the hard work for you. You just sign up, let them know what personal info you want deleted, and their experts handle the rest. They continuously monitor and remove your data from hundreds of data broker websites. So your info stays off the grid. And they don't just do it once. DeleteMe keeps working for you, sending personalized privacy reports so you know exactly what was found and removed. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners, get 20 % off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeleteme.com slash Legal AF and use promo code Legal AF at checkout.

47:12Michael Popok:The only way to get 20 % off is to go to joindeleteme.com slash Legal AF and enter code Legal AF at checkout. That's joindeleteme.com slash legal AF, code legal AF. It's almost summer, my absolute favorite time of the year, and everyone knows you've got to wear sunscreen in the summer. But what your sunscreen could do more than block UV rays is what the scientists at OneSkin have always wondered. And so they made a whole family of mineral sunscreens that target UV rays, free radicals, and cellular aging on top of it all. The best part? Unlike other mineral SPFs that feel heavy and chalky, which I personally don't like, these feel like actual skincare.

47:54It's lightweight, breathable, and super hydrating. And now their award-winning OS1 Face SPF comes in two new deeper tints, formulated with non-nano zinc oxide. OneSkin's patented OS1 peptide is also part of this SPF, as well as potent antioxidants that scavenge free radicals four times better than the so-called anti-aging SPFs. This sunscreen is one you'll be wearing all summer long, just like I will be. But that's not all OneSkin has up their lab coat sleeves. They're launching an all-mineral lip SPF that provides instant hydration and protection with a smooth texture you've got to feel to believe.

48:33I can't wait for this. And just like OneSkin's other sunscreens, it's scientifically proven to decrease key aging biomarkers and increase other markers like elastin production for visibly healthier, more resilient lips. Try their family of sunscreens with 15 % off your first purchase using code legal AF at oneskin.co. I love OneSkin. They've been a longtime sponsor, and I'm so thrilled that they keep sponsoring me. Everybody asks me, how is it that you look so young, given the fact that I am a grandmother and I am approaching another decades very soon? No one can believe my actual age. And I think it's largely because of my skin and my skincare routine that has included one skin now for over a year.

49:16It was founded in 2016 by an all-woman team of scientists. And after testing more than 900 so-called anti-aging peptides, they developed this proprietary OS1 peptide, which targets the accumulation of these senescent cells, which is a key driver of skin aging. So I'm a big fan. It's the world's first skin longevity company. And by focusing on cellular aspects of aging, One Skin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer. And for a limited time, you can try One Skin with 15 % off using code LEGALAF at oneskin.co. It's not.com, it's.co. So that's 15 %offoneskin.co with Legal AF code after you purchase and tell them we sent you.

50:02Please support our show. And thank you, One Skin.

50:05Michael Popok:Welcome back to Legal AF at the Midweek. Michael Popok joined by the guest anchor today, Rachel Cohen. And thank you to our pro-democracy sponsors. Rachel, we're in the homestretch of our podcast. Thank you so much for agreeing at the last minute to help us out here. Good way to introduce you to our audience on a regular basis. and as I said before, Rachel will be on with or without her podcast partner and vice versa, Tiara Mack with a new playlist podcast that we are, or they're calling Pragmatic Optimists. And I think after watching her for the last 45 minutes, you understand why they have called it that.

50:40Michael Popok:We're not just kind of the grim reaper here. Oh, another bad thing happened today in the Trump administration in the world of constitutional rights. We're talking about what you can do about it. So let's talk about, you know, human guardrails in the form of federal judges. We've got Judge Moss in D.C., who listened closely to last Friday's Supreme Court decision about, well, I can't use a nationwide injunction, or maybe I can if there's states involved. It was a little bit of a murky aspect of that decision. But I certainly can use a class action and an injunction. And this was about the southern border and Donald Trump declaring that anybody that came over the southern border, quote unquote, illegally would never be able to apply for asylum, even though that's not what the asylum statute says.

