Versus Trump

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss the Administration's drastic expansion of the number of companies that may now offer health insurance that does not cover birth control, as well as several lawsuits that were immediately filed challenging these new regulations. The discussion begins with a recap of the new interim final rules, which both greatly expand an existing, narrow exemption for religious organizations and also permit employers to exempt themselves from covering contraception by invoking a freestanding “moral objection" to offering coverage. Easha and Jason then discuss the three lawsuits that were immediately filed challenging the new regulations, and they walk through the four theories for why this new rule needs to be set aside: that it was not adopted with the proper procedure [at 10:30]; that it violates the First Amendment because it involves government favoring religion over non-religion [at 20:00]; that it violates the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminat

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

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

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

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

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

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we talk about web-hosting company Dreamhost's refusal to cooperate fully with the Trump Administration's broad request for information about the visitors to DisruptJ20.org, a website allegedly used by those involved in an Inauguration Day riot. We begin the episode [at 2:00] by discussing the background of the case. Over 200 people were charged in connection with an Inauguration Day riot in Washington, D.C., and, during the investigation, the U.S. Attorney obtained a warrant that ordered Dreamhost to turn over a vast collection of data about visitors to the website DisruptJ20.org. Dreamhost, however, pushed back against the broad scope of the warrant; as we discuss, the government later narrowed the request, but a court last week ordered Dreamhost to comply with the newly-narrowed warrant, though the court will continue to supervise the data collection. We next [at 6:00] discuss whether the Trump Administration's request was a break with earlier attitudes about the scop

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about the Trump Administration's position in a lawsuit contending that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—commonly known as the CFPB—is unconstitutional, because its sole director does not serve at the pleasure of the President but instead serves a set term and can be terminated only for-cause. We begin the episode [at 2:00] by explaining what the CFPB does and how it's structured as an independent agency with a single director that serves a 5-year term. We next [at 7:30] talk about the lawsuit PHH v. CFPB, in which a mortgage lender who was fined $109 million by the agency has challenged the fine because, among other reasons, the independence of the sole director from the President makes the entire agency's structure unconstitutional. We discuss the recent opinion from the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreeing with this conclusion, but we note that, as the case has continued before a larger panel of judges, the Tru

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

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

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason has an interview with Toby Merrill, the director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending at Harvard Law School, about several lawsuits she's involved with against newly-confirmed Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. We start our interview with a discussion of what for-profit colleges are and the problem Toby's Clinic is designed to solve. We then [at 10:30] talk about the first case she brought against the Administration, Dieffenbacher v. DeVos, which claims that the Department of Education has unduly delayed ruling on the plaintiff's application to cancel her federal student loans. We then [at 20:30] discuss a second case that Toby’s organization has filed against the Administration; this one claims that the Department of Education can’t indefinitely delay the effective date of a validly-adopted federal regulation, published in November of 2016, that would provide additional protections for students of for-profit colleges. Please share or provide feedback, and

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Easha discuss a newly-filed lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs who allege that Trump's campaign and Trump advisor Roger Stone conspired with Russians to disclose private information about the plaintiffs.Charlie and Easha begin by explaining the basic gist of the lawsuit, which is called Cockrum v. Trump Campaign, and they quickly turn to an in-depth discussion of each of the three particular theories of liability. The first theory they analyze [at 3:30] is public disclosure of private facts, and the two wonder whether certain key components of this tort are present in this case. They then quickly discuss the intentional infliction of emotional distress tort [at 8:30] before turning to an in-depth discussion of the past and present of the federal civil rights claim in the case [at 12:55].The episode closes [at 29:00] with several Trump Lumps, including thoughts on when screening questions at congressional town halls might violate the First Amendment and ho

