Versus Trump

The End...Or The Beginning? Jan 25, 2021

Well, this is it for Versus Trump, folks. Trump ain't President anymore! He doesn't even have a twitter account. What a way to end.

Charlie and Jason bring back Easha to discuss the short and long term impact of January insurrection. They then reflect on the big picture. After all, we've been podcasting about legal cases involving Trump for almost four years. What in the world happened?

To all who listened each week or every once in a while: our most sincere thank you. This was a blast. We can't believe we put this into the ether and people listened! We may drop into this feed occassionally to give updates, or even try a new thing. But TTFN—ta ta for now.

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

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

The Aftermath + Interview with Joshua Matz Jan 11, 2021

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the madness of last week and what might happen next for impeachment, cirminal charges against Trump, and more. They are then joined by Take Care publisher Joshua Matz to discuss his views on impeachment and Trump's legal legacy.

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

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

The Electoral College Votes Dec 27, 2020

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the vote of the Electoral College and the Supreme Court's unanimous rejection of Texas's longshot bid to overturn the result of the election. Happy holidays!

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.

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

Going To Church In Times Of COVID Dec 07, 2020

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the recent Supreme Court decisions requiring states to allow in-person religious services even while other gatherings can be banned. The pair gently disagree about how hard or easy these cases are.

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.

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

Legal Update + The GSA Travesty Nov 17, 2020

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the status of Trump's legal challenges to the election (going nowhere) and the Trump Administration's dangerous and illegal refusal to designate Biden as the President-elect and therefore give his team resources for a smooth transition.

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.

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

Legal Challenges + Post Office Case Nov 08, 2020

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the (frivolous) legal challenges to come. They are then joined by Public Citizen's Matthew Seligman to learn what happened with all those last-minute ballots, and what might happen in ongoing litigation in the Supreme Court. (Note that this episode was recorded before the networks officially called the race for Biden, so there's no celebration. That's coming soon!)

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.

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

The Law Headed Into The Election Nov 02, 2020

Will this be the last Versus Trump before Trump loses reelection? Who knows, but, on this week’s episode, Jason and Charlie discuss key theories that will shape which votes count. (Note that this episode was recorded before all relevant Supreme Court decisions were final.)

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.

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

Versus The Post Office Oct 15, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie are joined by Matthew Seligman of Public Citizen to discuss several lawsuits—including one in which he is counsel, NAACP v. USPS—where plaintiffs have challenged the cuts by the postal service that may slow down election mail. We get deeply into the administrative law that governs the post office (fun!) and talk about whether we really know what's going on there.

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

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

Can Trump Steal The Election? Oct 06, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss whether Trump can really "steal" the election, as some have started to worry about. They discuss Jason's piece here on the topic. Plus, they say goodbye to Justice Ginsburg.

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.

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

Blurring Public and Private Conduct Sep 17, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss two new legal filings by the Trump DOJ that blur the line between the President as government official and the President as private citizen. In the first case, the government argues that the President's twitter feed is not an official public forum, so he can block people with whom he disagrees. In the second, the government argues that the President's denials that he sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll were made in his official capacity as President. Are these inconsistent? What do they tell us about Trump's broader conduct?

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.

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

Trump Versus Mail Voting Aug 25, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss voting by mail in the pandemic. Have courts allowed the rules to be changed, either in responses to suits there should be more voting by mail—or less?

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

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

Are Tax Returns Coming Soon? Jul 18, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss the Supreme Court's pair of decisions governing Trump's tax returns. Are they coming soon? Did the Democrats make a mistake in not being more aggressive in invoking the impeachment power? Find out!

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

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

On Flynn, Bolton, and Mary Trump Jul 06, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss the D.C. Circuit's extraordinary intervention in the Michael Flynn case, and then move on to two lawsuits seeking to block publication of books: John Bolton's and Mary Trump's. Note: after this podcast was recorded, an appellate court in New York reversed the injunction we discussed here.

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

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

Easha's Back, To Talk Qualified Immunity and Police Reform Jun 22, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Easha Anand makes her triumphant return to talk qualified immunity and police reform. The trio talk about the proposal to reform qualified immunity and debate whether that will do much. They then break down other new legal innovations in the various proposals and ask: is it enough to create new grounds for people to sue? Or are other reforms more important?

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.

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

The Military in the U.S. and Proxy Voting in the House Jun 08, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie take on two topics. First, what can the president legally do to use the military on American soil? Second, is it legal for the House of Representatives to vote by proxy, without being physically present in D.C., as alleged in a new lawsuit by House Republicans?

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.

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

What Will Happen To Michael Flynn? May 24, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss the extraordinary motion to dismiss Michael Flynn's criminal case. Does the DOJ's logic make sense? And what can Judge Sullivan do if he chooses not to dismiss 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.

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

Can The Presidential Election Be Cancelled? May 11, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss the question of whether the upcoming election can be "cancelled" for political or pandemic reasons. They agree it'd be illegal...but does that mean it absolutely cannot happen?

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

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

Are Churches Being Discriminated Against? Apr 28, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss claims by churches that stay-at-home orders violate their religious freedom. Turns out it can be a tough issue!

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

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

Wisconsin Republicans Versus Elections Apr 17, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss last week's election in Wisconsin, include two rulings—one by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and one by the U.S. Supreme Court—that don't hold up very well in light of what occurred.

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 U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in RNC v. DNCis here.

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

Trump vs. The Mainstream Media Apr 02, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss cases by the Trump campaign against the New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post accusing each of these media organizations with defamation (sometimes also called libel). They have a bit of a laugh in explaining why the suits are frivolous, discuss whether the complaints are sanctionable, and debate whether the cases will have a major intimidating effect.

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 Geltzer/Katyal piece they discuss is linked here. That piece also includes links to the three complaints.

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

Should Detainees Be Released? Mar 28, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss a lawsuit in Seattle, Dawson v. Asher, requesting that several vulnerable people in immigration detention be released. They discuss the legal standard for detention, why detention centers are particularly dangerous places, and what courts will be balancing when they consider these requests for release.

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 TRO in Dawson v. Asher is here.

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

Should Democrats Try And Pack The Court? Mar 19, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason talks with Aaron Belkin and Matt Lehrich of Take Back The Court. They talk about Aaron's idea for the Democrats to add four seats to the U.S. Supreme Court in response to what he sees as two "stolen" seats. They get into the legality of this solution and the political and legal ramifications of such a proposal, including whether it would lead to a tit-for-tat from Republicans if they come back to power after this proposal has been adopted.

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

You can find out more about Take Back The Court here.

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

Lots To Discuss... Mar 12, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason cover a number of outstanding decisions and issues that they've missed over the last month. They begin with a discussion about a federal court's recent decision calling AG Barr's summary of the Mueller Report not credible, which led him to review the Mueller Report to see whether redactions were proper. They then also discuss a recent decision about Medicaid work requirements, the illegal appointment of the acting head of the USCIS, and then mention the new defamation lawsuits by Trump against the NY Times, CNN, and the Washington Post.

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 Mueller Report case is here.

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

Enforce Your Own Subpoena! Mar 05, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the D.C. Circuit's recent opinion holding that courts have no power to enforce subpoenas issued by the House. They discuss the opinion's rationale, whether it makes sense, and whether the House might—or should—take the court up on its offer to start jailing Trump Administration officials in their own brig.

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 House Judiciary Committee v. McGahn is here.

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

State Immunity Under The VRA + Adios, Easha :( Feb 13, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss a dissenting opinion by a Trump-appointed judge arguing that states cannot be sued for violating the Voting Rights Act. They then say goodbye to Easha with a tribute to her thinking about Versus Trump law and litigation. We shall miss you, Easha. Talk soon??

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 NAACP v. Alabama is here.

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

Was Impeachment Good or Bad? Feb 06, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss Jason's ongoing essays for the Take Care blog about whether impeachment was good or bad, net-positive or net-negative. This leads them to discuss whether the Democrats should have more aggressively pursued witnesses and whether this whole proceeding did much to vindicate the rule of law. They emerge with slightly revised opinions about this whole process.

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

Jason's "impeachment was good" essay is here.
Jason's "impeachment was bad" essay is here.

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

Vs. The Inaugural Committee, Plus Bolton Update Jan 30, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason look at a new lawsuit by D.C. claiming that Trump's inaugural committee overpaid for space at the Trump Hotel and thus "wasted" at least $1 million in charitable funds. Spoiler alert: the lawsuit seems convincing. They also discuss the latest developments in the Bolton saga.

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

CNBC has this useful article describing the lawsuit and linking to the Complaint.

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

Who Are The Presidential Electors? Jan 25, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Charlie and Easha take a deep dive into two recently granted Supreme Court cases that go to the heart of the systems that we use to elect the President. (We chose this week to cover this topic because our Fearless Leader, Jason, was unavailable and he is counsel on both cases.) The discussion takes us deep into questions of political accountability, free choice, and constitutional history. A classic Versus Trump cat's-away-mice-will-play episode chock full of fun analysis of, among other things, Jason's work. Listen now! (I mean right now.)

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.

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

Trump vs. The Equal Rights Amendment Jan 16, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason, Easha, and Charlie discuss the Trump Administration's new legal opinion regarding the legal status of the Equal Rights Amendment, also known as the ERA. They consider what will happen now that Virginia has become the 38th state to ratify the ERA since 1972. Is it too late, or can Congress do anything to add this amendment to the Constitution? Note that when this was recorded, Virginia was expected to ratify it shortly, and the State in fact ratified it just before the episode was posted.

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 Trump Administration's opinion called Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment is here.
News that Virginia ratified the Amendment is here, at NPR.
Strangely, the 1977 OLC opinion regarding whether the three-year extension was constitutional is very difficult to find online. We've posted it here. The James Madison quote Jason mentioned is at the top of page 19.

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

Amazon vs. Trump Jan 09, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason, Easha, and Charlie consider a new lawsuit by Amazon, in which the company claims that it was illegally denied a $10 billion Pentagon contract because of President Trump's stated dislike of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. And the return briefly to the question of Bolton's potential testimony at the Senate impeachment trial.

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 the Amazon case is here.
The Jonathan Chait piece discussing this case and calling it perhaps his most egregious abuse of power yet is here.

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

The Senate As Impeachment Court Jan 02, 2020

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie dive deep into two impeachment-related questions. First, what is the formal role of the Senate in an impeachment trial, and what power does the Chief Justice have? (Hint: Senators have all the power; the Chief Justice has basically none.) Second, what did the House say in its impeachment report about why it chose not to go to court or otherwise force recalcitrant Administration officials to testify—and does it make sense?

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

A terrific analysis of the Chief Justice's role in an impeachment trial is here, by Jane Chong at The Atlantic.
The House's impeachment report is here.
We also relied on Chapter 4 of To End a Presidency, by Matz and Tribe.

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

Year-End Mailbag Dec 29, 2019

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie answer listener questions about impeachment, bribery, sanctions, and more! Thanks again for another great year. Remember to email any questions to versustrumppodcast@gmail.com to be on the next mailbag.

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.

