Versus Trump

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&nb

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

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 discus

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 twit

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 woul

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. NotesThe annotated Dowd memo 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 obstru

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

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 w

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 e

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 Cir

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 tw

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 Dev

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 acknowledg

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 f

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 NotesA 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 au

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 s

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

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

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