We could make this story sound even more salacious than it even is – it is horrible enough – but some background will help.

In law, there is a term used in particular cases that reference “protected classes.” In probably 99% of the cases, the term comes up when someone challenges an act of Congress or an administrative rule that singles out or has a far larger impact on “protected classes,” which generally means any law directed at race, gender, ethnicity, and religion. If Congress is reviewing a law that clearly treats everyone in the same way – like the Clean Water act, the SCOTUS looks only to see if Congress had any kind of rational basis for passing the law.

But if Congress passes a law that either expressly lists different “classes” of people (race, gender, ethnicity) as “protected” and when Congress passes laws directed at or impacting a protected class, the courts will examine the law with “close scrutiny” to ensure it is constitutional and doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment.

(Protected class may also come up with minors and adults with guardians, unable to care for themselves, as loose language).

One of Trump’s lawyers, Attorney Alina Habba, got her “protected classes” mixed up in court on Wednesday, earning some serious blowback from the judge. Habba told  New York Judge Arthur F. Engoron that Letitia James cannot pursue her civil case against Trump just because she doesn’t like him because he’s in a protected class. Referencing A.G. James, Habba said:

“[James] has such disdain for this person because he was president, because he is Donald Trump and he could probably win again in ’24. He has First Amendment rights. He’s allowed to be a Republican.”

All true, all irrelevant if James has a solid case. Habba needed to stop there. In fact, she shouldn’t have said James is suing Trump for political purposes, especially as the evidence begins to pile up. But Habba then got herself in deeper trouble:

She demanded to know if James is going to go after Hillary Clinton like she is Trump! This is “Kracken” level legal analysis. NEVER bring up another case unless you have the facts to back it up. Even if the Trumps TOLD you to bring it up, you say, “No,” and threaten to drop them as a client.

The judge then sent out a warning that Habba didn’t pick up on. The judge said: “There’s no viewpoint discrimination. I’m just saying there is none.” Telling Habba to shut up about the Republican shit. This is a legal case, grow up, it’s not Fox News.

Habba made it ten times worse:

“He’s a protected class!”

She is completely in the legal wilderness. She had been making a political speech First Amendment argument, she then drifted into 14th Amendment challenges to laws, “protected classes.” The judge picked it up immediately because the judge knows 100x more law than this lawyer:

“Ah! What protected class is he a member of?”

My god, it’s like a cat toying with a mouse:

“His political speech. If he was not sitting as a Republican and was not a former president who might run again, this would not be happening. So she is discriminating against him for that.”

Quite frankly, if I were the judge I would have sanctioned her for that comment. She defamed the other litigant without a single slice of evidence proving James’s motivation, it is assumed, it is Fox News level.

Instead, the Judge’s law clerk jumped in (Not sure why, I’ve never seen that, but maybe to spare Habba from sanctions):

“The traditional protected classes are race, religion, etc.,”

Then the judge took over:

“Donald Trump doesn’t fit that model. He’s not being discriminated against based on race, is he? Or religion, is he? He’s not a protected class. If Ms. James has a thing against him, OK, that’s not in my understanding unlawful discrimination. He’s just a bad guy she should go after as the chief law enforcement officer of the state.“

The judge wasn’t pronouncing judgment, he was merely saying Trump was a person in New York state that might’ve violated the law and it is her job to enforce the law, “bad guy” was probably not the right word. (More Below)

This thread on Trump’s new lawyer’s performance in court right now against the NY AGs office is delicious! https://t.co/ablJ6yUYDz

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 17, 2022

So that’s the story. The lesson? What did we learn? We learned that Trump can no longer afford or can no longer get the best lawyers available. Very few attorneys would’ve made the mistakes Habba made and certainly none from the more prestigious law firms Trump might have once used. The lawyer whose office is nearest to where you are reading this, could likely easily spot the problems in her argument and why the judge was so upset. It is not a sophisticated, nuanced, point.

That is the lesson to take away. Trump is getting out-lawyered, too, at least in this instance.

****

[email protected] with Nicole Hickman