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

Method or Madness Dec 19, 2019

On this week’s Versus Trump, Easha and Charlie discuss the Trump Administration’s efforts to resume federal executions after a decade-and-a-half hiatus. We talk about the district court ruling enjoining those efforts, the Supreme Court’s decision to keep the executions on hold while litigation plays out (and a snippy concurrence from three of the justices), and why the whole concept of a federal death penalty is a little bizarre.

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.

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

We're Famous! And There Are Articles Dec 12, 2019

On this week’s Versus Trump,Jason, Charlie, and Easha respond to Rep. Matt Gaetz's shoutout to this podcast during the Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings. They then discuss their reactions to the Democrats' strategy with their public hearings and articles of impeachment.

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

A YouTube video of our show being mentioned in the impeachment hearings is here.
The articles of impeachment are here.

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

Two Guns Cases, And More Dec 05, 2019

First, real talk: yes, Versus Trump really did get a shoutout at the impeachment hearings on Wednesday! More on that next week, and there's a link to the exchange in the shownotes. We recorded this episode before that happened, but rest assured that we'll respond to the Committee next week.

Meanwhile, on this week’s Versus Trump,Jason and Charlie discuss two guns cases. First, we discuss a court's definitive rejection of the Trump Administration's bizarre decision to try to permit the online publication of plans for 3d printed guns, and then we discuss the Supreme Court's Monday argument in the first Second Amendment case in a decade. We also have quick hits on a few other matters.

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

A YouTube video of our show being mentioned in the impeachment hearings is here.
The district court's decision in Washington v. Trump is here.

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

What Is Bribery? Nov 21, 2019

On this week’s Versus Trump,Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss the definition of "bribery" for impeachment purposes, since Nancy Pelosi claimed that's what the evidence is showing at the impeachment hearings. They talk about how Congress and citizens should think about this notoriously slippery idea.

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 excellent Lawfare post to which we were referring is here.

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

States vs. The Conscience Rule Nov 14, 2019

On this week’s Versus Trump,Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss a court's opinion vacating the Trump Administration's so-called "conscience rule." This rule would have broadly permitted many employees in the healthcare sector from in any way participating in procedures with which they have religious or moral disagreements—even in emergencies. The trio discuss the opinion, which is one of their favorites, and delve into a few of the many rationales for striking down the rule.

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

Judge Engelmeyer's ruling in New York v. HHS is here.

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

Sanctions Versus DeVos Nov 08, 2019

On this week’s special edition of Uncle Charlie's Sanctions Corner–wait, we mean Versus Trump—Jason, Charlie, and Easha bring on Eileen Connor of the Project on Predatory Student to discuss a major opinion issuing sanctions against the Department of Education. They discuss the Department's egregious conduct that led to an unprecedented sanctions award of $100,000 to a class of plaintiffs that should have had their student loans cancelled, but did not.

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 Project's press release on the decision, which contains several helpful links, is here.

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

The Coming Exec Privilege Showdown Nov 06, 2019

[Sorry for delayed posting!] On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha talk executive privilege. They outline the legal landscape of several hard questions in this area, like can the President completely prevent executive officials from testifying, and what role do the courts play here? They realize a showdown is coming but worry that there are no obvious answers.

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.

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

A Real Impeachment Episode Oct 24, 2019

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie really talk impeachment. They answer two questions that have been debated in the media. First, does the full House need to vote to formally start impeachment proceedings? Second, does the President have a right, at this point in the investigation, to have his lawyers in the room to cross-examine witnesses or present opposing views? Listen for the answers!

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 New York Times helpfully checks five of the President's claims about impeachment here.

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

Trump's No Good, Very Bad Day Oct 17, 2019

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Easha break down President Trump's bad day in court on Friday, October 11. On that day, he lost three different lawsuits: one on the "public charge" immigration rule, one on Congress's subpoena power, and one on border wall funding. Jason and Easha mostly talk about the "public charge" case and predict how that one might go before giving the highlights of the other two.

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

This episode was inspired by this article highlighting the three losses, at Yahoo News.

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

Uncle Charlie's Comity Hour Oct 10, 2019

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss the major recent decision dismissing the President's attempt to block his accounting firm from turning over his tax returns to the Manhattan DA. The two talk about both aspects of the decision: first, whether a federal court should abstain from hearing this dispute out of respect for "comity" (hence the title); and second, whether the President is categorically immune from any amount of criminal process. They agree with the court in one respect and disagree in another.

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 ruling in Trump v. Vance is here. (No, not this Vance.)

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

An Impeachment Primer Oct 03, 2019

Gotcha, suckers! No impeachment dessert until you eat your immigration broccoli. On this week’s Versus Trump, Easha (back from parental leave!) and Charlie (just starting parental leave) discuss two immigration losses for the Trump administration. The first concerns Trump’s attempts to roll back court-ordered protections for migrant children; the second, Trump’s attempt to subject more immigrants to expedited removal.

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.

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

Can You Hear The Whistle Blowing? Sep 26, 2019

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the legal stakes of the fight over what Trump said to the President of Ukraine and the related whistleblower complaint. A lot happened between when they recorded the episode and when it's being posted, but we still think it's a useful primer on the legal questions in this dispute.

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

Jason mentioned this post by David Post at Volokh Conspiracy.
An excellent Just Security primer on all this is here.

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

What's Left of Asylum Law? Sep 19, 2019

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the Supreme Court's recent action permitting the Trump Administration to enforce tough new restrictions on asylum eligibility for those who enter the U.S. at the southern border. They discuss the tough new policy, whether it's valid substantively or procedurally, and what might happen now.

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 Supreme Court's opinion lifting the stay is here.
SCOTUSblog's case page is here.
A useful Vox explainer is here.

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

Watch Out, Watch List Sep 12, 2019

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and guest-host Alexandra Brodsky discuss a recent opinion invalidating the FBI's terrorism watch-list. They discuss the implications of the opinion for the Trump administration (and beyond), the merits (and demerits) of the court's reasoning, and all sorts of other cool stuff, including how annoying it is when people think they're important enough to be spied on by the FBI.

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 Elhady v. Kable is here.
A useful Q&A at Just Security is here.

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

Versus DeVos 2.0 Sep 05, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason discusses the continuing illegal intransigence of the Department of Education, with Eileen Connor and Toby Merrill of Harvard's Project on Predatory Student Lending. Eileen and Toby explain how many students have a right to have their student loans cancelled because the for-profit schools they attended were fraudulent—but the Department of Education has illegally refused to process their cancellation applications for the entire duration of the Trump Administration. Eileen and Toby detail the continuing evasive tactics of the Department and its lawyers, and they mention an upcoming hearing over the Department's failure to comply with a court order that it stop collecting on illegal loans. We might hear more about that on Uncle Charlie's sanctions corner!

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

You can find details on the Project on Predatory Student Lending here. Toby is the director, and Eileen the legal director.
The student testimony is available at the Sweet v. DeVos case page here.
After we recorded the podcast, the Department issued new rules on borrower defense that Eileen said throws students "under the bus." They've vowed to sue over it. Read the press release here.

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

Straight to the Supremes Aug 29, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie are back from a hiatus, and they discuss why the Trump Administration has been going to straight to the Supreme Court with emergency requests so frequently. They use that question to delve into some of the themes we've seen from Versus Trump cases in the last few years.

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

Jason and Charlie use Professor Stephen Vladeck's paper The Solicitor General and the Shadow Docket to examine these issues. You can download the paper from SSRN here.

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

We're Still Here! (Quick Update) Aug 22, 2019

Okay, we're not gonna lie: we've been slacking this month. But we just wanted to let you know that we're still here and will be back with new episodes soon!

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

Trump v. Everyone Who Wants His Tax Returns Aug 01, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie are back from a hiatus to discuss the President's lawsuit against New York State and the House Ways and Means Committee, both of whom—he says—may be conspiring to release his New York State tax returns.

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 docket in the Trump v. Ways and Means case is here.
The latest on the case is here, in Politico.

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

The Past and Future Of Gerrymandering Jul 18, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Easha are joined by guest host Melissa Murray of NYU Law and the new Strict Scrutiny podcast. They discuss the recent Supreme Court decision on gerrymandering (Rucho v. Common Cause), what's next in the fight, and where you can find Melissa's wonderful new podcast.

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 Strict Scrutiny podcast is here on Twitter.
The Rucho decision is here.

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

Sarah Stillman On The Asylee Who Sued The Trump Administration Jul 12, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Charlie is joined by New Yorker writer Sarah Stillman to discuss the case of Suny Rodriguez, an asylum seeker who sued the Trump Administration over the conditions in detention centers.

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

Sarah's New Yorker article is here.

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

Is There A New Title X In Town? Jul 04, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie are joined by guest host Alexandra Brodsky to discuss the Ninth's Circuit's recent decision that let go into effect major new regulations for the primary federal program dealing with family planning and women's health—a program known as Title X. Right as this podcast went to press, though, the full Ninth Circuit agreed to hear the case again, so this troubling decision may be undone. So enjoy our analysis, but know the issue is far from decided.

Also, Happy Independence Day!

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 page for all the materials in these cases is here.

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

A Census Win...Or Is It? Jul 01, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss the temporary victory for the Plaintiffs in the census case and then speculate on what might come next.

As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 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.

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

Coming Soon: Recap of Census and Gerrymandering Decisions Jun 27, 2019

Coming to your feed this weekend: an analysis of the two big Supreme Court decisions about partisan gerrymandering and the 2020 census. We hope you can wait for our hot takes!

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

A Ninth Circuit Compromise Jun 20, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss the Ninth's Circuit's recent compromise decision regarding the ban on service by transgender individuals in the military.

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.

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

Bet You Can't Untie This Knot Jun 13, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss a decision undoing the Trump Administration's new rules that would ban much online gambling. The opinion also leads them into a discussion of the powers of district judges, the Office of Legal Counsel, the Attorney General, and more.

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 is here. A great page about the decision with links to more sources is here.

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

Listener Mailbag Jun 06, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie answer listener mail and talk about nationwide injunctions at Gregory's request; talk more about court packing at the request of Micah; and respond to Ben's thoughts on subpoena enforcement. Thanks to all our listeners, and keep the good questions coming!

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

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

Expand Your Conscienceness May 30, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason, Easha, and Charlie discuss new lawsuits over the Trump Administration's expansion of rules of conscience for healthcare providers. They then revisit last week's discussion about court packing and answer a few reader questions.

As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 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

An excellent Health Affairs piece on the new rule is here.

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

Pack the Courts! May 23, 2019

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Charlie discuss various plans to remedy the partisan imbalance on the Supreme Court.

As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 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.

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

Trump Loses On Family Planning, Wins In The Ninth, And More May 16, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Easha go through a few updates to cases involving Title X, which provides money for family planning; the Administration's policy to have many asylum applicants removed to Mexico; and the controversial border wall. Trump lost one, won one—for now, and hasn't yet gotten a decision in the third.

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 order stopping the new rules on Title X is here.
The House's preliminary injunction motion in the border wall case is here.
The Ninth Circuit's opinion in the "contiguous removal" case is here.

