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 pair of Trump nuggets.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. And you can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo online at takecareblog.com/podcast

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

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 [email protected].

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 excellent podcast about Watergate, Slow Burn.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. And 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 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 opinions from the OLC and some new info about the now-disbanded voter fraud commission.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. And you can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo at takecareblog.com/podcast.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

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 [email protected]. And you can now buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo via our webstore! Check out takecareblog.com/podcast for more info.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

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 nuggets.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected].

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

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 2018.Also, thanks to all of the listeners who responsed to our holiday t-shirt offer. While that offer is now closed, stick with us in 2018 for more Versus Trump analysis and, maybe, another giveaway down the line.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected].* On sanctuary cities, we inititally goofed and said that Administration did not appeal. In fact, they did appeal, as we say in our last-minute insert. Sorry for the confusion!

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

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 Talley, and compares them to several other judges whose confirmations appear to be going smoothly. They end the episode with their big takeaways from the first year of nominations.There's also a surprise holiday offer to our listeners at the end of the episode. You can direct message us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected] if you'd like to respond.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

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 provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected].

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

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 after the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in a case about Muslim Ban 3.0, Joshua and Easha offer some quick takes on what happened there and what the Supreme Court's recent denial of a stay portends. Finally, Joshua discusses the past and future of Take Care.As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. LinksThe oral argument transcript in Masterpiece Cakeshop is here. The oral argument audio will be posted here on December 8, 2017.Additional Take Care commentary on the case is here.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.