BREAKING: Trump dealt HUMILIATING loss in court

You're watching the Legal Breakdown, Glenn. We have a smackdown at the hands. of a judge in a case that was so. egregious, I almost couldn't believe. that Donald Trump engaged in this stuff. So, can you explain what just happened. in the courtroom? Yeah, Brian, it was just a few weeks ago. that the Trump administration went into. Independence Square in Philadelphia and. just started tearing down an exhibit. that was um designed to accurately. reflect and record and display American. history. What piece of American history?

Well, you know, in Philadelphia, we had. the first presidential residence. It was. a place where George Washington resided. for a period of time, and it accurately. reflected that while George Washington. resided there, he owned nine slaves. Those slaves also resided there, and you. know, there was an accurate reflection. and exhibition talking about the life of. these nine slaves, among other things.

So, of course, I I don't know if that. constitutes DEI. I'm not quite sure. But, what it did do was accurately. reflect American history and at least in. part the the sin, the stain of slavery. An important lesson for us all to. remember. So, Donald Trump sent people. in there to just tear it all down in. violation of federal law in a couple of. ways. Well, a federal judge appointed by another.

George, George W. Bush, on President's. Day handed down a ruling, and her name. is Cynthia Rufe. She opened her ruling. by quoting whom? George Orwell's 1984. Let me just read you one sentence of. Judge Rufe's opening salvo. As if the Ministry of Truth in George. Orwell's 1984 now existed with its. motto, quote, "Ignorance is strength.".

Close quote. This court is now asked to. determine whether the federal government. has the power it claims to dissemble and. disassemble historic truths, it does. not. And that was just for openers, Brian, of a 40-page opinion by Judge. Roof. And what she ordered is one, the. Trump administration will immediately. stop tearing down anything it does not.

have the legal right to tear down. Two, it ordered the Trump administration to. reinstall. the historically accurate exhibits that. it tore down in the first place because. all of this was in violation of federal. law. The Administrative Procedures Act, there's a law that requires they. coordinate with local officials from the. city of Philadelphia. They didn't do. that. And you know, there's there is. definitely some, you know, ironic.

aspects to this. In the litigation, the. Trump administration actually indicated. that, yes, it believed that the exhibits. as they existed before they were torn. down were historically accurate. But. they said, "But we think the federal. government should be able to put stuff. up that comports with its viewpoint." I. don't even understand what the hell that. means other than they want to, you know, its viewpoint is we need to erase.

slavery from American history. You know, there are another sort of confounding. aspect of it as I'm reading through this. 40-page opinion, you know, that the. plaintiffs went in and there were. multiple parties that brought suit to. enforce the federal law and put a stop. to this. And they laid out all of their. evidence, they introduced evidence in. support of their claim. and when the. Trump administration had the opportunity. to introduce evidence that what it did. was lawful, they introduced no evidence whatsoever.

They just sort of laid down. And Brian, I you know, it causes me to think out. loud. What in the world does the Trump. administration. think when it declines to even put on a. shred of evidence to defend against an. accusation that they had violated. federal law by tearing down these. exhibits. And all I could think of is, you know, maybe they're content in the. belief that, you know, we've got four, five, maybe six Supreme Court justices.

in our pocket. So, if we can push this. rock all the way up to the Supreme. Court, maybe we don't even need any. evidence to demonstrate what we did was. lawful. Maybe those six Supreme Court. justices will have our back and let us. white wash slavery out of American. history. That is that is my, you know, assumption or informed speculation by. the Trump administration not even trying.

to defend its own actions in court. All right. So, Glenn, first and. foremost, I have to ask, is an appeal in. the works here? Actually, this was. already just a preliminary injunction, if I'm not mistaken. Is that correct? Yes, it is. And there is an appeal. Um. the the Trump administration has already. announced that it will be appealing the. decision. There is no stay in effect at. this moment. In other words, you know, the judge's order that they must. reinstall these exhibits stands. And.

they better be working on that now. Or. hopefully some federal judge will. finally decide, you know, we really have. to seriously take up contempt of court. You know, the the one weak spot that the. federal uh judiciary has demonstrated is. they don't really have this appetite for. holding the Trump administration. >> mean there's there's so loath to impose. any consequences on these people and the. reality is until and unless there are. consequences nothing is going to happen.

because Trump doesn't you know Trump. doesn't Trump doesn't respond to that. kind of incentive and so I guess I guess. that raises the obvious question here. what can contempt of court look like. is there a range here? Yeah, it can look like massive monetary. fines until they comply of course you. know unless federal government officers. are held personally personally liable to. satisfy any monetary fines it's going to. be coming out of our taxpayers dollars. but. >> Right I mean is it just taking money out. of one one pocket to put in the other.

and this is the the government giving. like finding the government money? Yeah, it it is and that's why I think the. courts need to begin to move in the. direction of criminal contempt. You. know, it is not unprecedented. I would. say it's not all that wildly unusual for. federal court judges to hold federal. government officials and entire agencies. sometimes in contempt. There's a famous. judge still on the bench in federal. court in Washington DC Judge Royce. Lamberth somebody I know well because I.

tried a six-month RICO trial you know. over which he presided you know it you. look through his history he's been on. the bench for I think going on 40 years. He has held multiple federal officers. and officials in contempt. He once held. the entire EPA in contempt for violating. his court orders. He doesn't take kindly. to the federal government violating his. court orders or anybody violating his. court orders and I think Brian that's. one reason judges don't test him and if.