51:26Michael Popok:And Donald Trump just decided through executive order to just throw over the entire game board and come up with his own rules as the, because he keeps calling everything an emergency and everything an invasion. Why don't you talk about what Judge Moss just did? And then what are the ramifications of that for federal judges as a blueprint. I mean, I'm feeling incredibly optimistic about what Judge Moss did in this decision, because it's not so much that he reached the right decision, because it's, I, while, as you've alluded to previously, was a finance associate in my former life, I did a lot of immigration work.

52:04It's something that I've always been extremely passionate about. And while the executive has plenary power, which means just a lot of disproportionate authority when it comes to immigration, there are still statutes that govern how people can seek asylum. And that's what Judge Moss ultimately ruled on was that you can't just say we don't have to follow the asylum procedure anymore because we have the INA, the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which outlines how asylum works. And you can't come in and decide, well, okay, that's pretty cumbersome. So I just don't want to do it that way. And instead, I don't want to follow the INA.

52:44And also any attorney will tell you that relying on international law is always going to be a little bit of a challenging path forward in argument. But something like the Convention Against Torture is grounded in international law and international responsibilities that the United States has to not deport people to countries where the standard is. It's more likely than not that they will face torture. if they are deported to those countries. And so all of that to say, I really appreciated that the judge focused on the fact that the Trump administration is working as hard as it can to just throw out process and procedure and jump to the end.

53:23It's that same idea of you have a legal way of doing this. Many of the people, though not all, that they have deported over judges' orders were likely deportable if that kind of full legal process had been able to play out. But the Trump administration is rushing and rushing and rushing. And I struggle to believe that it is for any reason other than not wanting checks on their power. And I think that that's a very dangerous path to go down. And so I know that people will often kind to make exceptions or point to really law-abiding migrants as to the people that it's bad that we're deporting without process.

54:03But I think that Judge Moss's decision cuts to the heart of what the real underlying issue is, which is no matter what it is you may or may not have done, if you do not have process to present your case, the government can say whatever you've done. They can say you're deportable. They can say you've committed a crime and then just act however they would like. And so I think that the big takeaway that I have from kind of a rights preservation and preservation of asylum perspective is that. And the second kind of procedural takeaway, which you've alluded to, is that Judge Moss responded very quickly to the decision that we saw come out in CASA last week from the Supreme Court related to birthright citizenship.

54:46because that was ultimately a very procedural decision, right? Saying that it didn't say anything about birthright citizenship, really. It instead focused on this nationwide injunction or universal injunction that lower courts have been using to block unconstitutional or illegal Trump actions when those actions are likely to result in irreparable harm to people as they are rolled out and litigated. And so I think that one of the it's a tough line to walk when all of us were talking about the Casa decision last week and over the weekend, because this is pragmatic optimism at play. I never want to act as though things are, you know, hunky dory and Pollyanna.

55:30And oh, actually, it was a procedural decision. And so it's not a problem at all that it's very, very scary what we see unfolding, particularly aimed at migration in the United States right now. But it is important to be specific about what the CASA decision, the birthright citizenship decision actually did and its impacts and that they are restricted to that kind of universal injunction decision because there are so many people who are terrified that they might no longer be citizens or that there are impacts related to their citizenship that have not been borne out. And even yet, again, not trying to say that people shouldn't be frightened, but it's important that people know that they do, at least in theory, still have these rights and privileges.

56:16And I think that we, Samuel Alito, Justice Alito, I think in a footnote pointed out that there's this big class action workarounds that judges can use to issue injunctions that will functionally operate very similarly to nationwide or universal injunctions if they cover everyone that is potentially impacted. And I'm very heartened to see Judge Moss already putting that into action because contrary to what the Supreme Court wants you to believe, it's actually completely normal and a feature of our justice system that lower court judges are able to block federal action from implementation when it is likely unconstitutional.

57:01So I don't know kind of if there's more that you want to say on especially that injunction point or other kind of takeaways. judges.

