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 [email protected].

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

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 country are not.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 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, including a potential appeal of the trial court's decision to give effect to the pardon and dismiss the criminal case, and whether the president can prospectively pardon his associates. The episode ends with a couple of Trump nuggets about Governor Brown's veto of a bill we discussed a few weeks ago and a brief mention of the decision on Muslim Ban 3.0.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, 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 discriminates against women [at 28:30]; and that it exceeds the Administration's authority under the Affordable Care Act [at 35:00].The episode ends with a couple of Trump nuggets [at 40:00], including listener feedback about the twitter lawsuit and another update on what Steve Bannon is up to now that he has left the White House.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 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 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, 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 [email protected].

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

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 an email at [email protected].

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

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 additional protections for students of for-profit colleges. 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.