all federal court judge listen you've. heard me say that the federal judiciary. you know they represent points of light. beacons of light shining out amidst the. Trump induced darkness and I believe. that. The last little piece that I think. has been missing is holding the federal. government accountable for its flagrant. violations of court orders. This is. particularly true in the immigration and. deportation arena, but I think Judge. Boasberg is moving in that direction. I. think other judges are moving in the.

direction of criminal contempt, but I. think we've got to get there because. once you start holding government. officials in contempt, now you've got. some real deterrent effect to guard. against this this, you know, continued. violation of court orders. And by the. way, that forward-leaning posture, that. that that fight mentality, I think, in. my opinion, is exactly what's needed. Um. it's what Glenn and I try to convey on a. daily basis when we do these legal. breakdown videos. So, um for those who. are watching, if you'd like to elevate.

our voices in this ecosystem, the best. way to do that is to subscribe to both. of our channels. I'm going to put the. links in the post description of this. video. If you're not yet subscribed, it's 100% free, but it's a great way to. support us work and our voices. Glenn, in terms of. this happening, this taking place where. the federal government is kind of. dismantling all of these um all of these. exhibits that that rightfully um point. to and and um memorialize our past, you. know, is there no irony in the fact that.

while Trump is using as his big defense. against having posted a video that. includes Barack Obama and his wife on. the bodies of apes, this idea that oh, I. I I'm not racist, I don't have a racist. bone in my body, while this is what he's. choosing to do with federal resources at. the same time? I think that again qualifies as irony, but consistency is is not really part of. Donald Trump's MO. But, you know, the. judge could not have been more pointed, uh Judge Ruth, and, you know, she didn't.

seem to hide the message that she really. wanted to send over and above her. ruling, the injunction, and the order to. restore the exhibits. You know, if I can. just go jump to the conclusion of this. 40-page ruling, she talked about um the. importance of how George Washington kind. of led this nation through, you know, some really, really challenging times, but it was important to document both.

the good and the bad because, as I. mentioned, he had nine slaves living in. that residence in Philadelphia, and it. was important to document that as well. But then she said that, you know, we. need a president, a chief executive who. shows restraint and modesty and wisdom, and that defines the ideal chief. executive to this day. I don't think she. mistakenly included that in the end, and.

that it wasn't intended for Donald Trump. because if there's one thing that Donald. Trump does not possess, it is those. qualities, those traits that Judge Roof. said are essential to an effective. leader, to an effective president. Glenn, in terms of what you've read in. this decision, do you think that the. case is strong enough to survive the. appeal? Like, do do the um do the. plaintiffs in this case have an airtight. enough case that even when this thing. gets appealed up to the appeals court.

and possibly even the Supreme Court, is. there any wiggle room where the Trump. administration might be able to exploit. some law or some statute that would. allow them to to reinstate uh you know, their own policies, which is to, you. know, of course, tear down any reminder. of of slavery or anything that doesn't. just present America in this raw, raw. conservative, you know, Pete. Hegseth-esque uh light? Yeah, you know, it's always tough to. predict what an appellate court will do, but but here's what I'll say. You know, there are two things that lead me to.

conclude that this is very likely going. to be affirmed on appeal. So, you know, basically the Trump administration is. likely to lose on appeal. One, under the. Administrative Procedures Act, the. federal government is legally prohibited. from engaging in conduct that is. arbitrary and capricious. That's the. language of the statute. And once the. Trump administration made the, you know, arguably poor tactical choice of going. on record in this litigation and saying.

these um exhibits. were an accurate reflection of history. They didn't dispute that. I think that. concession, that admission, makes their. challenge on appeal all the all the. greater. Um because then it really. doesn't seem like they have a good faith. reason that is not arbitrary and. capricious like, you know, we just don't. like reminding folk of slavery or we. want to try to whitewash American.

history. We want to try to deceive. future generations. Um I I don't think. that's a winning argument on appeal. And. the second thing is because they opted. to present no evidence, they are bound. by that decision on appeal. People. should know a trial court is where the. parties get to submit evidence. But once. the case is decided in the trial court, the record is frozen. You can't. supplement it with any additional. evidence. So, it goes up on appeal now. on the arbitrary and capricious ruling.

by the judge. Um and the Trump. administration cannot present any. evidence anew in the appeals court. So, they're stuck with what was a a pretty. lousy tactical decision. Of course, they. may not have had any evidence to support. their lawless conduct. So, maybe that's. what led them not to submit any. evidence. Um so, I like the plaintiffs, the city of Philadelphia's, chances on. appeal. But the wild card as we know. Brian is always that Supreme Court with.

six Supreme Court justices who are. forever, you know, seemingly willing to. do a solid for Donald Trump even if it. violates federal law, even if it's. contrary to the express language of the. Constitution. All right. Well, obviously. more to come on this case in particular. So, if you're watching right now and. you're not yet subscribed and you want. to continue to stay on top of this story. or any other legal news, the best way to. do that is to subscribe to both of our. channels. I'm going to put those links. right here on the screen and also in the. post description of this video. Again,

if you're not yet subscribed, the best. way to stay on top of this stuff and. support our work is to subscribe. I'm. Brian Tyler Cohen. And I'm Glenn. Kirschner. You're watching the Legal. Breakdown. >> [music].