Versus Trump

*/ ?>

Latest Episodes:

California X Trump Mar 07, 2019

Show notes

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss a new lawsuit from California challenging new regulations regarding Title X, an important federal family planning program.

Jason and Charlie first discuss the history and background of Title X, which goes back to the Nixon Administration. They then discuss the new changes the Trump Administration has just adopted, which include strict separation requirements between funding recipients and organizations that provide abortions, and new rules that come very close to prohibiting providers from even mentioning the existence of abortion providers. Jason and Charlie speculate about California's prospect for success before turning to some Trump nuggets, including a return of Uncle Charlie's Sanctions Corner—or is it???

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

Notes

The Complaint in California v. Azar is here.
At National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru defends the (proposed) rules here.

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

Is The State Department Discriminating Against Same-Sex Couples? Feb 28, 2019

Show notes

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha discuss a decision from a federal court in Los Angeles ordering the Government to grant citizenship to both children of a same-sex couple born abroad to one U.S. parent.

The trio dig into the little-known world of how children born abroad to U.S. parents are granted citizenship to understand whether the State Department has been discriminating against same-sex couples. Federal law says that children born abroad are citizens at birth if they are "born of parents," one of whom is a U.S. citizen. In the Dvash-Banks case, the parents are a married same-sex couple, one of whom is a U.S. citizen, but only one of two twins is genetically related to the U.S. citizen father. Under an obscure policy, the State Department granted citizenship to the genetically-related twin but denied it to the other twin—even though the U.S. citizen parent is the "parent" of both children. A federal judge in L.A. recently said this was incorrect and ordered that both children be granted citizenship.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

Notes

The opinion in the case is here.
We found this opinion through a nice recap by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern. That's here.
Easha mentioned this WaPo article and this excellent (and excellently-titled) law review article called "Friends With Benefits?"

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

Stop The Wall! Feb 21, 2019

Show notes

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha discuss the early lawsuits that seek to stop the new sections of border wall that President Trump authorized through executive action.

The trio dig into the first three complaints filed: one by Public Citizens, one by animal rights groups, and one by California and 15 other states. They talk about whether any or all of the plaintiffs would have standing and whether the cases are premature. They then get to the merits: does what the President wishes to do violate the separation of powers?

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

Notes

The three lawsuits discussed are Public Citizen's Alvarez v. Trump; animal rights groups' Center for Biological Diversity v. Trump; and the multi-state California v. Trump.
Jason read from this blog post by Ilya Shapiro, at Cato.
For a Trump nugget, Jason mentioned this post by Nick Bagley at Take Care.

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

How Do We Protect Our Democracy? Feb 14, 2019

Show notes

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie sits down for a fun, casual conversation with Anne Tindall and Cameron Kistler of Protect Democracy about, well, protecting our democracy.

Charlie, Anne, and Cameron cover a wide range of topics, from the role of the 17th Amendment in scheduling special elections in the U.S. Senate—we know, dear listeners, that you come for the dorky legal topics and stay for the witty banter, not the other way around—to the proper scope of disagreement in a democratic society. They also discuss some differences between this Administration and the ones that came before it. Also, Cameron is the first non-leftist we've ever had on the show. So, you know, that's fun.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

Notes

Protect Democracy's website is here.

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

The ACA's Still Here... Feb 07, 2019

Show notes

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss last month's federal court decision holding that Maryland could not proceed in its lawsuit that sought a declaration that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and must be enforced.

Easha and Jason start by explaining the unusual lawsuit, which is the inverse of the more widely-reported case Texas v. United States. In Texas, red states are seeking to strike down the ACA; in Maryland, that state is trying to uphold it. But, as they explain, a district court a few weeks held that Maryland could not proceed because, despite the Administration's hostility to the ACA, it does continue to be enforced (at least in meaningful part), so the court held there was no live case or controversy. After breaking this finding down, Easha and Jason turn to some listener feedback about shifting positions of the government.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

Notes

The decision in Maryland v. U.S. is here.