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

Trump Versus Trump's Banks May 09, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss a new lawsuit by the President seeking to prevent two banks from responding to Congressional subpoenas that seek information about his business dealings. The trio discuss the unusual procedure of the lawsuit and the two arguments Trump has made for blocking the subpoenas. They end the episode with a shout out the listeners who have listened to all 100 episodes. Fun times!

Notes

Trump's Complaint is here. The Preliminary Injunction Motion is here.
Helpful legal commentary on the case is here, at Wonkette.

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

2-For-39 May 02, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason discusses some fascinating research about how the Trump Administration has fared in the courts with Bethany Davis Noll, the Litigation Director at the Institute for Policy Integrity. They discuss challenges to Trump's regulatory agenda, why the Administration is losing at a historic rate, what is slipping through the cracks, and what come next. Enjoy!

As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 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

You can find Bethany's project here. She welcomes any comments or new cases! Her email is at the bottom of that page.

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

It's Here! Apr 25, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Charlie, and Easha discuss the long-awaited Mueller Report. They break down the report step-by-step, discuss the legal issues it raises, and have an all-around good time while they're at it. Enjoy!

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 searchable, annotated Mueller Report is here.

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

Dems vs. The IRS? Apr 18, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss the brewing dispute over Trump's tax returns. They address whether the Democrats can force Trump to turn them over and what might happen if he refuses.

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

At Take Care, Brianne Gorod discusses the issue here.

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

Healthcare Update (with guest Greer Donley) Apr 11, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk with special guest Greer Donley, a law professor at University of Pittsburgh School of Law, to talk about the latest developments in litigation related to Obamacare, including the stunning DOJ reversal in Texas, and recent decisions prohibiting states from adding work requirements to Medicaid.

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

Kaiser Health News discusses the Medicaid work requirements here.
An article at ABC News about the DOJ reversal is here.

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

Stop The Drills! Apr 04, 2019

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Easha discuss a recent decision reversing President Trump's attempt to de-protect Arctic Ocean waters and permit drilling in the Great White North.

They begin by discussing the legal regime governing leases and protection of waters in the Outer Continental Shelf. They then talk about how and why President Obama protected a large swath of land at the end of his Administration, and then they delve into whether President Trump may undo that. The leads into a deep discussion about whether the power to "from time to time withdraw" certain lands from leasing also includes the power to reverse a withdrawal. They end with a Trump nugget highlighting a stunning fact about the Trump Administration's recent success rate in court.

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

Earthjustice's excellent—and beautiful—feature on litigation related to protection of Alaska and its waters is here. The particular decision under review is here.
The Institute for Policy Integrity's Trump litigation round-up is here. More on that study in the coming weeks!

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

Mueller-ing Things Over Mar 28, 2019

The Mueller Report is kinda, sorta here, so, on this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason analyze the Barr summary and then dive into the legal troubles of famous Trump antagonist Michael Avenatti.

They begin—where else?—with the Attorney General's summary of the Mueller report. That leads them to discuss what the summary and does and does not say, and it leads them to wonder what is taking so long for the full report to be ready for release. Charlie then cannot resist discussing the ongoing troubles of Michael Avenatti, and this leads to a discussion on the puzzle of blackmail.

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 Barr summary of the Mueller report is here.
CNN's case page on the Avenatti is here. That contains links to the complaint.

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

100! Mar 21, 2019

On this week's 100th episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Easha, and Jason offer a few quick hits and then have a discussion about the effect of litigation against the President personally and against the Administration.

Charlie begins with a quick hit on the Devin Nunes defamation lawsuit (which Charlie says "reads like it's written by a crazy person"), and Easha mentions a new case by a Russian oligarch who claims he shouldn't be sanctioned by the U.S. Jason then highlights recent developments in the case of Summer Zervos, who was allegedly sexually harassed by the President before he took office, and a case about the Emoluments Clauses. This leads to a big picture discussion of where've been and where we're going.

Thanks to Take Care for hosting us for 100 episodes, to We Edit Podcasts for editing most of the 100, and, most of all, to our listeners for tuning each week. We look forward to many more—but not too, too many, to be honest. This is a podcast that we hope does not go on forever.

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 Nunes complaint is here.
The Zervos decision is here.

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

Huawei (or China??) Versus Trump Mar 14, 2019

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Easha, and Jason discuss a new lawsuit by Huawei against various Trump Administration officials, plus they delve into international extradition law and look at the case of the company's detained CFO.

The trio first discuss the new Huawei case, which claims that a federal law that prohibits federal agencies from using Huawei equipment, or even from giving federal contracts to any entity that buys from Huawei, is an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. This leads them to explain what a Bill of Attainder is, discuss whether this could be one, and wonder whether Bills of Attainder could apply to corporations in the first place. They then turn to the geopolitically related case of the extradition of Ms. Meng, the company's CFO, and then briefly discuss the Manafort sentencing.

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

Lawfare is an excellent resource for all things related to Huawei's dispute with the U.S. (and many more topics). The complaint in the Huawei case is here. An excellent explainer about the Meng extradition is here.

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

California X Trump Mar 07, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

What A Year It Was Dec 28, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha recap the year that was and offer some themes and predictions.

The trio start with a massive lightning round of updates. If you're wondering what happened to all those cases you heard about earlier in the year, you'll find out here. They then offer up a few themes and then get into 2019 predictions, hot takes, and even a resolution or two.

Thanks for a great year, listeners! We'll be back with more in 2019...

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.

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

What Happened To Obamacare? Dec 20, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss Friday's unexpected ruling that the current version of the Affordable Care Act—that is, Obamacare—is unconstitutional and must be entirely struck down.

Jason and Charlie first discuss the nature of the case and wonder whether anyone actually has standing to bring this claim, though they are less skeptical than some others that there is no standing here. They then briefly discuss the constitutional merits and agree that the mandate is technically unconstitutional under the first Obamacare Supreme Court case. But what happens next? Both Jason and Charlie are skeptical that the whole law must fall, as the court held.

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 ruling in Texas v. U.S. is here.
Take Care contributor Nick Bagley's piece on standing in The Atlantic is here.
Jason mentioned a Cato post criticizing the decision. That's here.
Abbe Gluck's post about what the ACA contains is here.

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

Why All The Court-Jumping? Dec 13, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss the Trump Administration's fondness for Court-hopping: that is, taking matters directly to the Supreme Court without waiting for the usual appellate process to conclude.

Jason and Easha first discuss the inside baseball of the way appeals normally work, which leads them to a discussion of cert. before judgment—that is, when the Supreme Court takes a case before it's had the normal appellate review, which usually means two levels. They then look at a few instances of the Supreme Court asking for this unusual form of review: two DACA cases and the transgender ban case. They wonder whether this new practice will have long-term impacts on the government's relationship with the Court. And then they talk about the census case, in which the Administration repeatedly asked for emergency relief from the Supreme Court—and, after not finding too much early success, got the Supreme Court to review an important issue on an expedited basis.

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 duo mentioned a 2011 SCOTUSblog post by Kevin Russell talking about cert. before judgment. That's here.
Cases mentioned in this episde include two DACA cases (here and here) and the transgender ban case (here).

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

Versus Whitaker, In-Depth Dec 06, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, the gang is re-united, and they discuss the Supreme Court motion contending that Matthew Whitaker was not legally appointed as Acting Attorney General.

Jason, Easha, and Charlie finally get a chance to do a three-person pod, and they use it to discuss Michaels v. Whitaker (or Rosenstein?). In this case, a Supreme Court petitioner has filed a motion to substitute Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein as Acting Attorney General instead of Matthew Whitaker, whom Trump designated, on the ground that Whitaker's appointment is illegal. The gang discuss the statutory law governing appointments as well as the impact of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. They then wonder whether the Supreme Court may take up the issue directly or whether the question is more likely to first work its way through lower courts.

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

SCOTUSblog's case page is here. That page links to the motion to substitute, the response, the reply, and the amicus brief that Easha mentioned.

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

Asylum Ain't Easy, but This Case Is Nov 29, 2018

Versus Trump is a podcast where we discuss how the Trump Administration is breaking the law, and what people are doing about it. Listen in the player below or directly on Pippa, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

Versus Trump is hosted by Jason Harrow, Easha Anand, and Charlie Gerstein. You can listen to previous episodes, and access archived show notes, here. And you can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

On this week's episode, Easha and Charlie discuss a recent challenge by immigration groups to the Trump administration's new attempt to bar asylum claims by refugees who entered the United States without crossing a border checkpoint. Turns out that . . . the Trump administration should lose, and it did. But Easha offers some great--and new to Charlie--background on immigration law, and the two of them discuss why this case is, indeed, as easy as it looks.

Charlie mentions an article by Sarah Stillman for the New Yorker, which you can find here, and you can read the district court's decision against the administration here.

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

Versus Trump: Trump Versus Jim Acosta Nov 22, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Charlie talk about the Trump administration's revocation of Jim Acosta's "hard pass," the press credential that allows White House correspondents to enter the press room unescorted. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

The two start with the saga of the lawsuit, which went in front of a district court judge before the Trump administration capitulated. They talk about whether there's a Due Process Clause problem with revoking the press credential (especially given that the Trump administration apparently doctored a video in order to justify the revocation). They then discuss whether there's a First Amendment right at stake, and Charlie explains why that can't possibly be. They close with some thoughts about the Administrative Procedures Act claim and a Trump Nugget about Jeff Sessions' parting gift--a DoJ memo gutting consent decrees.

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.

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

Versus Whitaker Nov 15, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason has a solo episode where he talks about a motion by Maryland contending that Matthew Whitaker was not legally appointed as Acting Attorney General.

Because of work and vacations, Jason is flying solo this week. He soldiers on by giving his thoughts about the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as Acting AG and the new motion by Maryland contending the appointment is illegal. (After the episode taped, the government released a legal opinion on Whitaker's appointment. That's here.)

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

Maryland's Motion in Maryland v. US is here. The government's legal opinion on Whitaker's appointment, which was released after the episode was taped, is here.

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

Trump The Racketeer Nov 01, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about a new lawsuit alleging that Trump and his children were part of a racketeering enterprise that engaged in fraud in connection with their supposed endorsement of a multi-level marketing operation. (Disclosure: Joshua Matz, the publisher of Take Care, is among the counsel to the Plaintiffs in this suit. We chose this topic without consulting Joshua, and the hosts had no involvement in the lawsuit.)

They start the conversation by discussing the background of the claims in the well-researched new lawsuit. The suit runs to 160 pages of detailed allegations that the Trump family claimed endorse the multi-level marketing operation run by a company called ACN, but the Trumps failed to disclose that they were paid for their appearances and endorsements, and they in fact new little to nothing about the business. Charlie then explains what RICO is and why this might fit in the definition of the law. Jason and Charlie then go over what might happen next and wonder whether this will move the needle for anyone.

The duo then also offer an update on the Wilbur Ross deposition issue they've been following closely, do a bit of listener feedback, and end with a few thoughts about the idea of Trump abolishing birthright citizenship by executive order.

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 Jane Doe v. The Trump Corporation is here.

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

Can Courts Stop Trump From Violating The First Amendment? Oct 25, 2018

This week, Jason and Charlie talk about a new lawsuit by a group of journalists (filed by the legal group Protect Democracy) that hopes to stop President Trump from threatening adverse government action against those who criticize him.