57:07Michael Popok:Yeah, well, I think it was Kavanaugh, because Kavanaugh was the one that said, just use a class action and a preliminary injunction. It's the equivalent of a nationwide injunction. Alito is the one that said, oh, we don't want abuse in class actions. We've got to keep a close eye on those federal judges, because he's always the grim reaper. Right. No, I think we're watching this play out. Judge Boardman has a case on birthright citizenship. She had actually turned to Mr. Rosenberg for the Department of Justice and say, I just want to ask a question. I've set a timeline for when I'm going to consider the class certification and the ultimate merits ruling about birthright citizenship and preliminary injunction, which is timed out to be through July 27th.

57:56Michael Popok:Are you going to be removing babies born in the United States and sending them outside of the United States while I'm making my decision? And he said, no, but of course the judge doesn't believe him. She said, put it in writing. So the next day, yesterday, they filed their one page piece of paper, which gave nobody comfort. It didn't say, all they had to write was, we understand the court's concern. We know what we've done in the past. However, when it comes to the babies, we're not going to do anything until this court rules. They didn't say that. Well, I mean, even if they did, and here's the pragmatic piece.

58:27If you read the Rumini, the whistleblower kind of letter, I certainly wouldn't trust that piece of paper, but don't let me cut you off.

58:35Michael Popok:I know, I know, absolutely, absolutely. So she's going to have to probably speed up things here, you know, certify class, even provisionally, get that adjunction going. These are the things you have to do. While Judge DuBose up in Massachusetts, it found a way around, you know, listen, everybody's reading and trying to learn what the parameters, the lines they need to color within because of the CASA decision. and she came up with, I'm going to issue an injunction to stop the destruction of the Department of Health and Human Services. I'm not going to call it a nationwide injunction, but I got 19 states in front of me and there's enough of an argument that if they didn't answer the question, if states, multiple states, or the plaintiff, does the court have the ability to issue an injunction that is in effect nationwide without running afoul of the CASA decision?

59:28Michael Popok:And she just said, because if you don't take that, then what you are left with would be the following dystopic world. A federal judge can see a constitutional violation, an abuse of power by Donald Trump, can declare it, but then can't do anything about it while it's on appeal. Can't stop it, can't stay it, can't enjoin it. It has to get to the United States Supreme Court with just a declaration while the Supreme Court declares the law of the land and decides. But think of all the human harm that's happening in between for months or years. So how can you take away the equitable inherent authority of a federal judge to stop something, you know, by just calling it through a feat of alchemy, a nationwide injunction?

1:00:20See, that's a problem. Oh, big time. Yeah. And I think that it's so necessary and heartening to see people coming up with creative solutions, because as I think, as has probably come through, that is very much the GOP is coming up with creative harms. And so we do have to come back and meet that with arguments that are a little bit outside of the box so that we can kind of run the clock here. Even if all we do is delay things from implementation, hopefully that's not the case. But even if it is, that is real necessary mitigation that needs to be done for people that are being harmed today for babies that are being born today.

1:01:01And I think that I mean, I'm certainly not Barden, Wisconsin, but when I was reading the decision related to the Wisconsin abortion law, I was struck by how maybe not creative, but I thought that the legal argument used was novel, at least to me. And they admitted, you know, this hasn't been used too terribly often, but I do think it's a good segue into that.

1:01:24Michael Popok:Yeah. Take it from there. Four to three decision led by liberals. Supreme Court Justice Protisiewicz, who's been on the Mindest Dutch Network, ran on a platform, very open. I'm going to be for women's rights, reproductive rights and abortion rights. She got elected and the case came up. We also, the liberals, the moderates won the seat. She didn't vote on it, Justice Collins. She didn't vote on it, but she will continue the four to three majority through through 2028. But talk about what Wisconsin did with this inherent repealing concept from a law in the books from 174 years ago. Yeah. So we have this law in the books that's banning abortion functionally from, as you said, I think it's 1849.