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 vari

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Easha discuss the cases against Trump University, the global settlement that was reached, and whether the pending challenge by a lone objector can—or should—alter the result. Charlie and Easha dive right into the background of the cases, which were brought by both a class of individuals and the State of New York, claiming that Trump University was a fraudulent "educational" institution. They then [at 7:30] discuss the global settlement that was reached after Trump was elected, and they wonder what drove the settlement, whether it was a fair result, and whether the settlement was in the public interest. Easha and Charlie next discuss the pending appeal by Sherri Simpson, a lone objector seeking to opt-out of the settlement, and they are quite critical of Judge Curiel's reasoning in the opinion rejecting her claim. Finally, [24:30-end] Easha and Charlie wonder about some unusual aspects of this case and speculate about why everyone involved seems to think it b

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we celebrate Independence Day with a look at the past, present, and future of judicial independence. Jason and Easha begin by explaining the origin of the federal judicial system in Article III of the Constitution and the early conflicts between the courts and Presidents. They then [at 9:45] discuss the unprecedented attacks that President Trump and his administration have made on individual judges and the legitimacy of the judicial system, and they wonder where it leads. Finally, [18:00-end] Easha and Jason get into something of a debate on whether Trump's actions may erode hard-earned judicial legitimacy and even judicial supremacy—or whether what some think of as virtually limitless judicial power and independence isn't quite as robust as it seems. The patriotic music on this week's episode was composed by John Philip Sousa, and the recordings are available royalty-free at musopen.org.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @Versus

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 interv

On a new, interview-only episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Jason has an interview with Glenda Aldana Madrid, of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), about a case in which her organization has so far successfully blocked the Administration's attempt to curb the right to counsel in immigration courts.In the interview, Glenda first gives a background on her organization, which provides a full suite of pro bono immigration services to thousands of immigrants residing in Washington State. Jason and Glenda then discuss how the Trump Administration recently sent NWIRP a cease-and-desist letter demanding that they stop providing any legal assistance to people facing deportation, unless NWIRP submits a formal notice of appearance in immigration court and agrees to represent any immigrant for all purposes, for the duration of all litigation. As Glenda explains, pro bono organizations like hers do not have the resources to take on that level of representation with every person who requests help, s

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Easha, and Charlie begin with a background on the case of Lovitky v. Trump, in which an attorney named Jeffrey Lovitky has sued the President claiming that his financial disclosure form violated the Ethics in Government Act—which requires, among other things, candidates to disclose outstanding debts. We discuss Lovitky's argument and the five reasons the government has given that the case should be dismissed. Although the group agrees that Lovitky is unlikely to succeed on the suit as a whole, they conclude that it will be worth watching which specific arguments of the government the court thinks is strongest. [2:47-18:22].Next, Easha talks with Leah Litman, a law professor at of UC-Irvine in California. Leah discusses this week's decision on the ban from the Ninth Circuit, makes a few points about what might happen in the Supreme Court, and then gives her thoughts on the value of oral argument in high profile cases. [18:22-33:40]The episode concludes with a few quick

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss Congress's role and powers in investigations of the Executive [start-28:30] They start with a discussion of Congress's role and the powers it has to issue subpoenas, hear testimony, and gather facts in the course of investigations. They then turn to the upcoming testimony of former FBI Director James Comey and discuss executive privilege, and then discuss former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in response to a congressional request for information. Finally, the group discusses a recent Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Opinion concluding that the President and executive agencies are not obligated to respond to requests for information from individual members of Congress—only to requests from committees and Congress as a whole.Next, Jason interviews Steven Wu of the office of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman [28:30-1:01:30]. Jason and Steven discuss the fra

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Easha and Jason dig into healthcare for the first time. Easha and Jason open [start-10:55] with a summary of the history of payments to insurance companies and the claims by the Republican House of Representatives that so-called "cost-sharing reduction" payments were not properly appropriated in the Affordable Care Act. They next explain how the Trump Administration has failed to commit to making these payments to insurers for the remainder of the year, which has introduced substantial uncertainty into the healthcare market and lead to a major lawsuit. The two then turn [from 10:55-29:48] to an analysis of the merits of the challenge, and they also discuss whether the House of Representatives had a right to bring the lawsuit in the first place. Jason and Easha then drop a few Trump Lumps, and do quick hits regarding immigration rhetoric vs. action and drug testing for unemployment benefits. [29:50-end.] See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out inform