They start the conversation by discussing the background of the claims in the creative new lawsuit. The suit lists several adverse actions the President has taken against those people who have offered what he views as negative coverage of him—for instance, potentially raising Amazon's postage rates in response to perceived negative coverage by the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post—and requests an injunction from prohibiting the President from taking similar retaliatory action against those critical of the Administration. Charlie and Jason then ask: does a group of journalists have standing to make this claim? If so, will they win? And even if they have a good legal claim, can get the injunction they want?

The duo then updates the Wilbur Ross deposition issue they've been following closely and end with a Versus Trump constitutional trivia question. Know the answer? Email versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.

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 case page for the case is here. It contains links to the Complaint and other info on the case.
The Supreme Court's order related to the Ross deposition is here.

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

Trump Wins One Versus Stormy Oct 18, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about the recent decision that dismissed Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against the President.

They start the conversation by discussing the background of the defamation lawsuit, which was brought after the President tweeted "A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the fake news media for fools (but they know it)!" After clearing some nasty procedural weeds, they explain Anti-SLAPP motions and discuss the somewhat peculiar reasoning the judge gave for dismissing the suit. Although they both agree with the outcome, they are not sure about the grounds here. That leads to a discussion of what might be happening in general with cases brought against the President personally. They close with an update on the Wilbur Ross deposition matter.

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 by Judge Otero dismissing the lawsuit is here.

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

N.Y. Versus Wilbur Ross Oct 11, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about the fight over Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross's potential testimony in an important lawsuit over the census.

They start the conversation by discussing the background of the high-profile lawsuit by New York and other states over the addition of a question about citizenship status on the census. This brings them to why Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has been ordered to testify—basically, because his reasons for adding the question are critical and he has given inconsistent public explanations on the issue—and what the Trump Administration has said in appeals attempting to block it. That leads to an extended discussion about whether this may be Justice Kavanaugh's first controversial decision as a Justice and what we might think about that.

Note: As of the time of the recording, the Second Circuit had OK'd the deposition with a delay for the Supreme Court to act; since then, the Supreme Court delayed the depositions further but has not yet acted on the merits of the government's request.

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 latest update from the Supreme Court is here, as recounted by Josh Gerstein at Politico.
DOJ's Second Circuit petition (and addendum) is here; New York's response is here; the DOJ's reply is here.
The Second Circuit's Tuesday order is here.

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

Trump Versus Net Neutrality Oct 04, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about the Trump Administration's lawsuit against California that would block California's new net neutrality law from going into effect.

They start the conversation by discussing what net neutrality is and what the Obama Administration did in 2015 to put net neutrality rules into effect. They then discuss the Trump Administration's 2018 repeal of the Obama rules, which lead to California's attempt to reinstate the Obama-era rules at the state level. The Trump Administration now claims California's rules are invalid, and on a minor point, Jason and Charlie agree the Trump Administration is right: in particular, they conclude that California has jumped the gun and will likely need to wait for a massive appeal in D.C. to finish before the state can put its own rules into effect. But Jason and Charlie are skeptical of the Trump Administration's underlying rationale that the federal government can forever fail to impose net neutrality rules and simultaneously block California from passing its own rules.

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

DOJ's page on the lawsuit is here. The government's preliminary injunction motion is here, and its Complaint is here.
The D.C. Circuit brief of Communications Law Professors that they discuss is here.
Charlie mentioned at the end an article in Current Affairs about Kavanaugh. That's here.

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

Versus Trump: The Unique Manafort Plea Sep 27, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about pardons, Double Jeopardy, forfeiture, and the Manafort guilty plea. They also weigh in on the Kavanaugh developments and what would happen if Rosenstein were fired.

They start the conversation by discussing the details of Paul Manafort's guilty plea. Charlie then answers a lot of Jason's questions about why Manafort might have entered into the deal, what he gave up, and what might happen if Manafort were pardoned. They then discuss the plea in the context of criminal justice reform in general. Finally, Jason and Charlie offer brief thoughts about Judge Kavanaugh and Rod Rosenstein.

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

Josh Gerstein's Politico article about the guilty plea is here.
The plea agreement is here.

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

Earthjustice v. Trump (Interview with Drew Caputo) Sep 20, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie speak with Earthjustice Vice President Drew Caputo to get an update on environmental litigation against the Trump Administration.

They start the conversation by talking about Earthjustice's work and about why the organization has 105 cases—and counting—against the Trump Administration. They then dive into a few specific cases Earthjustice is working on: litigation regarding Trump's removal of land from two national momuments in Utah (now pending); regarding the Administration's decision to take Grizzly Bears off the endangered species list (pending, but Earthjustice received a TRO blocking the legal hunting of the bears); and regarding the Administration's decision not to ban the pesticide Chlorpyrifos (a decision the Ninth Circuit recently reversed). They then talk about big picture themes and wonder why the EPA's decisions have been so vulnerable to legal challenge and why, in Drew's view, the agency has been so captured by industry.

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

You can read about all of Earthjustice's lawsuits here.

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

The Power's Out. Literally. Sep 13, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason gives a quick update on a case we're watching and then signs off, because, well, in the middle of recording this week's episode, Charlie's power went out. But we'll be back next week with a full show.

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 Sixth Circuit's decison in the case determining whether Trump could be held liable for incitement of violence at a 2016 rally is here.

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

How Bad Is It? Sep 06, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie ask the question that so many of us ask frequently: how bad is the Trump Administration? Is it better or worse than we should have expected back on election night in 2016?

Jason starts the episode by laying out the questions for discussion: from the perspective of one who tends to lean Democratic, how bad is the Trump Administration? Is Trump better or worse than a generic Republican president would have been? And what role have the Versus Trump cases played here?

Jason and Charlie seem to agree that lawsuits against the Trump Administration have managed to block a remarkable amount of policy, in part because members of this Administration make unusually provactive public statements and are relatively inattentive to policy and administrative law. Jason thinks progressives should take comfort in the relative stability of American domestic policy and the strength of American institutions, and realize that Trump's outrageous statements and personality are mostly bluster without a meaningful effect on people's lives. Charlie finds the harm done by Trump's racist attitudes, personal conflicts, and rampant lying to be potentially very grave, though admittedly hard to weigh against the more objective measures Jason prefers to focus on.

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.

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

A Two-Level Versus Trump Case Aug 30, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about a case that fits our podcast on two levels: it's a lawsuit against the Trump Administration about grand jury secrecy, and any decision could impact the Mueller investigation, which is the biggest Versus Trump case of them all.

The two start the discussion by going back over 50 years to the unsolved disappearance of Columbia University Professor Jesus Galindez. No one was ever charged or convicted of any crime, but a grand jury was convened to hear evidence, and researcher and plaintiff Stuard McKeever wants those secret records unsealed. The Trump Administration, in a case to be heard soon by the D.C. Circuit, opposes the unsealing request on the ground that federal courts do not have any power to unseal grand jury records outside of very narrow exceptions. If the court adopts the Trump Administration's view, it will not only go against the understanding of most other courts to have looked at the question, but some commentators think it could also affect whether the press could ever see the grand jury evidence that Mueller is creating in his investigation. Jason and Charlie discuss whether they think the Trump Administration will prevail and whether it really could affect what we find out about the Mueller investigation.

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 Politico article by Josh Gerstein that linked this case to the Mueller investigation is here.
The briefing is not online at a public location, so we've uploaded the briefs for those interested:
McKeever's opening brief.
Opening brief of amicus supporting McKeever.
DOJ brief.
McKeever's reply brief.
Amicus reply.

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

Versus Trump: Trump Versus Facebook Aug 23, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about an unusual and surprising case where the Trump Administration has filed a brief in support of fair housing advocates who have sued Facebook for its part in enabling discriminatory advertising.

The two start the discussion by briefly explaining Facebook's data collection and advertising practices and the way that they allegedly fun afoul of strict provisions preventing discriminatory housing advertisements. They then discuss the Trump Administration's surprising recent filing that offers full-throated support to the housing advocates' claims of discrimination. That leads to two questions: is the Trump Administration right, and why are they doing this? Ultimately, the two both give credit where it's due.

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 Administration's Statement of Interest in National Fair Housing Alliance v. Facebook is here.
The Complaint in the case is here. Facebook's Motion to Dismiss is here.
Charlie mentioned an article of his about the use of race in admissions. It's this one.

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

SABOTAGE!! Aug 16, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie begin their run of shows with Easha on leave and discuss a fascinating new lawsuit contending that the Trump Administration is unconstitutionally "sabotaging" the Affordable Care Act as a whole.

Jason starts the discussion by explaining the case of City of Columbus v. Trump, which was brought by several cities and individuals who contend that the Aministration's actions over the last several years amount to an unconstitutional sabotage of a law the President is required to execute faithfully. As Jason explains, the suit has two claims: one a traditional claim that the Administration is acting arbitrarily, and the second a unique claim that the President is violating the "Take Care" Clause of the Constitution (blog synergy alert!). They then get into a lengthy discussion about the meaning of the Clause, whether such a suit could be viable, and whether the allegations here make out a potential violation.

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

A non-profit organization called Democracy Forward is behind this case. Their case page is here. The Complaint is here.
Jason mentioned an article called The Protean Take Care Clause, by Harvard Law Professors John Manning and Jack Goldsmith. That article is here.
Law Professors Abbe Gluck and Nick Bagley had an op-ed in the New York Times contending that Trump's "sabotage" of the Act is illegal. It's here.
Charlie insisted that we link to the video for the Beastie Boys song "Sabotage." It's here.

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

Versus Plastic Guns Aug 09, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha—in her last episode for several months—discuss the fast-moving lawsuit by states against the Trump Administration and Cody Wilson seeking to block distribution of plans for 3D-printed guns.

Charlie starts the discussion by explaning the background of the dispute, which actually dates back several years to a lawsuit brought by Wilson, the would-be distributor of these plans, against the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration successfully blocked the plans' distribution, and the Trump Administration defended that position until a recent settlement that would have permitted the distribution as of August 1. Jason then turns to the current lawsuit brought by many blue states that seeks to stop the settlement from going into effect and has resulted in a temporary block on Wilson's website. The trio discuss the administrative and constitutional law aspects of the dispute. They then say goodbye to Easha by thinking about the big topics she'll miss while she's gone.

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 States' first amended complaint in the new case is here.
The court's order granting the TRO is here.
Really nice articles covering the entire dispute at CNET are here and here.
Jason mentioned a letter to the court from Wilson's lawyer. That's here. The Reason blog post by Brian Doherty discussing that letter is here.
Charlie mentioned this Doug Herzog law review article.

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

Trump Versus ALJs? Aug 02, 2018

This week, Jason and Easha discuss a new executive order and accompanying guidance by the Trump Administration that dramatically change the rules for hiring Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) across the entire federal government.

Easha starts the discussion by explaning the background of the federal bureaucracy, what role ALJs play, and why that role has changed after the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lucia v. SEC. They then discuss the Trump Administration's response to Lucia, which, taken as a whole, substantially changes the way ALJs are hired and could potentially alter the reasons they can be fired. Easha and Jason consider whether the changes—which will permit the President to have more control over administrative judges—are good or bad, and they also wonder whether these issues will ever be aired in court. They end with a few Trump nuggets updating other important cases, including the Manafort case and the census 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

The President's executive order is here.
The DOJ guidance memo is here. Reuters first posted the memo in a story that can be found here.
Jason discussed updates to the census and national monuments cases. Those updates were based on this article (census) and this one (monuments).

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

SALT In The Wounds Jul 26, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss a new lawsuit by four blue states contending that the new cap on deducting state and local taxes—passed as part of the 2017 tax bill—is unconstitutional.

Charlie starts the discussion by explaning the background of the federal treatment of state and local taxes, and what the new tax law changed. They then discuss the legal claims by the states, which fall into a few different buckets. First, does the law violate the original understanding of the constitutional amendment (Number 16) authorizing the federal government to impose an income tax? Second, does the new law unfairly target certain states, or unfairly coerce them to change their policy on taxes and spending? The gang doesn't think any of the claims are great bets to succeed, but they each discuss their level of intrigue with these novel theories.

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 New York v. Mnuchin is here.
A very useful post at TaxProf Blog, with links to even more commentary, is here.

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

Versus The Trump Foundation Jul 19, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss the New York Attorney General's petition to dissolve the Trump Foundation and ban President Trump and his children from serving as directors of charities in the future. They then do some a hit on the new Mueller indictment.

Jason starts the discussion by explaning Trump's non-profit Foundation, the role of states in regulating non-profits, and the rock-solid evidence produced by the New York Attorney General that, for many years up to and including the presidential campaign in 2016, President Trump misused charitable funds and violated a litany of other laws that are supposed to ensure that non-profits actually benefit the public interest in some way. Jason and Charlie discuss their favorite allegations, including that the President let campaign staffers direct charitable funds to benefit the campaign and that he fraudulently used Trump Foundation money to pay off a debt owed by one of his golf courses. They then discuss the bigger issues presented by this case, like whether the lawsuit can go forward against a sitting president and whether this kind of pre-Presidential conduct should matter politically. Charlie then discusses the latest Mueller indictment.

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 petition in this case is here.
A Bloomberg report describing the first court hearing in this case is here.
At Just Security, Katherine Cheasty Kornman discusses the federalism considerations in the case.
A Slate article on the case is here.

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

Kavanaugh's Coming, Plus Updates Jul 12, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss the retirement of Justice Kennedy and how his presumptive replacement may rule in Versus Trump cases. They then do some quick hits to update a handful of important cases.

Charlie starts the discussion by mentioning an unconfirmed report that Justice Kennedy had been in contact with the Trump Administration before his retirement and perhaps had even been assured that Judge Kavanaugh would be nominated to replace him. Jason then breaks down Judge Kavanaugh's record in key Versus Trump areas, like executive power and administrative law, and concludes that Judge Kavanaugh is unlikely to be very sympathetic to many of the arguments plaintiffs are making in cases against the Administration. The trio then update several immigration cases, the case challenging the citizenship question on the census, and the case brought by DNC staffers against the Trump campaign.

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

This Washington Post story discusses the since-deleted NBC report implying that Kennedy received an assurance that Trump would nominate Kavanaugh.
An article here at Vox discusses Kavanaugh's record in several executive power cases. SCOTUSblog's profile of Kavanaugh is here.
This Reuters article discusses the recent developments in the census case.
Protect Democracy's case page on the Cockrum DNC case is here.

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

Texas and Trump Versus the ACA Jul 05, 2018

This week, Jason, Charlie, and Easha are back with a regular episode to discuss a stunning recent development in Texas v. United States, a case by Texas seeking to invalidate the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Last month, the Trump Administration not only agreed with Texas that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but it also told the district court that the requirement to cover everyone with a pre-existing condition on the same terms as healthy folks should be struck down as well.

Easha starts the discussion by giving us a background on the Affordable Care Act, including previous major cases about it and the recent change in the law that zeroes out the tax penalty for not having health insurance. She then explains the Trump Administration's new legal position, which is 1) that the individual mandate is unconstitutional beause it's no longer a tax and 2) the guarantee of coverage for those with pre-existing conditions should also be struck down because Congress would not have wanted that provision without the accompanying individual mandate. They then discuss three aspects of the Administration's position. First, are they right about the mandate? Second, do they have any plausible argument on the pre-existing conditions point? And third, just how unusual and potentially destructive is the Administration's surprising refusal to defend most of a validly-enacated law?

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 government's legal brief in Texas v. U.S. is here.
DOJ's list of 530d letters telling Congress when it would not defend certain laws is here.
Nick Bagley and others at Take Care have some great coverage of this case. See the most recent posts here.

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

Versus Mueller Jun 28, 2018

After two special interview episodes of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie get back to the usual format and talk about the leaked Dowd memo arguing that President should not be required to sit for an interview with the Special Counsel.

Jason and Charlie start the discussion with a summary of the Dowd memo, which was written in January by the President's lawyer and explains why the President need not sit for an interview with the Special Counsel. Jason and Charlie discuss a legal error in the definition of obstruction of justice and the merits of the various theories for why the President cannot obstruct justice anyway. Then they discuss the intended audience for this letter, and why that matters. They end with a few Trump nuggets updating various cases.

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 annotated Dowd memo is here, at the New York Times.

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

To End a Presidency? (Interview with Joshua Matz) Jun 21, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason talks about the past, present, and future of impeachment with Joshua Matz. Joshua is the publisher of Take Care and the co-author, with Laurence Tribe, of the acclaimed new book To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment.

Jason and Joshua start the discussion with the history of impeachment, and Joshua explains why the Framers permitted impeaching the President in the first place. They then discuss what impeachable offenses are, and Joshua explains why he thinks that impeachable offenses have three characteristics: they subvert the tenets of government; they were intentional, evil deeds; and they are plainly wrong by any reasonable standard. He then applies the standards to the present moment, and Joshua explains what Congress might consider as more evidence comes out about Trump's potential violation of the Emoluments Clauses, his potential involvement in a scheme of foreign influence in our election, and his potential obstruction of justice. Finally, Joshua closes with some big picture thoughts about the proper role of Congress and the people in any impeachment discussion.

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

Take Care's impeachment database is here.
You can buy the book here. It's quite good, and appropriate for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
Take Care's symposium on the book is here.

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

Versus Trump Live: Fairweather Federalism Jun 14, 2018

On this week's special live episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Charlie, and Jason share the stage at the ACS National Convention in Washington, DC with Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and Stanford Law's Pamela Karlan. They discussed several important cases brought by states against the Trump Administration as well as the broader federalism issues presented by Democratic Attorneys General being involved in so many lawsuits against the federal government. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

Easha begins by setting up the topic, and then the special guests take the stage. Charlie kicks things off with several questions about the cases related to the Emoluments Clause, which Maryland has a major role in. Easha next asks about immigration cases, including DACA. Finally, they turn to the big questions, like whether this is a permanent state of affairs or whether blue states are just "fairweather federalists."

Thanks to everyone at ACS for hosting us, and thanks to those in attendance for being a great audience. We hope to do it again soon!

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 Maryland Attorney General released a Maryland Defense Act report detailing the cases the office was involved in against the Administration in 2017. That's here.
You can read Take Care's coverage of Emoluments here and immigration litigation here.

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

ACS Live Show Preview + Twitter Update Jun 07, 2018

This week, Easha and Jason preview their live show at the ACS National Convention and then discuss the recent decision concluding that President Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked seven Twitter users from responding to his tweets.

They start the episode by previewing their live episode, which will take place on Saturday, June 9, at the ACS Convention in Washington, DC. With special guests Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and Stanford Law Professor and former Obama Administration Deputy Assistant Attorney General Pam Karlan, Jason, Easha, and Charlie will discuss the topic of "fairweather federalism." In today's episode, Jason and Easha each share some possible questions for the guests, but you can also email us your questions for them to versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can find out more information and register for the Convention here.

Next, Easha and Jason turn to the merits of the recent decision in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, in which a federal judge held that President Trump could not block Twitter users from responding to comment threads about his tweets. They discuss the two main hurdles the plaintiffs had to clear: 1) was the comment thread a public forum? and 2) is blocking someone from @realdonaldtrump an "official action"? They each agree with the district court's conclusion that the hurdles were successfully cleared.

They end the episode by updating several more cases and issuing a correction in response to listener feedback.

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

You can find out more information and register here for the ACS National Convention. Join us on Saturday, June 9!
The decision in the Twitter case is here.
At the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh had a very helpful recap and analysis here.
At National Review's Bench Memos, Greg Dolin criticized the decision. The third-part of his series is here, and that post links to his first two parts.

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

An Immigration Omnibus May 31, 2018

This week, Easha, Charlie, and Jason discuss recent important cases in the world of immigration, including a new lawsuit contending that the Trump Administration may not pursue its apparent policy of legally separating immigrant children from adults that they enter the country with.

They start the discussion by detailing a new case filed by the ACLU called Mrs. L. v. ICE. The case, filed in San Diego, contends that the Trump Administration's apparent policy of separating families who present themselves together at border checkpoints is illegal beacuse it violates parents' due process rights and is arbitary and capricious. They discuss both theories, including the tricky question of who may assert so-called "substantive due process" rights and, if anyone can asset them here, what those rights are. They then move on to another under-the-radar development in the world of immigration law, which is Jeff Sessions' frequent referral of cases to himself. In one recent referral, he virtually ended the practice of administrative closures, which may restart hundreds of thousands of removal proceedings that most thought were basically closed.

And we also reveal our guests for our live episode on Saturday, June 9: Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and Stanford Law Professor and former Obama Administration Deputy Assistant Attorney General Pam Karlan. Email us your questions for them to versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can find out more information and register for the Convention here.

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

You can find out more information and register here for the ACS National Convention. Join us on Saturday, June 9!
The ACLU's case page for Mrs. L is here.
Easha mentioned coverage by Tucson's Arizona Daily Star and the New York Times.See here and here.
Leah Litman's Take Care post on the subject is here.
An extremely helpful Vox article about administrative closures is here. The opinion itself is here.

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

The Fiduciary Rule Comes And Goes May 24, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Charlie, and Jason discuss the Fifth Circuit's recent decision striking down the so-called "Fiduciary Rule" that would have required those who sell retirement investment products in 401(k) plans to act in the best interests of their clients. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

They start the episode by discussing how Congress has regulated the management of retirement accounts, and they explain why many employees receive advice on where to put their retirement savings from advisors that have a potentially hard-to-discover financial incentive to sell employees certain high-cost products. They then discuss the Obama Administration's efforts to change this by classifying many more investment advisors as fiduciaries that would be required to look out for their clients' best interests. The trio then discuss the recent ruling by the Fifth Circuit that struck down the rule. That leads into a discussion of the Trump Administration's somewhat unusual position in this litigation: the Administration defended the rule on appeal, but have since then failed to appeal the adverse ruling, and they seem unlikely to take the case to the Supreme Court. That segues into a discussion about the role of the executive branch in enforcing the law and defending laws and rules in court—even those, like here, that the Administration might not like as a policy matter.

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.

And, of course, we'll be live and on stage at the ACS National Convention on the afternoon Saturday, June 9, at the Capitol Hilton! You can find our more information and register here. More details next week about who are our special guests will be.

Notes

You can find our more information and register here for the ACS National Convention. Join us!
The Fifth Circuit's ruling is here.
Jason mentioned a Take Care blog post by Danielle D'Onfro. That's here.
The States' motion to intervene is here. It was denied here.
Here is an article that Easha mentioned about the dispute in the Department of Labor over this rule.
The White House issued this memo to the Department of Labor asking it revisit the rule.

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

Preventing The Prevention Of The Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program May 17, 2018

This week, Easha, Charlie, and Jason discuss a series of recent rulings that have stopped the Trump Administration from revoking federal grants to entities that have been working to reduce teen pregnancy.

They start the episode by discussing the creation of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program in 2010, and then they explain how the Trump Administration last summer stopped renewing grants that were supposed to last until 2020. They then analyze the recent rulings that have found the Trump Administration's actions to have been arbitrary or contrary to the rules of the Department of Health and Human Services. That leads to a larger discussion about the ability of new administrations to reverse rules and policies of prior administrations.

The episode ends with a round of Trump nuggets about lawyer misconduct and new—and then revoked—rules from the Bureau of prisons. And then they turn to listener feedback and respond to several listener questions and comments.

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. And, of course, we'll be live and on stage at the ACS National Convention on the afternoon Saturday, June 9, at the Capitol Hilton! You can find our more information and register here. More details to come on who are our special guests will be.

Notes

You can find our more information and register here for the ACS National Convention. Join us!
The Maryland decision can be found here. The D.C. decision is here.
Reveal has done excellent reporting on this issue. One recent article is here.
Jason mentioned this article at NBC News that details how political appointees who are abstince-only advocates overruled career staff at HHS on this issue.

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

So, What's New? May 10, 2018

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason reveal their big announcement: we're doing our first ever live show! We'll be on stage on the afternoon of Saturday, June 9, at the ACS National Convention in Washington, DC. After that excitement, they get into a handful of updates about cases about auto emissions, HUD programs, the ban on military service by transgender individuals, and more.

First things first: we'll be live and on stage at the ACS National Convention on the afternoon Saturday, June 9, at the Capitol Hilton! You can find our more information and register here. More details to come on who are our special guests will be.

Then, Easha and Jason get into recent developments. Jason mentions a new suit by California and other states about auto emissions standards, and he says the Trump Administration may have a tough time defending the suit because of their heavy reliance on industry data. Easha then mentions a new lawsuit contending that the Department of Housing and Urban Development unlawfully suspended a requirement that local and state governments document their efforts to combat segregated housing patterns as a condition of receiving HUD funding. The list then goes on, as Easha and Jason discuss the status of the ban on military service by transgender individuals, what's going on at the Supreme Court, and a new filing in an Emoluments Clause case.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.

Notes

You can find our more information and register here for the ACS National Convention. Join us!
The auto emissions rule that California and other states are challenging is here. A useful post on The Verge dissecting the rule is here.
The HUD lawsuit Easha mentioned is discussed here at the website of one of the counsel to the Plaintiffs. That page also links to court filings.
The AP reported on recent deveopments in one of the transgender ban cases here.
Joshua Matz blogged about the filing of the opening brief in the Second Circuit Emoluments Clause case here.

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

The Great Marijuana Debate May 03, 2018

This week, Easha, Charlie, and Jason continue their investigation of the relationship between federal and state law by debating the Trump Administration's reversal of Obama-era guidance about marijuana enforcement.

The three start the conversation with a recap of the law with respect to recreational marijuana. While possession, sale, and distribution of the drug is illegal under federal law, several states now have in place comprehensive regimes permitting the sale and regulation of marijuana for recreational use. The Obama Administration issued several memos that indicated to states that it would not enforce federal law against individuals and businesses that complied with state law. But, in January, the Trump Administration revoked that guidance. That leads to a discussion of whether state laws permitting recreational use of marijuana are preempted by federal law, and whether the states should be permitted to continue operating these schemes. The debate concludes with all three acknowledging that this is a difficult legal question—and Jason even admits that his mind has been somewhat changed by points that Charlie and Easha made.

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

Notes

The Sessions memo from January 2018 that rescinded the Obama-era guidance on marijuana enforcement is here.
At the Marijuana Law, Policy, and Authority blog, Robert Mikos discusses the takeaways from Sessions' 2018 memo here.
Here is a very helpful Congressional Research Service Report that outlines the arguments on either side of this question.

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

Trump Versus California Apr 26, 2018

This week, Easha, Charlie, and Jason discuss the Trump Administration's lawsuit against California. The lawsuit seeks to prevent the state from enforcing three new state laws that the federal government says will undermine enforcement of immigration law.

The three start the conversation with a summary of the law of federal preemption, which provides that federal laws must trump—no pun intended—conflicting state laws. They then proceed to analyze each law at issue. The first California statute, which is called the “Immigrant Worker Protection Act,” prevents private employers in California from voluntarily cooperating with federal officials who seek to ensure compliance with federal immigration laws in the workplace. The trio agrees this is the most vulnerable law, but they disagree about whether California might have viable defenses. They then discuss the two other laws, and Jason maintains his general pro-preemption stance while Charlie and Easha think California is on fairly strong legal ground.

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

Notes

The Complaint and the federal government's motion for a preliminary injunction are all here. California's brief is due on May 4, with a hearing set for June 20.
Easha mentioned a post by Ilya Somin about whether there is a legal principle that states cannot discriminate against the federal government. That's here.
Vox has this useful article with some quickie reactions to the lawsuit.

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

The View From 10,000 Feet (Joshua Matz Speech) Apr 19, 2018

On a new episode of Versus Trump, we bring you a podcast version of the speech that Take Care publisher Joshua Matz gave at Harvard Law School on April 3, 2018. The talk, titled "The Legal Resistance to Trump," describes themes, achievements, and limitations of various lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration and its policies. Joshua's forthcoming book, which is co-written with Laurence Tribe, is called To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment, and it will be released on May 15. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

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

Links and Notes

A video of Joshua's talk can be found here.
Thanks to Joshua and to the Harvard Law Forum and Lark Turner for allowing us to use the audio of this talk as a podcast.

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

Movin' Right Along Apr 12, 2018

In this week's episode, Jason and Charlie revisit two lawsuits in which the Plaintiffs have recently successfully fought off motions to dismiss and been allowed to proceed. And in a new installment of "Sanctions Corner with Uncle Charlie," Charlie answers questions about the FBI raid on the office of Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

Jason and Charlie start the discussion by discussing DC and Maryland v. Trump, an Emoluments Clause case. They discuss the district court's recent decision holding that the state plaintiffs there had standing to proceed, and they explain why parts of the decision make good sense, while other aspects are a bit harder to understand. They then move on to the New York state court case of Summer Zervos v. Trump, in which former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos has sued Trump for defamation. A trial court judge in New York recently denied Trump's request to kick the case out of court on the grounds that Zervos could not litigate in state court against a sitting President, and Jason and Charlie have good things to say about the court's concise and elegant opinion. Finally, Uncle Charlie—always on the lookout for lawyer misconduct—answers a few questions about the recent FBI raid on Michael Cohen's office, even though he has to rely on press reports because the search warrant has not yet been made public.

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

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

The Citizenship Question Apr 05, 2018

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Easha discuss lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration's decision to ask a question about citizenship on the 2020 census.

Jason and Easha start the discussion by explaining the purpose of the decennial Census and the history of the Census Bureau's collecting information about citizenship. They then discuss how and when the Trump Administration decided to add a question about citizenship on the next Census, and they explain why the addition of this question may result in a substantial undercount of people in areas with high immigrant populations—and they explain why that would be bad for diverse states like California. That leads to a discussion of the merits of the two claims in the lawsuits: that the Administration's action violates the Enumeration Clause, which requires an accurate count of all "persons" in the U.S., and that the government's actions are arbitrary and capricious. They also wonder why the challengers have not added a third claim explicitly alleging discrimination on the basis of race or national origin.

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.

Voting Wars and Justice Scalia, with Rick Hasen Mar 29, 2018

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Jason talks to Rick Hasen, a leading election law scholar and purveyor of the Election Law Blog, about what's going on at the voting booth, possible campaign finance law violations by both Trump and Clinton in the 2016 cycle, and Justice Scalia, who is the subject of Rick's new book, The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption.

Jason and Rick start the discussion by looking at this Administration's record on voting rights, including its positions on Voter ID laws and voter registration laws. They then discuss possible campaign finance law violations in three "scandals" arising out of the 2016 presidential campaign cycle: the Trump campaign's contacts with Russians, the Clinton campaign's funding of the Steele dossier, and Trump's attorney's $130,000 payment made in October 2016 to Stormy Daniels as part of a non-disclosure agreement. The discussion concludes with a close look at the jurisprudence of Justice Scalia. Rick explains why he thinks Scalia was a justice full of contradictions, and why Scalia's decisions were not necessarily as consistently guided by neutral principles as the Justice often claimed they were.

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

Can The Government Execute Drug Dealers? Mar 22, 2018

This week, Easha and Charlie take a quick gander at Donald Trump's proposal to seek the death penalty for drug dealers.

For starters, Easha and Charlie walk through what the Constitution has to say about imposing the death penalty (hint: surprisingly little). They then explain the concepts of felony murder and conspiracy, two theories under which a drug dealer might be found guilty of murder. Charlie gives a quick overview of what the federal death penalty statute already authorizes, and they conclude by deciding that the President probably didn't mean what he said and, in any event, the specter of someone being executed merely for selling opioids would probably lead to the Supreme Court stepping in.

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

Versus David Dennison Mar 15, 2018

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss do a near-live episode about Stormy Daniels' lawsuit against David Dennison—we mean, Donald Trump.

They start the episode by summarizing Daniels' unusual lawsuit, which asks a court to invalidate a non-disclosure agreement that she signed in October of 2016 that is supposed to prevent her from talking about an alleged affair between her and Trump. Daniels claims that the agreement is invalid, both because it was never signed by President Trump and because it was unconscionable; Charlie, Easha, and Jason discuss both arguments. They also discuss the provision that requires disputes about the contract to be heard by an arbitrator, not a judge; the agreement's implications for campaign finance law; whether President Trump could prevent CBS from airing an interview it has supposedly taped with Daniels; and whether Trump's lawyer could be subject to discipline for his conduct.

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.

California Versus The Wall Mar 09, 2018

Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss a recent district court opinion that rejected California's challenge to the Trump Administration's expedited border wall projects in California.

They start the episode by discussing the boringly-named but legally-interesting opinion in In Re: Border Infrastructure Environmental Litigation. As they explain, the plaintiffs in this case are California and several environmental groups, and all have challenged the Trump Administration's waiver of state and federal environmental laws in order to allow the federal government to build new border fencing in Southern California. After recapping the case, they mention the politics in the background, including the unique fact that the judge who ruled in favor of the Trump Administration—Judge Gonzalo Curiel—was previously demeaned by Trump during the campaign. The trio then grapple with the argument that Secretary of Homeland Security acted without any legal authority at all and move on to several constitutional challenges that the plaintiffs lost on. Easha also brings up an argument not made in the case: that the Secretary's actions were motivated by anti-Mexican animus. The episode ends with a few Trump nuggets.

