On Versus Trump, we discuss how the Trump Administration is breaking the law, and what people are doing about it.
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
php/* */ ?>
On Versus Trump, we discuss how the Trump Administration is breaking the law, and what people are doing about it.
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason has an 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 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 10:30] 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 20:30] 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.
On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Easha discuss a newly-filed lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs who allege that Trump's campaign and Trump advisor Roger Stone conspired with Russians to disclose private information about the plaintiffs.Charlie and Easha begin by explaining the basic gist of the lawsuit, which is called Cockrum v. Trump Campaign, and they quickly turn to an in-depth discussion of each of the three particular theories of liability. The first theory they analyze [at 3:30] is public disclosure of private facts, and the two wonder whether certain key components of this tort are present in this case. They then quickly discuss the intentional infliction of emotional distress tort [at 8:30] before turning to an in-depth discussion of the past and present of the federal civil rights claim in the case [at 12:55].The episode closes [at 29:00] with several Trump Lumps, including thoughts on when screening questions at congressional town halls might violate the First Amendment and how the Administration is enforcing immigration law in local prostitution diversion courts.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.
On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we discuss the litigation against the newly-created Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, that has Kansas Secretary of State—and repeat defendant in voting rights litigation—Kris Kobach as its now-infamous Vice Chair. We begin by explaining the creation of the Commission, which has a stated goal of “reviewing the integrity of elections in order to protect and preserve the principle of one person, one vote.” But, as we note, many people think the Commission is little more than a front to deliver a report detailing potentially exaggerated risks of voter fraud, and that report could then provide a basis to enact legislation that could make it substantially more difficult for many Americans to register and vote. We then [at 8:00] discuss a major lawsuit claiming that the Commission’s request for information from states about hundreds of millions of voters violates privacy laws, and we wonder where the litigation might go. Next [at 22:00], we discuss a variety of other lawsuits against the Commission, including those claiming it violates transparency laws, that its entire existence is suffused with racial discrimination, and that Kobach violated a federal prohibition on using his office to promote his candidacy for governor of Kansas.The episode closes [at 34:00] with a quick reflection on one of Jason’s favorite passages from the Declaration of Independence.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.
On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Easha discuss the cases against Trump University, the global settlement that was reached, and whether the pending challenge by a lone objector can—or should—alter the result. Charlie and Easha dive right into the background of the cases, which were brought by both a class of individuals and the State of New York, claiming that Trump University was a fraudulent "educational" institution. They then [at 7:30] discuss the global settlement that was reached after Trump was elected, and they wonder what drove the settlement, whether it was a fair result, and whether the settlement was in the public interest. Easha and Charlie next discuss the pending appeal by Sherri Simpson, a lone objector seeking to opt-out of the settlement, and they are quite critical of Judge Curiel's reasoning in the opinion rejecting her claim. Finally, [24:30-end] Easha and Charlie wonder about some unusual aspects of this case and speculate about why everyone involved seems to think it best not to take this case to trial while Trump is president. 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.
On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we celebrate Independence Day with a look at the past, present, and future of judicial independence. Jason and Easha begin by explaining the origin of the federal judicial system in Article III of the Constitution and the early conflicts between the courts and Presidents. They then [at 9:45] discuss the unprecedented attacks that President Trump and his administration have made on individual judges and the legitimacy of the judicial system, and they wonder where it leads. Finally, [18:00-end] Easha and Jason get into something of a debate on whether Trump's actions may erode hard-earned judicial legitimacy and even judicial supremacy—or whether what some think of as virtually limitless judicial power and independence isn't quite as robust as it seems. The patriotic music on this week's episode was composed by John Philip Sousa, and the recordings are available royalty-free at musopen.org.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. And wherever you stand on these issues, we hope you had a great Independence Day!
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we discuss a lurking issue with opposing Trump in upcoming elections: partisan gerrymandering. Charlie and Easha begin [at 1:50] by explaining the theory of partisan gerrymandering, which depends on one party doing something called “packing and cracking” the voters of other parties. Charlie and Easha then [at 8:45] dive into the Gil v. Whitford case and explain what happened in Wisconsin that gave rise to the lawsuit. They then move on [at 14:00] to trying to predict what the Supreme Court might do in the case and what the consequences would be of either striking down the Wisconsin map because it was the result of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, or of leaving the map as it stands and perhaps even getting courts out of the business of hearing these kinds of cases at all.The episode closes [at 31:10] with a quick update on the latest action in the Muslim travel ban case.Also, a note to regular listeners: this episode follows our new format of splitting up interviews from discussion episodes. We hope the new format makes the podcast easier to listen to and share. But please give us feedback if you have thoughts on this or any other aspect of the show.
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On a new, interview-only episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Jason has an interview with Glenda Aldana Madrid, of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), about a case in which her organization has so far successfully blocked the Administration's attempt to curb the right to counsel in immigration courts.In the interview, Glenda first gives a background on her organization, which provides a full suite of pro bono immigration services to thousands of immigrants residing in Washington State. Jason and Glenda then discuss how the Trump Administration recently sent NWIRP a cease-and-desist letter demanding that they stop providing any legal assistance to people facing deportation, unless NWIRP submits a formal notice of appearance in immigration court and agrees to represent any immigrant for all purposes, for the duration of all litigation. As Glenda explains, pro bono organizations like hers do not have the resources to take on that level of representation with every person who requests help, so this cease-and-desist demand would seriously curb the ability of many immigrants to get legal advice during their immigration proceedings.Jason and Glenda then discuss the lawsuit her organization filed against the Administration. The lawsuit seeks to hold invalid the cease-and-desist letter and permit NWIRP and all similarly situated organizations to continue to provide immigration clients with various forms of legal assistance without the need to file a notice of appearance. They then discuss the grounds on which NWIRP won a temporary restraining order, why the Sessions DOJ may have sent such a letter, and what might be next in the case.This week's episode is interview-only, so there are no Trump Lumps or appearances by Charlie and Easha. But they'll be back next week!
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On a new episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Easha, and Charlie begin with a background on the case of Lovitky v. Trump, in which an attorney named Jeffrey Lovitky has sued the President claiming that his financial disclosure form violated the Ethics in Government Act—which requires, among other things, candidates to disclose outstanding debts. We discuss Lovitky's argument and the five reasons the government has given that the case should be dismissed. Although the group agrees that Lovitky is unlikely to succeed on the suit as a whole, they conclude that it will be worth watching which specific arguments of the government the court thinks is strongest. [2:47-18:22].Next, Easha talks with Leah Litman, a law professor at of UC-Irvine in California. Leah discusses this week's decision on the ban from the Ninth Circuit, makes a few points about what might happen in the Supreme Court, and then gives her thoughts on the value of oral argument in high profile cases. [18:22-33:40]The episode concludes with a few quick Trump Lumps highlighting some other cases to watch out for. [33:40-end]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.
On a new episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss Congress's role and powers in investigations of the Executive [start-28:30] They start with a discussion of Congress's role and the powers it has to issue subpoenas, hear testimony, and gather facts in the course of investigations. They then turn to the upcoming testimony of former FBI Director James Comey and discuss executive privilege, and then discuss former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in response to a congressional request for information. Finally, the group discusses a recent Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Opinion concluding that the President and executive agencies are not obligated to respond to requests for information from individual members of Congress—only to requests from committees and Congress as a whole.Next, Jason interviews Steven Wu of the office of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman [28:30-1:01:30]. Jason and Steven discuss the fraud case against Trump University that his office brought several years ago and recently settled. They then discuss the role of states, progressive and conservative, in challenging federal policies that are adverse to the interests of citizens of states or the state's own interests. Finally, Jason asks Steven a few lightning round question about New York's role in debates about healthcare, climate change, and voting rights.The episode concludes with a few quick Trump Lumps and listener feedback. [1:01:30-end]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.
On a new episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Easha and Jason dig into healthcare for the first time. Easha and Jason open [start-10:55] with a summary of the history of payments to insurance companies and the claims by the Republican House of Representatives that so-called "cost-sharing reduction" payments were not properly appropriated in the Affordable Care Act. They next explain how the Trump Administration has failed to commit to making these payments to insurers for the remainder of the year, which has introduced substantial uncertainty into the healthcare market and lead to a major lawsuit. The two then turn [from 10:55-29:48] to an analysis of the merits of the challenge, and they also discuss whether the House of Representatives had a right to bring the lawsuit in the first place. Jason and Easha then drop a few Trump Lumps, and do quick hits regarding immigration rhetoric vs. action and drug testing for unemployment benefits. [29:50-end.]
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.