🚨SCOTUS Just HANDED Trump a MAJOR LOSS…

The United States Supreme Court just. made a major ruling. Justice Brett. Kavanaaugh, writing for the court in a. one-s sentence order, denied Missouri's. bid to restore its 2025 congressional. map for this upcoming November election, leaving in place a Missouri state. Supreme Court ruling decided unanimously. 7 to zero, requiring the state to use. its 2022. uh districts. The referendum on the new. map will still proceed. You'll recall.

our reporting on what the Missouri State. Supreme Court ruled 70-0. Five. right-wing justices, two left-leaning. justices. They said, "Look, you want to. do a referendum to change the maps. The. maps are currently six to two, six. Republicans, two Democratic. congressional seats. You want to change. it by cutting up one of these districts. into three other districts. Okay, just. present it to the voters. The Missouri. Constitution requires it be done by. referendum. Kind of similar to it. through the way you had Prop 50 here uh.

in California. The Missouri state. attorney general, Missouri secretary of. state and the Missouri kind of MAGA. Republicans basically tried to argue, look, there were all these errors with. the referendum and it's too difficult. And thus the legislature needs to. implement HB1. That's what we're going. to be going with. And um we'll try to do. a referendum at a later time, but we got. to do right now the uh gerrymandering. So even if the Missouri Constitution. says referendum, we we we have to do it.

It's too difficult to do a referendum. And the right-wing Supreme Court of. Missouri was like, nah. Like just. because y'all are sloppy, you're trying. to create your own problem to then say. you want to do this without a. referendum. And all of the courts have. been warning you that uh one of the big. issues is is that you may reach a point. where you're after the primaries and you. appeal all the way up to the Supreme. Court and the Supreme Court says y'all. created the mess, but just because y'all. created the mess, that doesn't mean.

we're going to bless your unlawful map. The Supreme Court of Missouri said do. your referendum in November and then see. what the voters say about your. gerrymandering scheme. But that's what. the law requires. That's what the. Missouri Constitution requires. So the m. state of Missouri MAGA Republicans there. took two moves and this is important to. note. They did one emergency petition to. the United States Supreme Court. Justice. Kavanaaugh supervises that district and. they said, "Please, Justice Kavanaaugh, we need your help. You got to stop what.

the Supreme Court state Supreme Court. did in Missouri." That's what Justice. Kavanaaugh said. Nope. I'm not getting. involved in this. This is, you know, elections are state issues, right? Pretty clear in the constitution. So, um, and he just said application denied. And you think about it, this is not the. province of federal law. And, and so, Justice Kavanaaugh said, "Nope." In. other words, you go back to the 2022. map. You go back to the referendum, but.

you don't change the Missouri map, meaning that's the old 6:2 structure, not the 7 to1 structure, which could be. helpful for Democrats, but that's just. what the law is. I mean, you know, that's what the law says. Even the. right-wing justices of Missouri said. that. But then the MAGA Supreme Court. justice, the MAGA Republican Attorney. General and the MAGA Secretary of State, they had another plan. So they rush in. to federal court on the very same day. that they petition to the Supreme Court.

and they basically go forum shopping to. draw a Trump MAGA judge who was. appointed during Trump's first term, a. judge by the name of Stephven Clark. um. total Trump bootlicking lackey, you. know, look at this guy's background. And. he issues a 13-page order right before. Kavanaaugh's order. Uhoh. That basically. says, you know what? I, as a federal. district court judge, I'm going to block. the Missouri state supreme court uh.

justice's decision because, and this was. his tortured reasoning, he goes, "If you. look at the constitution and. specifically you go into uh article 1, section two, it provides that the House. of Representatives shall be composed of. members chosen every second year by the. people of several states." And because. Missouri all already went through the. primary process, if we go back to the.

way the maps were supposed to be, we. could potentially be disenfranchising. voters who relied on the fraudulent maps. and did a primary based on that. Whereas. the Missouri State Supreme Court says, "Too bad, so sad. Figure it out. Not our. problem. Y'all are the ones who screwed. it up and we warned you this was going. to happen." So what this federal judge, this Trump lackey says is sure, article. 1, section 4 of the federal constitution. gives state legislatures the ability to. establish the time, place, and manner of.

