Versus Trump

*/ ?>

Latest Episodes:

The Contraception Mandate Challenges Oct 12, 2017

Show notes

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss the Administration's drastic expansion of the number of companies that may now offer health insurance that does not cover birth control, as well as several lawsuits that were immediately filed challenging these new regulations. The discussion begins with a recap of the new interim final rules, which both greatly expand an existing, narrow exemption for religious organizations and also permit employers to exempt themselves from covering contraception by invoking a freestanding “moral objection" to offering coverage. Easha and Jason then discuss the three lawsuits that were immediately filed challenging the new regulations, and they walk through the four theories for why this new rule needs to be set aside: that it was not adopted with the proper procedure [at 10:30]; that it violates the First Amendment because it involves government favoring religion over non-religion [at 20:00]; that it violates the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminates against women [at 28:30]; and that it exceeds the Administration's authority under the Affordable Care Act [at 35:00].The episode ends with a couple of Trump nuggets [at 40:00], including listener feedback about the twitter lawsuit and another update on what Steve Bannon is up to now that he has left the White House.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

So, Can California Really Do That? Oct 05, 2017

Show notes

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss a recently-passed bill awaiting the signature of California Governor Jerry Brown that, if signed into law, would require presidential candidates to disclose five years of federal of tax returns in order to appear on the ballot in California. The discussion begins with an explanation [at 3:00] of the California bill, SB 149. Charlie and Jason then [at 5:00] get into the meager caselaw in this area, which centers around whether states may add substantive requirements for federal office above and beyond what is in the so-called "Qualifications Clause" of the Constitution. They then get into a sometimes testy back-and-forth about whether Presidential elections are different than other federal elections [14:00] and whether this disclosure requirement is "substantive" or "procedural" [30:00]. The episode ends [at 38:30] with a few words about whether this law is a good idea, even if it is within the state's power to pass.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

[This Episode Blocked] Sep 28, 2017

Show notes

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie dive into the merits of a lawsuit brought by Twitter users who have been blocked by @realDonaldTrump. They claim the President's blocking violates the First Amendment. The episode begins with an explanation of the case, including what the plaintiffs said on Twitter to get themselves blocked, what the effects of the President's Twitter block are, and the general rules of the road under the First Amendment. We then [at 16:00] dive into a deep debate about whether the President's tweets and actions using the @realDonaldTrump account is definitely government action, or whether he might be doing this tweeting and blocking in his personal capacity. It gets feisty! After that, we move on [at 35:00] to the constitutional effects of the block itself.The episode concludes [at 46:00] with a couple of Trump nuggets.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The FOIA Spectacular! Sep 21, 2017

Show notes

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Charlie discuss all things FOIA—that is, the Freedom of Information Act.The episode begins with some background on the way FOIA works, including some necessary information about who can file requests for information and what government records must be turned over to inquiring citizens. Charlie and Easha then [at 7:00] give some background on two recent FOIA cases asking for information from the Trump Administration: the first requesting visitor logs at Mar-a-Lago and Trump Tower, and the second seeking correspondence between the Administration and the Ways and Means Committee of the House. They then [at 14:00] dig deeper into the merits of the visitor log case and later [at 24:50] get into a broader discussion of the Ways and Means case and FOIA's role generally.Finally, Jason pops in [at 36:00] to conclude the episode with two quick Trump nuggets.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Keeping the DREAM Alive Sep 13, 2017

Show notes

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss President Trump’s revocation of the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program and a lawsuit filed by several state attorneys general against the revocation. We begin with some background on the DACA program—including a back and forth [at 6:45] on whether DACA was valid in the first place (a subject we revisit later on [at 18:05]). Then we discuss the specifics of Trump’s order [at 8:29], and get right into the lawsuit [at 10:00], which alleges that President Trump violated the Equal Protection [at 12:00] and Due Process [at 23:40] Clauses (and the Administrative Procedures Act [at 27:00]) when he revoked DACA.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Versus DeVos (Re-Air) Sep 07, 2017

