Versus Trump

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha recap the year that was and offer some themes and predictions.The trio start with a massive lightning round of updates. If you're wondering what happened to all those cases you heard about earlier in the year, you'll find out here. They then offer up a few themes and then get into 2019 predictions, hot takes, and even a resolution or two. Thanks for a great year, listeners! We'll be back with more in 2019...You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss Friday's unexpected ruling that the current version of the Affordable Care Act—that is, Obamacare—is unconstitutional and must be entirely struck down. Jason and Charlie first discuss the nature of the case and wonder whether anyone actually has standing to bring this claim, though they are less skeptical than some others that there is no standing here. They then briefly discuss the constitutional merits and agree that the mandate is technically unconstitutional under the first Obamacare Supreme Court case. But what happens next? Both Jason and Charlie are skeptical that the whole law must fall, as the court held.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesThe ruling in Texas v. U.S. is here.Take Care contributor Nick Bagley's piece on standing

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss the Trump Administration's fondness for Court-hopping: that is, taking matters directly to the Supreme Court without waiting for the usual appellate process to conclude. Jason and Easha first discuss the inside baseball of the way appeals normally work, which leads them to a discussion of cert. before judgment—that is, when the Supreme Court takes a case before it's had the normal appellate review, which usually means two levels. They then look at a few instances of the Supreme Court asking for this unusual form of review: two DACA cases and the transgender ban case. They wonder whether this new practice will have long-term impacts on the government's relationship with the Court. And then they talk about the census case, in which the Administration repeatedly asked for emergency relief from the Supreme Court—and, after not finding too much early success, got the Supreme Court to review an important issue on an expedited b

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 su

Versus Trump is a podcast where we discuss how the Trump Administration is breaking the law, and what people are doing about it. Listen in the player below or directly on Pippa, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.Versus Trump is hosted by Jason Harrow, Easha Anand, and Charlie Gerstein. You can listen to previous episodes, and access archived show notes, here. And you can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.On this week's episode, Easha and Charlie discuss a recent challenge by immigration groups to the Trump administration's new attempt to bar asylum claims by refugees who entered the United States without crossing a border checkpoint. Turns out that . . . the Trump administration should lose, and it did. But Easha offers some great--and new to Charlie--background on immigration law, and the two of them discuss why this case is, indeed, as easy as it looks.Charlie mentions an article by Sara

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 fin

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. NotesMaryland's Motion in Maryland v. US is here. The government's legal opinion on Whitaker's appointment, which was released after the episode was taped, is here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

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 Cha

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'v

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 su

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 furt

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 ne

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. NotesJosh Gerstein's Politico article about the guilty plea is here.The plea agreement is here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

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.Yo

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. NotesThe Sixth Circuit's decison in the case determining whether Trump could be held liable for incitement of violence at a 2016 rally is here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

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 outrage

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 commen

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. NotesThe Administrati

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 fi

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 thi