holding elections for senators and. representatives. But this federal judge. on his own like like made up an argument. I've never even heard before, but that. is superseded by article 1 section two. And so, in other words, if you're a. state and you intentionally don't follow. the Constitution and screw it all up and. you're the reason that you. disenfranchise voters, well, then you. don't have to roll it back because. rolling it back would disenfranchise. voters. The hell? So, where does this.

stand now? The Supreme Court is. basically saying what the state supreme. court did upholds, meaning the 6 to2. map. But then the same day that Justice. Kavanaaugh ruled against the MAGAS in. Missouri, you have this MAGA federal. judge through a different route because. remember Kavanaaugh's ruling on the. appeal of the state supreme court. justice. That's why it goes right to. Kavanaaugh right away because that's. over because the state supreme court's. the highest and it would be a question. of supremacy clause and Kavanaaugh said.

yeah state issue not federal issues. It's not a supremacy clause issue. And. then you had the MAGAS go through this. other route with this Trump judge the. same day doing a conflicting ruling with. the Supreme Court. Very odd indeed. But. that's because these MAGAs are getting. desperate heading into the midterms and. they're doing a bunch of crap that isn't. normal. Harry Litman, break it all down. You clerk for two Supreme Court. justices, Harry. This is actually like. it's truly complicated stuff. It's a.

mess. But I don't want our viewers and. listeners to feel, wow, this is above my. head. The only reason it's like this is. because the MAGAS are trying to rig this. thing and they're doing all this crap. that you're not supposed to do. That's. why it's complicated. It's not the way. it's supposed to be. That's right. It's. a mess, but it is simple. I think when. you cut uh to the the chase and it's as. you say by the way I admired your use of. y'all as you were explaining where. Missouri uh was um uh trying to put its.

map to this. It could be like a hard. exam question in a federal courts class. the class that deals with the um. division of power between the states and. the federal government. But here's how. these two things happen. I think uh uh. Fed heads and Midas mighty alike might. be saying wait a second. Kavanaaugh says no there you there's.

nothing to be said. You've you're. finished here. And this uh new well not. so new Trump 1.0 I know Steven Clark, judge from Missouri, says otherwise. And. the key to this is uh that um federal. courts and the the US Supreme Court can. only decide questions of federal. constitutional law. So the reason this. was a no sweat issue for Kavanaaugh. besides the that it the timing of it may.

already be mood and too late. The main. thing is Missouri Supreme Court used. state law principles and that's nothing. that the US Supreme Court can address. much less reverse on. The Missouri. Supreme Court is the final authority on. Missouri state law. So we've seen. sometimes that you refer something to. the justice of the district. Sometimes. the justice actually refers it to the.

court as a whole. Typically they do. Sometimes um they grant an. administrative stay in the postal. service case where the where the Trump. administration has just cried emergency. emergency for the third time. They have. a separate um petition also stay things. until you do decide it. And then. sometimes it's such a non you know it's. so straightforward. You'll see this. sometimes in last gas efforts by um.

prisoners or e or convicts or to to. prevent execution. A single justice can. say, you know, there is just no there's. nothing controversial about what. Kavanaaugh did because there's no state. uh federal law issue for them to review. Full stop. Now, as you say, part two, they they're they're at the end of the. line, I think, on the state law, but if. there were a solid federal law issue, it.

would trump the state law, right? That's. the supremacy clause. If it turned out. that the Missouri Supreme Court and. saying here's how we do under state law. was violating federal law, that would be. a reason. And that is what the good. judge Clark is trying to write. And uh. the the problem is it's um uh totally. meritless or let me put it this way. We. have we saw first in Bush vGore and then.

flirtations ever since this uh. possibility that the provision in the. constitution that says it's to the. states to decide about elections that. states can do different things and give. it to the legislature and that sort of. thing. But when you see article one. section two or four important to these. opinions, it's a way of just getting a. federal hook. It's what they did in Bush.

v.Gore. Um uh that you know three of the. justices did getting a federal hook so. you can state an election law principle. that typically would be under the. purview of the state but get a federal. law premise and therefore the ultimate. review of the US Supreme Court. So where. does this stand? There was this new uh. map. It would have given an extra seat. You could almost think of that as two, right? Because it's a switch from 6 to2.

to 71 to Republicans state supreme court. said, "Uh-uh, under state law, you. didn't do it right." And that's the end. of the line for state law. And so it's. just no good. And now the argument is. the the the old one and not using the. new one is a violation of federal law. And it's that's a whole separate uh. cause of action. Give us an injunction.

