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.

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we talk about web-hosting company Dreamhost's refusal to cooperate fully with the Trump Administration's broad request for information about the visitors to DisruptJ20.org, a website allegedly used by those involved in an Inauguration Day riot. We begin the episode [at 2:00] by discussing the background of the case. Over 200 people were charged in connection with an Inauguration Day riot in Washington, D.C., and, during the investigation, the U.S. Attorney obtained a warrant that ordered Dreamhost to turn over a vast collection of data about visitors to the website DisruptJ20.org. Dreamhost, however, pushed back against the broad scope of the warrant; as we discuss, the government later narrowed the request, but a court last week ordered Dreamhost to comply with the newly-narrowed warrant, though the court will continue to supervise the data collection. We next [at 6:00] discuss whether the Trump Administration's request was a break with earlier attitudes about the scope of warrants for collection of electronic data. That leads us [at 24:00] into a discussion of the merits of the so-called two-step process of electronic data search and seizure, according to which government agencies are allowed to sift through large collections of electronic data and discard irrelevant information. The episode concludes [at 34:00] with Trump nuggets about Carl Icahn and Joe Arpaio.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 talk about the Trump Administration's position in a lawsuit contending that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—commonly known as the CFPB—is unconstitutional, because its sole director does not serve at the pleasure of the President but instead serves a set term and can be terminated only for-cause. We begin the episode [at 2:00] by explaining what the CFPB does and how it's structured as an independent agency with a single director that serves a 5-year term. We next [at 7:30] talk about the lawsuit PHH v. CFPB, in which a mortgage lender who was fined $109 million by the agency has challenged the fine because, among other reasons, the independence of the sole director from the President makes the entire agency's structure unconstitutional. We discuss the recent opinion from the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreeing with this conclusion, but we note that, as the case has continued before a larger panel of judges, the Trump Administration has now switched sides and has argued that the structure of the agency is indeed unconstitutional. We then move on to other issues this case raises, such as why President Trump has been reluctant to closely control even executive agencies [at 15:05] and whether the structure of the agency poses a threat to individual liberty [at 26:30].The episode concludes [at 35:35] with a Trump nugget about the limits of the First Amendment.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, we have an interview about voting laws and litigation with former Hillary for America General Counsel and current voting rights superlawyer Marc Elias. First [at 2:00], Charlie and Marc discuss what it's like to deal with litigation while on a political campaign or from within the government. They then move on [at 7:00] to a discussion of the big legal issues of the 2018 campaign season, including litigation over a variety of recent measures that have restricted voting in Republican-controlled states such as voter ID laws [15:00]. Marc and Charlie then [at 23:00] discuss the recent reversal of the federal government's legal position in a voting rights case from Ohio, and that leads into a discussion about the institutional role of the Office of the Solicitor General more broadly. The interview ends [at 30:00] with a discussion of modern redistricting and gerrymandering, and Marc discusses the various theories the Supreme Court might use to invalidate unconstitutionally gerrymandered maps.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, we bring you a quick-hitting episode with multiple Trump Nuggets. Jason starts off by providing an update on news about Versus Trump’s favorite unqualified agricultural advisor to President Trump, Sam Clovis, a non-scientist who has been nominated to be "chief scientist" of the Agriculture Department.Easha [at 7:50] then discusses a new lawsuit called Wheeler v. Fox News, which alleges that Fox News collaborated with the White House to push a false story that the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich was somehow related to Rich’s alleged contact with WikiLeaks. She also corrects one aspect of our earlier discussion of another case, Cockrum v. Trump Campaign.Charlie concludes the episode [at 16:45] by discussing a potential grammatical mistake that could change the meaning of a proposed bill that is intended to provide additional protection for Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating the links between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government. 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 has an 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 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 10:30] 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 20:30] 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.

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Easha discuss a newly-filed lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs who allege that Trump's campaign and Trump advisor Roger Stone conspired with Russians to disclose private information about the plaintiffs.Charlie and Easha begin by explaining the basic gist of the lawsuit, which is called Cockrum v. Trump Campaign, and they quickly turn to an in-depth discussion of each of the three particular theories of liability. The first theory they analyze [at 3:30] is public disclosure of private facts, and the two wonder whether certain key components of this tort are present in this case. They then quickly discuss the intentional infliction of emotional distress tort [at 8:30] before turning to an in-depth discussion of the past and present of the federal civil rights claim in the case [at 12:55].The episode closes [at 29:00] with several Trump Lumps, including thoughts on when screening questions at congressional town halls might violate the First Amendment and how the Administration is enforcing immigration law in local prostitution diversion courts.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, we discuss the litigation against the newly-created Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, that has Kansas Secretary of State—and repeat defendant in voting rights litigation—Kris Kobach as its now-infamous Vice Chair. We begin by explaining the creation of the Commission, which has a stated goal of “reviewing the integrity of elections in order to protect and preserve the principle of one person, one vote.” But, as we note, many people think the Commission is little more than a front to deliver a report detailing potentially exaggerated risks of voter fraud, and that report could then provide a basis to enact legislation that could make it substantially more difficult for many Americans to register and vote. We then [at 8:00] discuss a major lawsuit claiming that the Commission’s request for information from states about hundreds of millions of voters violates privacy laws, and we wonder where the litigation might go. Next [at 22:00], we discuss a variety of other lawsuits against the Commission, including those claiming it violates transparency laws, that its entire existence is suffused with racial discrimination, and that Kobach violated a federal prohibition on using his office to promote his candidacy for governor of Kansas.The episode closes [at 34:00] with a quick reflection on one of Jason’s favorite passages from the Declaration of Independence.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 Easha discuss the cases against Trump University, the global settlement that was reached, and whether the pending challenge by a lone objector can—or should—alter the result. Charlie and Easha dive right into the background of the cases, which were brought by both a class of individuals and the State of New York, claiming that Trump University was a fraudulent "educational" institution. They then [at 7:30] discuss the global settlement that was reached after Trump was elected, and they wonder what drove the settlement, whether it was a fair result, and whether the settlement was in the public interest. Easha and Charlie next discuss the pending appeal by Sherri Simpson, a lone objector seeking to opt-out of the settlement, and they are quite critical of Judge Curiel's reasoning in the opinion rejecting her claim. Finally, [24:30-end] Easha and Charlie wonder about some unusual aspects of this case and speculate about why everyone involved seems to think it best not to take this case to trial while Trump is president. 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.