1:02:13And they there were all of these legal arguments that were put forth. And I don't know how this works in other states or if there is an analog in other states, but at least in Wisconsin, they ruled that the legislation that has been enacted in the interim related to regulation of abortion and in some cases, criminalization of abortion in more limited circumstances and everything else, that that functionally repeals, that is a legislative, I'm looking for the exact, implied repeal of the law on the books that got rid that banned abortion. And that is a fascinating legal argument that kind of allowed them to root in Wisconsin case law, this implied repeal because there had been so many.

1:03:05It's, it's similar in some ways, I think, to almost a preemption argument, which is where the federal law kind of crowds out state law and something you go with the federal law to really oversimplify and distill that down. But their argument is that the number of other regulations and laws and statutes, and even, you know, in some cases, criminal statutes related to abortion in, or their opinion, rather, related to abortion in the state of Wisconsin are an implied repeal of the overarching criminalization of abortion. And so they're holding it to be just a feticide statute. So functionally criminalizing the non-consensual termination of someone's pregnancy.

1:03:51I don't know if you've seen stuff like that before. It was new to me, but I also have not worked extensively on state law issues.

1:03:59Michael Popok:Well, listen, all these springing statutes, you know, many of the Republican states, because they've been trying to get Roe versus Wade repealed for so long that they already had on the books. Well, we, a lot of our states have these old-timey anti-abortion, anti-women issues, statutes on the books. So we'll, we'll just pass a law, it's easier, that says if Roe versus Wade is ever repealed, boom, these statutes spring back to life. And we're, you know, we're like, oh, these submarine issues, right? As soon as they got the Dobbs decision, these springing statutes popped up in a lot of different places, including in Wisconsin.

1:04:38Michael Popok:Fortunately, in Wisconsin, so the argument goes, the state legislature in the last 50 years has regulated abortion, but allowed it to continue through the point of viability of the fetus. And so that was the major argument, like, well, that may have been 1849, before the Civil War. However, recognizing that they were effectively repealing that thing, they have just been regulating it and allowing it in Wisconsin. So yeah, I think it was the, I mean, there was a lot of different with the trial judge that used a whole different analysis to reach her conclusion on it. But I think this is the right one.

1:05:18Michael Popok:And, and frankly, it is the final word. This is the United, I'm sorry, this is the Wisconsin Supreme Court four to three. That's it. You don't get another shot. You don't get another declaration. That is the law of Wisconsin. As long as the liberals are in the majority, which they are through 2028, hopefully for beyond. And this is the type of work that state, just to remind people, in case they don't know or tell them if they don't know it, many Supreme Courts in states are elected positions. Even if they're appointed by the governor or a panel, there's retention votes that come up. Many state court trial level positions are also elected.

1:06:02Michael Popok:And so I know a lot of people go into the election booth and they're like, I don't know any of these people on here. But we don't have that luxury anymore. We don't know these. And we'll help. We'll help. We'll get material up. We'll direct you so that you get information about who's who. You're not just guessing off of names. But election and judges matter, not just at the federal level with the Supreme Court, but at the state level where a lot of this hard work of protecting democracy is happening. Right, Rachel? Very much so. And I think that it's important to remember that a lot of those kind of, at least in states where I've lived, like Ohio, that have elected judges, excuse me, there is no party designation next to those people on the ballots.

1:06:51And so it's important that you do your research in advance and that you have, in fact, gotten a sample ballot or looked into things from people that you trust. And I think that it's also just a nice way to wrap all the way around because what brought Tiara and I together originally was when I was living in Rhode Island. I was an educator there for four years and we were working on Rhode Island similarly had kind of this springing abortion criminalization statute. And we were working on repeal of it and constantly told that it wasn't actually that important that we get it repealed, that Roe wasn't going anywhere.

1:07:25This is back in 2017, 2018. And so that was ultimately successful. But something that I really like about the Wisconsin kind of reasoning here is that I don't know if there are other immediately apparent kind of high risk areas that those judges were thinking of, but this is an argument that they can use in future if other longstanding precedents are repealed at the federal level that the Wisconsin legislature has legislated around. And that's heartening. And again, just a creative strategy that definitely rooted in law. They've used it before. There's many citations, but I think it's forward thinking about where we need to be kind of shoring up defenses.