because federal law forces uh you. Missouri to use the new map. And so. that's what Judge Clark said. I'll give. you a preliminary injunction. I'll set. 14 days. We'll hear it. Let me say I. don't see those 14 days coming. That's a. long time in the current context of this. election. I think you're going to see. the challengers jump up to the eighth. circuit. And I think, you know, I'll. look at this more carefully, but I agree. with you, Ben. It's hot off the presses,

but it seems halfbaked, and that's I. think um uh being charitable, maybe. quarter or eighth baked. Uh and I don't. see this one surviving. I I would think. that the A circuit will say, "Huh? Uh. no, we don't think so." If the A circuit. doesn't and it's then to the. discretionary review of the Supreme. Court, we've learned this bitterly more. than once, all bets are off. But if the. A circus, I think it will, will say no,

no, no, no, no. Federal law doesn't do. this, especially under the standards. that you need to the four-part test of. of all the um you balance of equities. and the like. Uh no, no, no. And if. that's what the A circuit says, we are. back to the default that that new map. that gives an extra R seat is toast, is. gone. It's gone under state law. And. there's no federal law principle that. says that the state law determination.

somehow is invalid under the supremacy. uh clause. So very very tangled web but. at the end of the day to to it took me a. while to to get around to your question. but it I this is this is the point the. uh US Supreme Court said no we can't. change the state supreme court that. state law and that meant that the proar. map is out now you have this new. district court judge saying federal law.

requires using that map and so the. provisional state play as that map is. back. The pro R1, I don't think it will. remain and even remain for the 14 days. And if the A circuit says, I don't know about your federal law. analysis, Judge Clark, then we will be. back once again. Is that the third time, the fourth time to the situation where. the new added vote pro-Republican map is.

off the boards at least for 2026? You know, I always wear my professor hat. sometimes when I try to look at these. ridiculous opinions by some of these. Trump. I'm like, what are you citing? What laws are you like, what cases are. you talking about? And I'm like, this is. interesting. A 1949 case, what does that. say? The eth circuit held in 1949 that. Missouri's then existing primary. election system which like the present. system provided that no one can be.

elected without receiving the nomination. at a primary election was a quote. integral part of the general election. laws of the state. Okay, what's your. point? Like that's where they he he. picks a 1949 pos uh case for the. proposition that primaries are. important. Yeah, we know that you're. overturning a state supreme court. What. grounds do you have to do that? You're a. federal judge and this is the province. of state elections. That's what you're. going to base it on. So, it's not only.

so flimsy, but you know, frankly, if. malpractice was something that could be. embodied in a judge, you know, citing. that is like it's it's truly like bad. faith. It'd be like some of those um. ethics opinions where like a lawyer. knowingly cites a bad case to a judge. It's like what do you this 1949 case. that has nothing to do with anything? You're going to cite it and act like. it's you know it it's in the weeds, Harry, but you and I know that when the. judge does that, you know, to people in.

the legal community, you're like, "All. right, that's some that's a pathetic. move, right? We saw what you did.". >> We're in the weeds. And if you'll give. me just one more second, they're living. in the weeds. And what they're doing in. the weeds again and again, Ben, is. trying to uh take the, you know, it's. clear again and again, and it's what. defeats the mail in voting, everything. The executive plays no role here. It's. to the states with a with a little. residual role to Congress. But what. they're trying to do again and again is. find some principle of federal law. In.

the their latest submission to the. Supreme Court, it was federal law. permits the postal service to dictate. the size of envelopes for body parts. And from that they want to say so it's. just like that. It's not election. regulation. Find some little federal. hook and get the entire friaking. election under federal control in terms. of producing the federal list and. invalidating. It's clearly what they're.

doing and it's so the same trick in. eight different iterations. This is the. latest one. There'll be others. It's, you know, it's just the way it works. You need that federal uh court so you. can work it up to the Supreme Court and. maybe be off and running. That's the. common thread to the strategies. >> Everybody uh hit subscribe here. More. importantly, subscribe to Harry Litman's. YouTube channel called Talking Feds. Watch some of Harry's videos on the.

Talking Feds YouTube channel. Tell Harry. that Ben said hello, that I sent you. Thanks, Harry. >> Thank you, Ben. >> Before you go, our book WTF America is. available for pre-order now. It's the. story of how we got here and how we. fight our way back. To pre-order, scan. the QR code or click the link in the. description. Let's do this. [music].