Versus Trump

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 @VersusT

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&

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

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

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss a new lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration's approval of Kentucky's new rules for its Medicaid program. The new rules will require some Medicaid recipients to work 20 hours per week to receive health benefits, and they also impose other novel requirements. Jason and Easha start with the basics: What is Medicaid, how do the states and the federal government interact, and what do states need to receive approval to deviate from the federal rules regarding Medicaid eligibility? That leads them directly to the key section of the Medicaid law, called Section 1115, which permits the federal government to approve any “experimental, pilot, or demonstration project” that is “likely to assist in promoting the objectives” of the Medicaid program. The two then break down—and disagree about—whether Kentucky's new program, which adds work requirements and other novel features to its state Medicaid program, fits into that definition. The episode with ends a pa

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

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss an unexpected recent opinion that held that Ravi Ragbir, an immigration activist and alien subject to deportation, had the "freedom to say goodbye" before he could be removed from this country. Charlie and Jason begin by discussing Ragbir's background and the nature of his immigration case, and they focus on the events of January 11, 2018, when Ragbir was taken into custody and put on a plane to be removed from the country with no specific advance warning. They then discuss the recent, surprising decision in Ragbir's lawsuit against the Trump Administration that held that he could not be deported and had to be released from custody because he has the "freedom to say goodbye" and get his affairs in order before the government can deport him. They discuss several possible theories that would provide legal support for this somewhat novel right, and disagree somewhat on the merits on the opinion. In their combined Trump nugget, they recommend Slate's exc

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss several lawsuits filed over President Trump's recent Proclamation that substantially cuts the size of two National Monuments: Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante, both in Utah. They begin the discussion by discussing what national monuments are, how they can be designated under the Anitiquities Act of 1906, and how the President decided to shrink the boundaries of these two national monuments. They discuss the argument in several recent lawsuits that the Antiquities Act permits a President to declare new land to be a national monument but does not permit the President to unilaterally remove that land from its proected status—and their respective positions on the merits of the suit may be somewhat surprising to regular listeners. They then update the status of the lawsuits and note that the government has moved to transfer all of these cases to a federal court in Utah. The episode ends with Trump nuggets about the volume of public

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

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

On the first episode of Versus Trump of 2018, Jason and Charlie look back at Versus Trump cases in 2017 and score them as Administration wins, losses, or not-yet-decided. They also look ahead at big issues to come in 2018.Charlie and Jason begin the discussion by evaluating the cases that fall in the "big case" bucket: litigation involving the Muslim Ban, the Emoluments Clause, military service by transgender people, the revised contraceptive mandate, and the attempt to revoke funding from sanctuary cities. Charlie and Jason score those cases as one Administration win, though with an appeal coming (Emoluments Clause); a clear Administration loss (transgender service); two Administration losses, though with an appeal or potential appeal (contraceptive mandate and sanctuary cities*); and one "it's complicated" (Muslim Ban). They then move on to other cases and issues discussed on the podcast in 2017. Finally, they look at the big picture and speculate about what the lessons of 2017 will mean for litigation in 2

On this week’s Versus Trump holiday spectacular, it's all judges, all the time. Charlie, Jason, and Easha take a closer look at a number of the President's judicial nominees—confirmed, pending, and withdrawn—to examine what might happen to Versus Trump cases in years to come.Charlie, Easha, and Jason begin the discussion with a quick overview of the structure of the federal court system and talk about the importance of Trump's nominations to the Court of Appeals and District Court. Charlie then starts off the discussion of individual judges by talking about confirmed appellate judges Joan Larsen and Stephanos Bibas, whom Charlie believes are fairly mainstream conservatives. Jason then brings up Matthew Peterson, a district court nominee who withdrew after being unable to answer basic questions about trial court procedure. Next, Easha offers up commentary on the confirmation process of former Notre Dame Law Professor Amy Barrett, before the group turns to the other two withdrawn nominees, Jeff Mateer and Brett

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

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha are joined by Take Care publisher Joshua Matz to talk about the Masterpiece Cake Shop oral argument, plus the status of Muslim Ban litigation and the future of Take Care. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard argument in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, which presents the question of whether a baker in Colorado may refuse to create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding even though Colorado prohibits retailers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Joshua Matz, who filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the same-sex couple, joins the podcast to help break down the argument. They talk first about the involvement of the Trump Administration and whether its legal position withstood questioning at the argument. They then analyze both the free speech and free exercise issues in the case, and they make some perhaps unexpected predictions about what the decision might be and how far its legal rule might reach.Next, just minutes a

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

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss a new lawsuit that forces courts to answer the question of whether the federal government needs a warrant to search people's cell phones and other electronic devices at the border, and they also [at 32:30] respond to a discussion on the Supreme Court podcast First Mondays regarding the government's recent filing in the Hargan v. Garza abortion case.First, Jason and Charlie tackle border searches of cell phones and laptops by discussing a new case filed by the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation called Alasaad v. Duke. The case was recently filed in Boston on behalf of several individuals who had their electronic devices searched when they returned to the U.S. from oversees. As Jason and Charlie note, the policies authorizing border searches without a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion of a crime were put in place in 2009 under President Obama—but the number of people whose electronic devices have been searched at the bord

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

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and special guest Professor David Sklansky discuss the first shoe to drop from the Mueller investigation: the indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and the guilty plea of George Papadopoulos. We begin [at 2:00] by describing the legal charges and the key factual takeaways from the charging documents. We're then [at 11:00] joined by Stanford Law Professor and former federal prosecutor David Sklansky to go in-depth on several key issues. We talk with David about the timing of the indictment and the guilty plea, whether Papadopoulos may have been an undercover cooperator, whether Manafort has any viable defenses or could plead guilty, and whether Mueller's job may be in jeopardy at some point down the road. Finally, Charlie and Jason resume their analysis [at 27:10] with a deep-cuts discussion of what these charges say about pretexutal prosecutions, and why Manafort is on house arrest while awaiting trial but many low-levels offenders around the count

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

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss the President's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the (so far unsuccessful) legal challenge to that pardon.The discussion begins with a quick discussion of why Arpaio was charged with criminal contempt in the first place, and how several outside organizations are trying to contest the validity of the pardon by asking the district court not to dismiss the case against Arpaio. Easha then [at 6:00] gives us an overview of the law regarding the scope of the President's power to pardon those individuals charged or convicted with federal crimes, and Charlie explains [at 10:00] what contempt is and why it may be a special kind of federal crime outside the president's pardon power. Jason, however, doesn't buy it, and a debate ensues. The discussion then turns [at 25:00] to other theories for why the pardon may not have been lawful, and there proves to be more agreement there. Finally, the group turns [at 36:00] to what's next in the case, includ