Show notes

On this week’s encore episode of Versus Trump, we welcome the start of the school year by re-airing Jason's interview with Toby Merrill, the director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending at Harvard Law School, about several lawsuits she's involved with against newly-confirmed Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. We'll be back soon with new episodes.We start our interview with a discussion of what for-profit colleges are and the problem Toby's Clinic is designed to solve. We then [at 11:00] talk about the first case she brought against the Administration, Dieffenbacher v. DeVos, which claims that the Department of Education has unduly delayed ruling on the plaintiff's application to cancel her federal student loans. We then [at 21:00] discuss a second case that Toby’s organization has filed against the Administration; this one claims that the Department of Education can’t indefinitely delay the effective date of a validly-adopted federal regulation, published in November of 2016, that would provide additional protections for students of for-profit colleges. Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Waking Dreamhost Aug 31, 2017

Show notes

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we talk about web-hosting company Dreamhost's refusal to cooperate fully with the Trump Administration's broad request for information about the visitors to DisruptJ20.org, a website allegedly used by those involved in an Inauguration Day riot. We begin the episode [at 2:00] by discussing the background of the case. Over 200 people were charged in connection with an Inauguration Day riot in Washington, D.C., and, during the investigation, the U.S. Attorney obtained a warrant that ordered Dreamhost to turn over a vast collection of data about visitors to the website DisruptJ20.org. Dreamhost, however, pushed back against the broad scope of the warrant; as we discuss, the government later narrowed the request, but a court last week ordered Dreamhost to comply with the newly-narrowed warrant, though the court will continue to supervise the data collection. We next [at 6:00] discuss whether the Trump Administration's request was a break with earlier attitudes about the scope of warrants for collection of electronic data. That leads us [at 24:00] into a discussion of the merits of the so-called two-step process of electronic data search and seizure, according to which government agencies are allowed to sift through large collections of electronic data and discard irrelevant information. The episode concludes [at 34:00] with Trump nuggets about Carl Icahn and Joe Arpaio.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Trump vs. The CFPB Aug 24, 2017

Show notes

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about the Trump Administration's position in a lawsuit contending that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—commonly known as the CFPB—is unconstitutional, because its sole director does not serve at the pleasure of the President but instead serves a set term and can be terminated only for-cause. We begin the episode [at 2:00] by explaining what the CFPB does and how it's structured as an independent agency with a single director that serves a 5-year term. We next [at 7:30] talk about the lawsuit PHH v. CFPB, in which a mortgage lender who was fined $109 million by the agency has challenged the fine because, among other reasons, the independence of the sole director from the President makes the entire agency's structure unconstitutional. We discuss the recent opinion from the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreeing with this conclusion, but we note that, as the case has continued before a larger panel of judges, the Trump Administration has now switched sides and has argued that the structure of the agency is indeed unconstitutional. We then move on to other issues this case raises, such as why President Trump has been reluctant to closely control even executive agencies [at 15:05] and whether the structure of the agency poses a threat to individual liberty [at 26:30].The episode concludes [at 35:35] with a Trump nugget about the limits of the First Amendment.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Voting Wars (Marc Elias Interview) Aug 17, 2017

Show notes

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we have an interview about voting laws and litigation with former Hillary for America General Counsel and current voting rights superlawyer Marc Elias. First [at 2:00], Charlie and Marc discuss what it's like to deal with litigation while on a political campaign or from within the government. They then move on [at 7:00] to a discussion of the big legal issues of the 2018 campaign season, including litigation over a variety of recent measures that have restricted voting in Republican-controlled states such as voter ID laws [15:00]. Marc and Charlie then [at 23:00] discuss the recent reversal of the federal government's legal position in a voting rights case from Ohio, and that leads into a discussion about the institutional role of the Office of the Solicitor General more broadly. The interview ends [at 30:00] with a discussion of modern redistricting and gerrymandering, and Marc discusses the various theories the Supreme Court might use to invalidate unconstitutionally gerrymandered maps.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Versus Trump Quick Hits Aug 10, 2017

Show notes

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we bring you a quick-hitting episode with multiple Trump Nuggets. Jason starts off by providing an update on news about Versus Trump’s favorite unqualified agricultural advisor to President Trump, Sam Clovis, a non-scientist who has been nominated to be "chief scientist" of the Agriculture Department.Easha [at 7:50] then discusses a new lawsuit called Wheeler v. Fox News, which alleges that Fox News collaborated with the White House to push a false story that the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich was somehow related to Rich’s alleged contact with WikiLeaks. She also corrects one aspect of our earlier discussion of another case, Cockrum v. Trump Campaign.Charlie concludes the episode [at 16:45] by discussing a potential grammatical mistake that could change the meaning of a proposed bill that is intended to provide additional protection for Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating the links between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government. Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected