60 pippa.io Versus Trump http://www.takecareblog.com/podcast en All rights reserved Trump, legal, law Versus Trump Listen now! On Versus Trump, we discuss how the Trump Administration is breaking the law, and what people are doing about it. On Versus Trump, we discuss how the Trump Administration is breaking the law, and what people are doing about it. yes Versus Trump Podcast info+5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75@mg.pippa.io episodic https://assets.pippa.io/shows/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/show-cover.jpg http://www.takecareblog.com/podcast Versus Trump https://feed.pippa.io/public/shows/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75 Versus Whitaker, In-Depth Versus Whitaker, In-Depth Thu, 06 Dec 2018 11:00:25 GMT 52:23 5c08a0016ef65b4864250c8c yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/versus-whitaker-in-depth full 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.
]]>
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.
]]>
<![CDATA[Asylum Ain't Easy, but This Case Is ]]> Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:00:00 GMT 39:59 5bff6e2aa3e6f03045d6fa01 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/asylum-aint-easy-but-this-case-is full 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 HarrowEasha 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.

]]>
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 HarrowEasha 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.

]]>
Versus Trump: Trump Versus Jim Acosta Versus Trump: Trump Versus Jim Acosta Thu, 22 Nov 2018 16:09:19 GMT 40:28 5bf6cf62dd622cd031b88c59 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/versus-trump-trump-versus-jim-acosta full 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

]]>
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

]]>
Versus Whitaker Versus Whitaker Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:00:09 GMT 14:07 5becd3ccdaaf42351517e451 no https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/versus-whitaker full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
Trump The Racketeer Trump The Racketeer Thu, 01 Nov 2018 10:00:42 GMT 47:59 5bda8e1de8f43ff3726f285f yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/trump-the-racketeer full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
Can Courts Stop Trump From Violating The First Amendment? Can Courts Stop Trump From Violating The First Amendment? Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:00:39 GMT 47:10 5bd10d7ff5855c3a18e054af yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/can-courts-stop-trump-from-violating-the-first-amendment full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
Trump Wins One Versus Stormy Trump Wins One Versus Stormy Thu, 18 Oct 2018 10:00:52 GMT 49:03 5bc8061fc9064db15106c48d yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/trump-wins-one-versus-stormy full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
N.Y. Versus Wilbur Ross N.Y. Versus Wilbur Ross Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:00:05 GMT 52:00 5bbea684cd656ce4481af47a yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/ny-versus-wilbur-ross full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
Trump Versus Net Neutrality Trump Versus Net Neutrality Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:00:58 GMT 39:48 5bb5a0cef211116a71881ff4 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/trump-versus-net-neutrality full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
Versus Trump: The Unique Manafort Plea Versus Trump: The Unique Manafort Plea Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:00:10 GMT 45:06 5baae3c435035ce92ece4077 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/versus-trump-the-unique-manafort-plea full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
Earthjustice v. Trump (Interview with Drew Caputo) Earthjustice v. Trump (Interview with Drew Caputo) Thu, 20 Sep 2018 10:00:45 GMT 50:53 5ba32fe170b289f7213e2913 no https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/earthjustice-v-trump-interview-with-drew-caputo full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
<![CDATA[The Power's Out. Literally.]]> Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:00:37 GMT 5:55 5b99dfcae8d890875d4994c4 no https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/the-powers-out-literally full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
How Bad Is It? How Bad Is It? Thu, 06 Sep 2018 10:00:47 GMT 39:42 5b90a1a97475d33d77a1aa45 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/how-bad-is-it full 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

]]>
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

]]>
A Two-Level Versus Trump Case A Two-Level Versus Trump Case Thu, 30 Aug 2018 10:00:37 GMT 40:20 5b8746634ceb0dad52bdf939 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/a-two-level-versus-trump-case full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
Versus Trump: Trump Versus Facebook Versus Trump: Trump Versus Facebook Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:00:28 GMT 46:11 5b7dfd77fac0d07d6a461555 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/versus-trump-trump-versus-facebook full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
SABOTAGE!! SABOTAGE!! Thu, 16 Aug 2018 10:00:16 GMT 51:53 5b74c8d265a00d080d26121c yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/sabotage full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
Versus Plastic Guns Versus Plastic Guns Thu, 09 Aug 2018 07:00:46 GMT 50:36 5b6bbdd4dfd29fec6e19811c yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/versus-plastic-guns full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
Trump Versus ALJs? Trump Versus ALJs? Thu, 02 Aug 2018 10:00:06 GMT 42:21 5b62598bf6b6afe97c040b72 no https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/trump-versus-aljs full 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).
]]>
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).
]]>
SALT In The Wounds SALT In The Wounds Thu, 26 Jul 2018 10:00:27 GMT 48:17 5b594f600943ffe33bbd8735 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/salt-in-the-wounds full 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.
]]>
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.
]]>
Versus The Trump Foundation Versus The Trump Foundation Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:00:15 GMT 46:59 5b4fd638e9a3428c305f01be yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/versus-the-trump-foundation full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
<![CDATA[Kavanaugh's Coming, Plus Updates]]> Thu, 12 Jul 2018 10:00:42 GMT 36:56 5b46c6e0342a838a5102ba08 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/kavanaughs-coming-plus-updates full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
Texas and Trump Versus the ACA Texas and Trump Versus the ACA Thu, 05 Jul 2018 10:00:16 GMT 48:31 5b3d643e80c5d61828b07514 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/texas-and-trump-versus-the-aca full 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.
]]>
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.
]]>
Versus Mueller Versus Mueller Thu, 28 Jun 2018 10:00:47 GMT 45:23 5b341f0acc2074f94c0f169d yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/versus-mueller full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
To End a Presidency? (Interview with Joshua Matz) To End a Presidency? (Interview with Joshua Matz) Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:00:59 GMT 53:28 5b2ac6bce80122030239da08 no https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/to-end-a-presidency-interview-with-joshua-matz full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
Versus Trump Live: Fairweather Federalism Versus Trump Live: Fairweather Federalism Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:00:06 GMT 41:47 5b21b7fde9b5fdb84a28f4d9 no https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/versus-trump-live-fairweather-federalism full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
ACS Live Show Preview + Twitter Update ACS Live Show Preview + Twitter Update Thu, 07 Jun 2018 07:01:13 GMT 38:23 5b187380d4ff78b3496f67a1 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/acs-live-show-preview-twitter-update full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
An Immigration Omnibus An Immigration Omnibus Thu, 31 May 2018 10:00:51 GMT 44:24 5b0f717c1f85233603f8be46 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/an-immigration-omnibus full 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.
]]>
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.
]]>
The Fiduciary Rule Comes And Goes The Fiduciary Rule Comes And Goes Thu, 24 May 2018 10:00:11 GMT 41:50 5b05f9802908ff8947a6e590 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/the-fiduciary-rule-comes-and-goes full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
Preventing The Prevention Of The Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program Preventing The Prevention Of The Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program Thu, 17 May 2018 10:00:55 GMT 49:06 5afc94546ca4d5b51a0cabf4 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/preventing-the-prevention-of-the-teen-pregnancy-prevention-p full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
<![CDATA[So, What's New?]]> Thu, 10 May 2018 10:00:11 GMT 34:43 5af395f6457abd410f19d331 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/so-whats-new full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
The Great Marijuana Debate The Great Marijuana Debate Thu, 03 May 2018 10:00:00 GMT 51:44 5aea222a0f406bec737831e8 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/the-great-marijuana-debate full 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.
]]>
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.
]]>
Trump Versus California Trump Versus California Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:01:00 GMT 58:02 5ae15b7136c6d2303c07ba1f yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/trump-versus-california full 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.
]]>
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.
]]>
The View From 10,000 Feet (Joshua Matz Speech) The View From 10,000 Feet (Joshua Matz Speech) Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:05:00 GMT 44:57 5ad8192132e76aa35a18dbaf no https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/the-view-from-10000-feet-joshua-matz-speech full 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.


]]>
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.


]]>
<![CDATA[Movin' Right Along]]> Thu, 12 Apr 2018 10:30:00 GMT 44:19 5aced559cf90d2c44fc929a1 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/movin-right-along full 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.

]]>
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.

]]>
The Citizenship Question The Citizenship Question Thu, 05 Apr 2018 13:05:47 GMT 46:10 5ac61f2c232c40cb35218f1e no https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/the-citizenship-question full 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.

]]>
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.

]]>
Voting Wars and Justice Scalia, with Rick Hasen Voting Wars and Justice Scalia, with Rick Hasen Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:57:42 GMT 46:36 5abd1b07aa0f6a980c2d73e4 no https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/voting-wars-and-justice-scalia-with-rick-hasen full 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.

]]>
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.

]]>
Can The Government Execute Drug Dealers? Can The Government Execute Drug Dealers? Thu, 22 Mar 2018 13:41:49 GMT 31:28 5ab32e018c2a521341facd4f yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/can-the-government-execute-drug-dealers full 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.

]]>
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.

]]>
Versus David Dennison Versus David Dennison Thu, 15 Mar 2018 11:54:38 GMT 41:26 5aa9faa654112679291d8315 no https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/versus-david-dennison full 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. 

]]>
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. 

]]>
California Versus The Wall California Versus The Wall Fri, 09 Mar 2018 05:04:49 GMT 56:07 5aa215f2e464251254f9a40b yes http://www.takecareblog.com/podcast full 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.

]]>
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.

]]>
Russia Check-In Russia Check-In Thu, 01 Mar 2018 11:05:00 GMT 40:56 5a976de23ff26e976c27ea00 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/russia-check-in full 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.

]]>
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.

]]>
Are There Lawsuits About Gun Regulation? Are There Lawsuits About Gun Regulation? Thu, 22 Feb 2018 05:07:12 GMT 47:16 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/403350870 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9d2 On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, a… Are Medicaid Work Requirements Legal? Are Medicaid Work Requirements Legal? Thu, 15 Feb 2018 04:25:24 GMT 56:15 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/399874893 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9d3 On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason… The House Versus The FBI The House Versus The FBI Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:18:40 GMT 49:25 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/396285822 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9d4 On the latest episode of Versus Trump, Charlie an… Is There A Freedom To Say Goodbye? Is There A Freedom To Say Goodbye? Thu, 01 Feb 2018 04:31:35 GMT 43:15 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/392757054 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9d5 On a new episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Jas… Suing To Stop A Shrinking Staircase Suing To Stop A Shrinking Staircase Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:38:58 GMT 43:09 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/388786218 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9d6 On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason… <![CDATA[DACA's Back!]]> Thu, 18 Jan 2018 06:52:21 GMT 56:27 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/385358519 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9d7 On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, a… Manafort Sues, and Trump Threatens To Manafort Sues, and Trump Threatens To Thu, 11 Jan 2018 05:39:41 GMT 58:27 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/381891473 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9d8 On a new episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Easha, a… 2017 Scorecard 2017 Scorecard Thu, 04 Jan 2018 06:04:32 GMT 52:42 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/378547085 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9d9 On the first episode of Versus Trump of 2018, Jas… Judges of Christmas Future Judges of Christmas Future Thu, 21 Dec 2017 05:38:49 GMT 50:10 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/372464597 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9da On this week’s Versus Trump holiday spectacular, … #MeToo Versus Trump #MeToo Versus Trump Thu, 14 Dec 2017 03:25:16 GMT 54:53 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/369281480 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9db On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, … Versus Trump: Trump Versus Anti-Discrimination Laws (with guest Joshua Matz) Versus Trump: Trump Versus Anti-Discrimination Laws (with guest Joshua Matz) Thu, 07 Dec 2017 12:25:00 GMT 54:10 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/366209555 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9dc On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, … Trump The Trustbuster (Interview with Lina Khan) Trump The Trustbuster (Interview with Lina Khan) Thu, 30 Nov 2017 05:24:56 GMT 33:42 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/362838485 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9dd On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie h… Borderline Searches + Response to First Mondays Borderline Searches + Response to First Mondays Thu, 16 Nov 2017 05:09:33 GMT 48:25 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/356482496 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9de On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason and… <![CDATA[Updates, Y'all!]]> Thu, 09 Nov 2017 05:30:20 GMT 42:09 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/353203301 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9df The First Shoe (with guest David Sklansky) The First Shoe (with guest David Sklansky) Thu, 02 Nov 2017 04:06:20 GMT 48:38 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/349991305 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9e0 On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Ch… Emergency Pod: JD v. DHS Emergency Pod: JD v. DHS Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:53:09 GMT 48:31 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/348696770 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9e1 Pardon Our Tone Pardon Our Tone Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:00:19 GMT 45:14 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/347577886 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9e2 On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Ja… The Contraception Mandate Challenges The Contraception Mandate Challenges Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:19:51 GMT 45:53 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/346550726 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9e3 On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha and… So, Can California Really Do That? So, Can California Really Do That? Thu, 05 Oct 2017 00:54:31 GMT 48:43 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/345413611 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9e4 On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie a… [This Episode Blocked] [This Episode Blocked] Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:02:23 GMT 47:55 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/344426855 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9e5 On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Ja… The FOIA Spectacular! The FOIA Spectacular! Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:28:04 GMT 38:49 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/343341737 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9e6 On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha and… Keeping the DREAM Alive Keeping the DREAM Alive Wed, 13 Sep 2017 23:01:20 GMT 42:27 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/342249164 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9e7 On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason and… 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. 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. Versus DeVos (Re-Air) Versus DeVos (Re-Air) Thu, 07 Sep 2017 04:13:19 GMT 38:23 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/341267066 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9e8 On this week’s encore episode of Versus Trump, we… Waking Dreamhost Waking Dreamhost Thu, 31 Aug 2017 04:41:21 GMT 39:15 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/340254436 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9e9 On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we talk a… Trump vs. The CFPB Trump vs. The CFPB Thu, 24 Aug 2017 04:29:15 GMT 39:46 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/339250730 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9ea On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason and… The Voting Wars (Marc Elias Interview) The Voting Wars (Marc Elias Interview) Thu, 17 Aug 2017 03:33:01 GMT 40:12 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/338223013 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9eb On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we have a… Versus Trump Quick Hits Versus Trump Quick Hits Thu, 10 Aug 2017 04:17:04 GMT 20:02 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/337245304 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9ec On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we bring … Versus DeVos Versus DeVos Thu, 03 Aug 2017 05:07:55 GMT 37:36 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/336049146 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9ed On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason has… The Collusion Lawsuit The Collusion Lawsuit Thu, 27 Jul 2017 05:32:50 GMT 34:28 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/335034605 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9ee On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie a… VS. Kobach VS. Kobach Thu, 20 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT 37:45 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/333986199 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9ef On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we discus… 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. 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. I Want Out! I Want Out! Thu, 13 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT 33:27 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/332991133 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9f0 On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie a… (Judicial) Independence Day Spectacular! (Judicial) Independence Day Spectacular! Thu, 06 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT 30:54 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/331827612 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9f1 On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we celebr… <![CDATA[Where There's A Gil...]]> Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:00:00 GMT 34:43 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/330703774 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9f2 On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we discus… 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. 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. Protecting The Right To Counsel In Immigration Courts, With Glenda Aldana Madrid Protecting The Right To Counsel In Immigration Courts, With Glenda Aldana Madrid Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:00:00 GMT 30:33 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/329457320 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9f3 On a new, interview-only episode of Versus Trump,… A Gadfly Suit + Leah Litman A Gadfly Suit + Leah Litman Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:00:00 GMT 38:40 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/328168514 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9f4 On a new episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Easha, a… What About Congress? + Steven Wu What About Congress? + Steven Wu Thu, 08 Jun 2017 00:00:00 GMT 1:05:55 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/327108971 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9f5 The Healthcare Episode The Healthcare Episode Thu, 01 Jun 2017 00:00:00 GMT 39:57 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/325464412 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9f6 G.G. Case + Patti Goldman G.G. Case + Patti Goldman Thu, 25 May 2017 05:22:10 GMT 1:06:23 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/324381952 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9f7 We lead off this week [start-34:40] with a roundt… Episode 5.1: Interview with James Williams Episode 5.1: Interview with James Williams Wed, 17 May 2017 00:00:00 GMT 42:15 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/323137826 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9f9 In our interview this week [available separately … <![CDATA[Episode 5.2: "Prosecuting The President FAQ"]]> Wed, 17 May 2017 00:00:00 GMT 42:23 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/323138356 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9f8 Our discussion segment this week contains an incr… 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. 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. Argument Recap Emergency Pod! Argument Recap Emergency Pod! Tue, 09 May 2017 00:00:00 GMT 36:45 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/321689695 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9fa <![CDATA["We're All Hypocrites" + Zachary Price]]> Thu, 04 May 2017 00:00:00 GMT 49:20 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/320851712 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9fb This week on Versus Trump, we start off with a pr… 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. 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. <![CDATA["Get Em Out!" + Richard Primus]]> Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:00:00 GMT 1:04:33 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/319676973 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9fc This week on Versus Trump, the Take Care podcast,… 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. 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. A New Sheriff In Town + Zephyr Teachout A New Sheriff In Town + Zephyr Teachout Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:00:00 GMT 1:00:24 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/318574417 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9fd On the inaugural episode, we start off with a qui… 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. 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. Versus Trump Preview Versus Trump Preview Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:00:00 GMT 1:32 tag:soundcloud,2010:tracks/317455802 yes https://shows.pippa.io/5a9765277d9cba4d2f811e75/5a97653b3ff26e976c27e9fe Listen to a sneak preview of Versus Trump, the po… 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! 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!