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

Russia Check-In Mar 01, 2018

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie check back in with the most politically charged of all Versus Trump suits: the Russia investigation.

They start the episode with some commentary on the case of Alex Van Der Zwaan, the former Skadden Arps associate who pleaded guilty to a charge of lying to the FBI. That leads to a discussion of conspiracy liability, why the charges are being brought in the way they have been, and how strange it is to charge a law firm associate with lying to the FBI. Next, the trio turn to Rick Gates's guilty plea and speculate on what it means for Paul Manafort. They end the episode with three Trump nuggets: an update on DACA, plus two responses to listener feedback: one on the power of the House to declassify information and another related to the use of firearms in suicides.

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

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

Are There Lawsuits About Gun Regulation? Feb 22, 2018

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss what's going on in courts related to gun regulation. They start the episode by describing Giffords Law Center v. ATF and related cases, which are Freedom of Information Act suits requesting records of DOJ and ATF that might reveal how coordinated the Trump Administration has been with the NRA and other pro-gun interests. They then wonder whether the suits might really move the needle of our policy discussions. The episode then turns to other kinds of gun-related litigation, including Heller and other cases over the right to bear arms. Finally, Charlie, Jason, and Easha answer a listener question about the ability of the House to declassify information on its own.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.

Are Medicaid Work Requirements Legal? Feb 15, 2018

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss a new lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration's approval of Kentucky's new rules for its Medicaid program. The new rules will require some Medicaid recipients to work 20 hours per week to receive health benefits, and they also impose other novel requirements. Jason and Easha start with the basics: What is Medicaid, how do the states and the federal government interact, and what do states need to receive approval to deviate from the federal rules regarding Medicaid eligibility? That leads them directly to the key section of the Medicaid law, called Section 1115, which permits the federal government to approve any “experimental, pilot, or demonstration project” that is “likely to assist in promoting the objectives” of the Medicaid program. The two then break down—and disagree about—whether Kentucky's new program, which adds work requirements and other novel features to its state Medicaid program, fits into that definition. The episode with ends a pair of Trump nuggets.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. And you can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo online at takecareblog.com/podcast

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

The House Versus The FBI Feb 08, 2018

On the latest episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Easha talk all things Russia investigation (or tangentially Russia investigation)—the Nunes #meh-mo, the fallout therefrom, and whether Trump will be interviewed by the Special Counsel.Charlie and Easha start with the basics: What is FISA, and how did the Department of Justice get a warrant to listen in on Carter Page's communications? They go through the flaws in the Nunes memo, but they conclude that even if the Nunes memo had been 100% accurate, the warrant probably wasn't deficient, given prevailing legal standards. They speculate about whether the New York Times will be successful in obtaining the FISA court's Page opinion, and they close with a resounding agreement that Trump's lawyers are kidding themselves if they think they can evade a subpoena from Mueller.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.

Is There A Freedom To Say Goodbye? Feb 01, 2018

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss an unexpected recent opinion that held that Ravi Ragbir, an immigration activist and alien subject to deportation, had the "freedom to say goodbye" before he could be removed from this country. Charlie and Jason begin by discussing Ragbir's background and the nature of his immigration case, and they focus on the events of January 11, 2018, when Ragbir was taken into custody and put on a plane to be removed from the country with no specific advance warning. They then discuss the recent, surprising decision in Ragbir's lawsuit against the Trump Administration that held that he could not be deported and had to be released from custody because he has the "freedom to say goodbye" and get his affairs in order before the government can deport him. They discuss several possible theories that would provide legal support for this somewhat novel right, and disagree somewhat on the merits on the opinion. In their combined Trump nugget, they recommend Slate's excellent podcast about Watergate, Slow Burn.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. And you can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

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

Suing To Stop A Shrinking Staircase Jan 25, 2018

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss several lawsuits filed over President Trump's recent Proclamation that substantially cuts the size of two National Monuments: Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante, both in Utah. They begin the discussion by discussing what national monuments are, how they can be designated under the Anitiquities Act of 1906, and how the President decided to shrink the boundaries of these two national monuments. They discuss the argument in several recent lawsuits that the Antiquities Act permits a President to declare new land to be a national monument but does not permit the President to unilaterally remove that land from its proected status—and their respective positions on the merits of the suit may be somewhat surprising to regular listeners. They then update the status of the lawsuits and note that the government has moved to transfer all of these cases to a federal court in Utah. The episode ends with Trump nuggets about the volume of public opinions from the OLC and some new info about the now-disbanded voter fraud commission.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. And you can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo at takecareblog.com/podcast.

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

DACA's Back! Jan 18, 2018

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss the big decision that forced the Trump Administration to restart the DACA immigration program. They begin the discussion by summarizing the lawsuit over the revocation of DACA. They then to turn four buckets of issues in the district court's two opinions. For buckets one and two, they discuss whether DACA is a decision that is "committed to agency discretion" or whether it's a broad policy, and then they delve into the Administration's argument that it had to revoke DACA because the Obama Administration's creation of the program was illegal. They then [at 35:00] move on to buckets three and four and talk about whether this revocation was motivated by discrimination and whether DACA recipients should be able to argue that the government cannot revoke the program because they've already relied on it.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. And you can now buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo via our webstore! Check out takecareblog.com/podcast for more info.

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

Manafort Sues, and Trump Threatens To Jan 11, 2018

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Easha, and Charlie tackle an unexpected new lawsuit against the Trump Administration by, of all people, former campaign chair Paul Manafort. And they discuss the President's threats to sue the publisher of Fire and Fury for defamation. They begin the discussion by summarizing the Manafort v. DOJ lawsuit. While everyone agrees it's an unusual and likely meritless lawsuit, Jason wonders why more people aren't a little bit more sympathetic to a novel attempt to check the power of federal prosecutors. That leads into a discussion—somehow—of the nature of sanctionable legal filings, and whether or not lawyers can be sanctioned for asserting legal claims on behalf of non-human animals (it's a fun issue!). Next, they move on to a discussion of a letter sent on behalf of the President that threatened a defamation lawsuit against the publisher of the controversial book Fire and Fury—and Charlie again finds something potentially sanctionable. Finally, the group has a few Trump nuggets.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.

2017 Scorecard Jan 04, 2018

On the first episode of Versus Trump of 2018, Jason and Charlie look back at Versus Trump cases in 2017 and score them as Administration wins, losses, or not-yet-decided. They also look ahead at big issues to come in 2018.Charlie and Jason begin the discussion by evaluating the cases that fall in the "big case" bucket: litigation involving the Muslim Ban, the Emoluments Clause, military service by transgender people, the revised contraceptive mandate, and the attempt to revoke funding from sanctuary cities. Charlie and Jason score those cases as one Administration win, though with an appeal coming (Emoluments Clause); a clear Administration loss (transgender service); two Administration losses, though with an appeal or potential appeal (contraceptive mandate and sanctuary cities*); and one "it's complicated" (Muslim Ban). They then move on to other cases and issues discussed on the podcast in 2017. Finally, they look at the big picture and speculate about what the lessons of 2017 will mean for litigation in 2018.Also, thanks to all of the listeners who responsed to our holiday t-shirt offer. While that offer is now closed, stick with us in 2018 for more Versus Trump analysis and, maybe, another giveaway down the line.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.* On sanctuary cities, we inititally goofed and said that Administration did not appeal. In fact, they did appeal, as we say in our last-minute insert. Sorry for the confusion!

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

Judges of Christmas Future Dec 21, 2017

On this week’s Versus Trump holiday spectacular, it's all judges, all the time. Charlie, Jason, and Easha take a closer look at a number of the President's judicial nominees—confirmed, pending, and withdrawn—to examine what might happen to Versus Trump cases in years to come.Charlie, Easha, and Jason begin the discussion with a quick overview of the structure of the federal court system and talk about the importance of Trump's nominations to the Court of Appeals and District Court. Charlie then starts off the discussion of individual judges by talking about confirmed appellate judges Joan Larsen and Stephanos Bibas, whom Charlie believes are fairly mainstream conservatives. Jason then brings up Matthew Peterson, a district court nominee who withdrew after being unable to answer basic questions about trial court procedure. Next, Easha offers up commentary on the confirmation process of former Notre Dame Law Professor Amy Barrett, before the group turns to the other two withdrawn nominees, Jeff Mateer and Brett Talley, and compares them to several other judges whose confirmations appear to be going smoothly. They end the episode with their big takeaways from the first year of nominations.There's also a surprise holiday offer to our listeners at the end of the episode. You can direct message us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com if you'd like to respond.

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

#MeToo Versus Trump Dec 14, 2017

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha talk about a defamation lawsuit brought by Summer Zervos, a woman who alleges that she was sexually assaulted by President Trump in a hotel room in 2007. Charlie, Easha, and Jason begin by discussing the facts in the lawsuit and then [at 5:00] quickly move to the first reason that President Trump has asked the court in New York to dismiss the case: the sitting President cannot be sued in state court. That leads to some deep cuts about the relationship between federal and state power [at 13:00] and then a wonky discussion [at 26:30] of how California's so-called Anti-SLAPP statute works and why Zervos may have been trying to avoid it. They then turn [at 32:30] to the President's second argument, which is that the statements calling Zervos a liar were protected by the First Amendment because they were made in the context of a political campaign.No Trump Nuggets this week, but stay tuned for the big end-of-year recap, coming soon!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: Trump Versus Anti-Discrimination Laws (with guest Joshua Matz) Dec 07, 2017

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha are joined by Take Care publisher Joshua Matz to talk about the Masterpiece Cake Shop oral argument, plus the status of Muslim Ban litigation and the future of Take Care. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard argument in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, which presents the question of whether a baker in Colorado may refuse to create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding even though Colorado prohibits retailers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Joshua Matz, who filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the same-sex couple, joins the podcast to help break down the argument. They talk first about the involvement of the Trump Administration and whether its legal position withstood questioning at the argument. They then analyze both the free speech and free exercise issues in the case, and they make some perhaps unexpected predictions about what the decision might be and how far its legal rule might reach.Next, just minutes after the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in a case about Muslim Ban 3.0, Joshua and Easha offer some quick takes on what happened there and what the Supreme Court's recent denial of a stay portends. Finally, Joshua discusses the past and future of Take Care.As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.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. LinksThe oral argument transcript in Masterpiece Cakeshop is here. The oral argument audio will be posted here on December 8, 2017.Additional Take Care commentary on the case is here.

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

Trump The Trustbuster (Interview with Lina Khan) Nov 30, 2017

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie has an interview with antitrust expert Lina Khan, Director of Legal Policy of the Open Markets Institute, about the lawsuit filed by the Trump Administration to block the proposed AT&T/Time Warner merger. Charlie and Lina first discuss the background of antitrust law and the mechanics of how the Department of Justice reviews mergers for antitrust concerns. Lina then explains the difference between vertical and horizontal mergers and explains why vertical mergers like the one here are typically not a major antitrust concern. They then get into the nitty gritty of this deal and discuss why the communications sector is unique, why this deal may be problematic, and whether this lawsuit may have been motivated by the President's expressed animus toward CNN, which is owned by Time Warner. They end with a discussion of whether it's valid to oppose the Administration's actions on the grounds that DOJ is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.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.