1:08:13Michael Popok:Sorry about that. Absolutely. Thank you, Rachel Cohen, for being a good sport and joining as a anchor today on the midweek edition of Legal AF. We've got some great news while we came on the air today. The new podcast rankings for this week are out for YouTube and Legal AF climbed to number 22 of all podcasts, not just law and politics, just all podcasts. Brothers are at number two. We're at number 22, our highest ranking yet. And I'm sure with the addition of people and talent like you, we're only going to climb even higher there's so many ways to support right are you glad aren't you glad that you're like the lucky i'm in at the ground floor popa well floor five i don't want to take that when you've been doing all this work i think you came in at floor 22 but we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna get to number one um and that's really a reflection um and uh we have deep and abiding uh love and uh respect for our audience who have been with us through thick and through it all in this community, joining together and vibrating at the same frequency.

1:09:20Michael Popok:I see comments in my hot takes on shows like this where people say, thank you for making me feel better. And that's one of the things here is speaking truth to each other, understanding that this is a fellowship, this is a community, you're not alone, and giving you direction and calls to action about what you can do moving forward. And the way to support us, right? because we got bills to pay, so to speak, and lights to keep on, since we're completely independent with no outside investors, is it's simple. Everything's free. It's free to subscribe. Nothing's behind a paywall. On Midas Touch, on Legal AF, the YouTube channel, download the podcast for Legal AF.

1:10:00Michael Popok:That helps. On the audio side, we can use some more downloads, some more five-star reviews over there. We're doing great on YouTube, but we'll do better with organic growth. Let people know about our YouTube. Let's use 22 as the floor, not the ceiling for our ranking on the podcast on the YouTube for podcasting. And then we got the Substack for Legal AF, of course. We've got the Patreon for Legal AF, of course. I'm going to drive my producer crazy. We've got the Popock from the Popock from the Popock from the off. Forget that one. We got the Legal AF YouTube channel where it's a home for a lot of a lot of amazing contributors, including now Rachel Cohen and Tiara Mack.

1:10:40Michael Popok:So until the Saturday edition, we're going to have to figure out Saturday edition, Rachel, because I'm traveling. It is the day after the 4th of July. We'll make something happen. I'm sure something will happen. You might get another call. I'm around. Ideally a little earlier in the morning if it's a Saturday. Yeah, we'll see. I might be able to do a live with them. That'll be fun. But in any event, a thank you to our audience for your passion and your fervent support of what we're doing here. We got your back, but we know you have ours. So until our next edition of Legal AF or any contribution related to Legal AF, I've got Rachel Cohen and this is Michael Popok.

1:11:18Michael Popok:Shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal AFers.

1:11:48Michael Popok:Give it a try at midmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for three months,$90 for six months, or$180 for 12-month plan required. $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. New customer offer for initial plan term only. Greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. See terms. The GLP-1 pill you've been waiting for is now on row. Yep, it's finally here with the same clinically proven ingredient. Now in a pill. And now on row. It's the first FDA-approved GLP-1 pill for weight loss. At the lowest price available, that's one daily GLP-1 pill for big results. Now on Rho. Go to roe.co slash listen to see if you qualify.

1:12:24Rx only. Go to roe.co slash safety for serious side effects and boxed warning associated with GLP-1s. At Farmers, our honesty is contagious.

1:12:34Michael Popok:Wait, am I going to catch honesty? Well, when you're with Farmers, it's kind of inevitable. Well, how long does it take to... I lied to you when you asked if I knew what a deductible was. I don't know my dad's birthday. I thought umbrella policies were for rainstorms. Actual rainstorms. I have it, don't I? You don't just have honesty. You have farmers. Bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum. Learn more at Farmers.com. Underwritten by Farmers Truck or Fire Insurance Exchanges or Affiliate. Products not available in every state.