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

Kids v. Climate Change Jan 31, 2019

Show notes

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Easha, and Charlie discuss recent developments in Juliana v. U.S., a long-running case where young people claim that the federal government's inaction on climate change violates their right to live in a habitable world in the future.

They start by stating the unusual claims and then discuss the threshold issue of whether a court could actually give them the relief they seek: a declaration that they government has violated their rights and, possibly, an order requiring some kind of action on climate change. They then get philosophical and discuss whether there is a constitutional right to a future habitable world and whether the government has violated that right by taking minimal action to curb carbon emissions. They end with a few more technical thoughts about the case.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

Notes

All of the legal documents in this case can be found at the excellent case page here.

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

Ask Charlie About The Census Jan 25, 2019

Show notes

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason asks Charlie to take us through the mammothly long, massively important opinion from the Southern District of New York invalidating the proposed citizenship question on the 2020 Census.

Jason starts by asking Charlie to lay out the background of the case and then take us through the highlights of the 277-page opinion in New York v. Dep't of Commerce. He talks about the factual findings about how damaging the question would be for response rates, and then gets into several reasons the court found the addition of the question was either contrary to law or arbitrary. They then discuss why the court did not accept the plaintiffs' constitutional claims—but why that may be a good thing. They end, as usual, with listener feedback. (Note: we apologize for the poor audio quality on this episode; everyone is on the road this week!)

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

Notes

The opinion is here.

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

Secret Subpoenas, A New AG, and Live Listener Feedback Jan 17, 2019

Show notes

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha hit three topics: the mysterious case of the subpoena to a foreign corporation that may be related to the Mueller investigation; the nomination of William Barr as Attorney General; and the temporal nature of an emergency, as prompted by live listener feedback.

The trio start by quickly discussing the mysterious subpoena case, and Easha gives us inside baseball on the usual process for securing a stay at the Supreme Court. The trio then comment quickly on Barr's nomination and his bizarre, unsolicited memo that reveals some of his thoughts about the Muller investigation. Finally, listener Ross Harrow (Jason's brother) comes into the Versus Trump studio and asks whether it's plausible that emergencies can really take a very long time to solve.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

Notes

Easha mentioned Marty Lederman's post on Just Security about the Barr memo. It's here.
Charlie mentioned the Green Bag's writings on in-chambers opinions by single Supreme Court justices. See here, especially the introductory essays.

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

The Shutdown Special Jan 10, 2019

Show notes

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha bring you a shutdown special, where they talk about the President's emergency powers as well as a lawsuit contending the government is violating federal labor law by not paying workers on time.

The episode starts with a discussion of the President's claim that he can use emergency powers to build the wall without Congress's appropriation. They discuss the law of emergencies and the specific laws that might authorize a wall and decide that it's a surprisingly close question. Next, they delve into a lawsuit filed in the Court of Federal Claims contending that the Fair Labor Standards Act requires on-time payments for work done by most government employees, and they explain the consequences of the government's violation of this law. They end with listener feedback.

Notes

As noted at Lawfare, there are currently at least 28 national emergencies. See here.
Lawfare has an excellent Q and A on emergency powers here and a detailed overview here.
A website about litigation related to a prior shutdown is here. The recently filed FLSA complaint is here.

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

Contraception Mandate, Round Infinity Jan 03, 2019

Show notes

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha comment on several cases addressing whether the Trump Administration may legally expand the number of employers who do not need to provide insurance that includes coverage for contraception.

The trio start by doing a quick run-through of the many ups-and-downs of this controversial policy. They then turn to decisions from the Ninth Circuit and a court in Pennsylvania that stopped the Administration from implementing their proposed change that would expand the exemption from coverage. They note, however, that new rules are set to go into effect on January 14, so they opine on whether those rules may eventually become effective.

They end with some promised listener feedback. Keep your emails coming!

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

Notes

The Ninth Circuit's decision in California v. Azar is here. The decision from EDPa in Pennsylvania v. Trump is here.
A very useful Health Affairs article about the California case is here.
Nick Bagley's excellent post on the legal issues around the forthcoming final rules is here, at The Incidental Economist.

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