Borderline Searches + Response to First Mondays Nov 16, 2017

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss a new lawsuit that forces courts to answer the question of whether the federal government needs a warrant to search people's cell phones and other electronic devices at the border, and they also [at 32:30] respond to a discussion on the Supreme Court podcast First Mondays regarding the government's recent filing in the Hargan v. Garza abortion case.First, Jason and Charlie tackle border searches of cell phones and laptops by discussing a new case filed by the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation called Alasaad v. Duke. The case was recently filed in Boston on behalf of several individuals who had their electronic devices searched when they returned to the U.S. from oversees. As Jason and Charlie note, the policies authorizing border searches without a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion of a crime were put in place in 2009 under President Obama—but the number of people whose electronic devices have been searched at the border has risen dramatically since President Trump took office. Jason and Charlie analyze whether the policy is constitutional and try to predict what rule a court might adopt to put some limits on these searches.After that [at 32:30], Jason and Charlie return to the noteworthy case of Hargan v. Garza. The federal government recently filed a much-discussed Supreme Court petition that accused the ACLU of misconduct in a case that ultimately resulted in an undocumented immigrant obtaining the abortion she sought. Jason and Charlie disagree with the view articulated in the most recent episode of First Mondays, in which the hosts said that the government's petition presented a potentially close case on the misconduct issue, and also argued that the lawyers who signed the petition must subjectively have thought there was serious attorney misconduct. If you've been following the debate over this filing, you'll definitely want to tune in for Jason and Charlie's views.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.

Updates, Y'all! Nov 09, 2017

You want updates, so we've got updates! We begin [at 1:50] with the very unusual goings-on in a case everyone thought was over: the Jane Doe litigation over access to abortion while in immigration detention, a case now called Hargan v. Garza. We then turn [at 13:00] to litigation involving the ban on military service by transgender individuals. Next up [at 21:00]: the Muslim Ban, which is now on version 3.0. After that, [at 25:00] we turn to deeper cuts, and update you on the progress of a lawsuit by the National Venture Capital Association about a rule called the "International Entrepreneur Rule," and then we update another lawsuit Trump's inciting violence at a campaign rally [at 29:00]. Finally, we have our third—and final?—edition of Sam Clovis watch [at 32:00] and end with a response to a listener question about referring to Senators in the Federal Register [at 38:00]. Phew.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 First Shoe (with guest David Sklansky) Nov 02, 2017

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and special guest Professor David Sklansky discuss the first shoe to drop from the Mueller investigation: the indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and the guilty plea of George Papadopoulos. We begin [at 2:00] by describing the legal charges and the key factual takeaways from the charging documents. We're then [at 11:00] joined by Stanford Law Professor and former federal prosecutor David Sklansky to go in-depth on several key issues. We talk with David about the timing of the indictment and the guilty plea, whether Papadopoulos may have been an undercover cooperator, whether Manafort has any viable defenses or could plead guilty, and whether Mueller's job may be in jeopardy at some point down the road. Finally, Charlie and Jason resume their analysis [at 27:10] with a deep-cuts discussion of what these charges say about pretexutal prosecutions, and why Manafort is on house arrest while awaiting trial but many low-levels offenders around the country are not.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.

Emergency Pod: JD v. DHS Oct 26, 2017

On today's episode, Easha and Charlie discuss an ongoing—wait, just now resolved—case filed by a pregnant 17-year-old girl in federal immigration custody who seeks an abortion. Easha and Charlie first talk about the procedural wrangling that this case has wrought and second about the legal claims in the case, which bring them into the exciting worlds of reproductive rights, immigration law, and international relations. Listen now!

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

Pardon Our Tone Oct 19, 2017

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss the President's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the (so far unsuccessful) legal challenge to that pardon.The discussion begins with a quick discussion of why Arpaio was charged with criminal contempt in the first place, and how several outside organizations are trying to contest the validity of the pardon by asking the district court not to dismiss the case against Arpaio. Easha then [at 6:00] gives us an overview of the law regarding the scope of the President's power to pardon those individuals charged or convicted with federal crimes, and Charlie explains [at 10:00] what contempt is and why it may be a special kind of federal crime outside the president's pardon power. Jason, however, doesn't buy it, and a debate ensues. The discussion then turns [at 25:00] to other theories for why the pardon may not have been lawful, and there proves to be more agreement there. Finally, the group turns [at 36:00] to what's next in the case, including a potential appeal of the trial court's decision to give effect to the pardon and dismiss the criminal case, and whether the president can prospectively pardon his associates. The episode ends with a couple of Trump nuggets about Governor Brown's veto of a bill we discussed a few weeks ago and a brief mention of the decision on Muslim Ban 3.0.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 Contraception Mandate Challenges Oct 12, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Versus DeVos Aug 03, 2017

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.

The Collusion Lawsuit Jul 27, 2017

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.

VS. Kobach Jul 20, 2017

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.

I Want Out! Jul 13, 2017

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.

(Judicial) Independence Day Spectacular! Jul 06, 2017

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.

Where There's A Gil... Jun 29, 2017

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.

Protecting The Right To Counsel In Immigration Courts, With Glenda Aldana Madrid Jun 22, 2017

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.

A Gadfly Suit + Leah Litman Jun 15, 2017

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.

What About Congress? + Steven Wu Jun 08, 2017

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.

The Healthcare Episode Jun 01, 2017

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.

G.G. Case + Patti Goldman May 25, 2017

We lead off this week [start-34:40] with a roundtable discussion of the G.G. case, which is a challenge to a public school's policy that requires students to use bathrooms that correspond to their "biological gender." In our interview segment [35:10-57:50], Charlie speaks with Patti Goldman, the managing attorney of EarthJustice's Seattle office. Patti discusses a legal challenge to the so-called "2-for-1" executive order, which requires agencies to repeal two regulations for every new regulation that is adopted. Our discussion segment closes with listener feedback, including our first voicemail! [57:50-end.] You can be caller number two: 505-333-8106.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.

Episode 5.1: Interview with James Williams May 17, 2017

In our interview this week [available separately as Episode 5.1], Jason discuss sanctuary cities with James Williams. James is the County Counsel of Santa Clara County in California, which has sued the Administration on the grounds that an executive order that purports to withhold funding from "sanctuary cities" is unconstitutional. James and Jason discuss the recent ruling in which a federal court agreed with his arguments and has temporarily barred the Trump Administration from enforcing the executive order. We also discuss the definition of a sanctuary city, how much money the executive order would withhold, and why the Department of Justice's litigation strategy does not match up with the President's own statements about the case.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.

Episode 5.2: "Prosecuting The President FAQ" May 17, 2017

Our discussion segment this week contains an increasingly relevant discussion of three Frequently Asked Legal Questions that the ongoing Comey scandal has raised. First, was the President legally allowed to fire FBI Director Comey? Second, now that Comey is gone, how can a special prosecutor or independent counsel be appointed to continue to the Russia investigation? [Note: this just happened. Our episode talks about the legal mechanism by which former FBI Director Mueller has just been appointed special prosecutor.] And third—and most speculatively—can a sitting President legally be indicted and stand trial in a criminal case? The answers may be surprising. [If you want to skip right to the main event, the discussion of the possible prosecution of the President starts at 18:09.]Our discussion segment closes with a Trump Lump about whether the President can be sued over appointing unqualified officials to high government office. [38:21-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.

Argument Recap Emergency Pod! May 09, 2017

It's our first emergency podcast! Right after the full Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments in the Muslim Travel Ban appeal, the Versus Trump co-hosts hopped on the line to do a deep-dive into the argument. The podcast includes audio clips of many key moments from the oral argument audio.We start off by analyzing what happened when Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall got up to the podium to defend the travel ban [1:20-19:50]. We point out that the court was overwhelmingly populated by Democratic appointees, and they were not afraid to ask hard questions—like how the court could possibly ignore the President's repeated statements that he wanted to implement a Muslim ban. We thought that the Acting Solicitor General did his very best to offer up appealing reasons for upholding the ban, but we all thought that, as Charlie said, the SG made a fantastic argument "about a case that isn't this case." Ultimately, we doubt his arguments will hold up in light of the extraordinary and unusual clarity of the President's anti-Muslim rhetoric.We then break down the argument of plaintiff's counsel, Omar Jadwat of the ACLU, who was arguing that the Muslim travel ban was unconstitutional [19:50-30:30]. We wonder why Jadwat wasn't more forceful in pointing out how extraordinary and unusual this case is, and why he seemed to want to evade questions that could have been answered straightforwardly by pointing directly to the President's own clear, anti-Muslim statements. Still, given the strength of the plaintiffs' case and the left-leaning majority on the court, we predict that the court will agree with the plaintiffs, hold that the Muslim ban was unconstitutionally adopted, and continue to prohibit the federal government from enforcing the controversial executive order. We end with a few final thoughts and a prediction about how the case will come out. [30:30-end.]

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

"We're All Hypocrites" + Zachary Price May 04, 2017

This week on Versus Trump, we start off with a preview of the upcoming immigration executive order oral argument [1:20-28:00]. We talk about all the nitty gritty procedural hurdles plaintiffs will have to overcome to even get a court to hear their claims. After our discussion, Jason talks about reliance interests with Professor Zachary Price of the University of California, Hastings, College of Law [28:00-42:15]. Jason and Zach chat about what might happen if the Trump Administration reverses the Obama Administration’s policy of non-enforcement of certain federal laws, including those governing marijuana possession and distribution.We close with some Trump Nuggets (Trump Chunks?) [42:15-end], so stick around till the end of the show! 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.

"Get Em Out!" + Richard Primus Apr 27, 2017

This week on Versus Trump, the Take Care podcast, we start off with discussion of a lawsuit against Donald Trump for allegedly inciting violence at a campaign rally in Kentucky [1:30-28:00]. We debate whether the First Amendment protects what Trump said, and we talk about what might happen with the case going forward.Next, Easha talks about the concept of unconstitutional animus with Professor Richard Primus of the University of Michigan Law School [28:12-56:25]. Easha and Richard discuss what animus is, the source of the constitutional prohibition against it, and what that prohibition means for the litigation against President Trump’s Muslim travel ban.We close with a quick segment that we’re tentatively calling “Trump Nuggets” [56:30-end]. Suggestions for a better name are welcome.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.

A New Sheriff In Town + Zephyr Teachout Apr 20, 2017

On the inaugural episode, we start off with a quick intro and then get right into a discussion of consent decrees [2:54-33:49], debating whether Attorney General Sessions can undo agreements that the Obama administration reached with troubled police departments around the country.Next up [starting at 33:54], we have an interview with Zephyr Teachout, counsel to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, about whether President Trump violates the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution when his businesses receive money from foreign governments. Zephyr explains what an “emolument” is, the purpose of the Constitutional ban on foreign gifts, and at least four ways Trump is violating that prohibition. 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 Preview Apr 12, 2017

Listen to a sneak preview of Versus Trump, the podcast where we discuss how the Trump Administration is breaking the law, and what people are doing about it. Coming soon!

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

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected