On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we celebrate Independence Day with a look at the past, present, and future of judicial independence. Jason and Easha begin by explaining the origin of the federal judicial system in Article III of the Constitution and the early conflicts between the courts and Presidents. They then [at 9:45] discuss the unprecedented attacks that President Trump and his administration have made on individual judges and the legitimacy of the judicial system, and they wonder where it leads. Finally, [18:00-end] Easha and Jason get into something of a debate on whether Trump's actions may erode hard-earned judicial legitimacy and even judicial supremacy—or whether what some think of as virtually limitless judicial power and independence isn't quite as robust as it seems. The patriotic music on this week's episode was composed by John Philip Sousa, and the recordings are available royalty-free at musopen.org.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]. And wherever you stand on these issues, we hope you had a great Independence Day!

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

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we discuss a lurking issue with opposing Trump in upcoming elections: partisan gerrymandering. Charlie and Easha begin [at 1:50] by explaining the theory of partisan gerrymandering, which depends on one party doing something called “packing and cracking” the voters of other parties. Charlie and Easha then [at 8:45] dive into the Gil v. Whitford case and explain what happened in Wisconsin that gave rise to the lawsuit. They then move on [at 14:00] to trying to predict what the Supreme Court might do in the case and what the consequences would be of either striking down the Wisconsin map because it was the result of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, or of leaving the map as it stands and perhaps even getting courts out of the business of hearing these kinds of cases at all.The episode closes [at 31:10] with a quick update on the latest action in the Muslim travel ban case.Also, a note to regular listeners: this episode follows our new format of splitting up interviews from discussion episodes. We hope the new format makes the podcast easier to listen to and share. But please give us feedback if you have thoughts on this or any other aspect of the show.

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

On a new, interview-only episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Jason has an interview with Glenda Aldana Madrid, of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), about a case in which her organization has so far successfully blocked the Administration's attempt to curb the right to counsel in immigration courts.In the interview, Glenda first gives a background on her organization, which provides a full suite of pro bono immigration services to thousands of immigrants residing in Washington State. Jason and Glenda then discuss how the Trump Administration recently sent NWIRP a cease-and-desist letter demanding that they stop providing any legal assistance to people facing deportation, unless NWIRP submits a formal notice of appearance in immigration court and agrees to represent any immigrant for all purposes, for the duration of all litigation. As Glenda explains, pro bono organizations like hers do not have the resources to take on that level of representation with every person who requests help, so this cease-and-desist demand would seriously curb the ability of many immigrants to get legal advice during their immigration proceedings.Jason and Glenda then discuss the lawsuit her organization filed against the Administration. The lawsuit seeks to hold invalid the cease-and-desist letter and permit NWIRP and all similarly situated organizations to continue to provide immigration clients with various forms of legal assistance without the need to file a notice of appearance. They then discuss the grounds on which NWIRP won a temporary restraining order, why the Sessions DOJ may have sent such a letter, and what might be next in the case.This week's episode is interview-only, so there are no Trump Lumps or appearances by Charlie and Easha. But they'll be back next week!

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

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Easha, and Charlie begin with a background on the case of Lovitky v. Trump, in which an attorney named Jeffrey Lovitky has sued the President claiming that his financial disclosure form violated the Ethics in Government Act—which requires, among other things, candidates to disclose outstanding debts. We discuss Lovitky's argument and the five reasons the government has given that the case should be dismissed. Although the group agrees that Lovitky is unlikely to succeed on the suit as a whole, they conclude that it will be worth watching which specific arguments of the government the court thinks is strongest. [2:47-18:22].Next, Easha talks with Leah Litman, a law professor at of UC-Irvine in California. Leah discusses this week's decision on the ban from the Ninth Circuit, makes a few points about what might happen in the Supreme Court, and then gives her thoughts on the value of oral argument in high profile cases. [18:22-33:40]The episode concludes with a few quick Trump Lumps highlighting some other cases to watch out for. [33:40-end]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 a new episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss Congress's role and powers in investigations of the Executive [start-28:30] They start with a discussion of Congress's role and the powers it has to issue subpoenas, hear testimony, and gather facts in the course of investigations. They then turn to the upcoming testimony of former FBI Director James Comey and discuss executive privilege, and then discuss former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's invocation of the Fifth Amendment in response to a congressional request for information. Finally, the group discusses a recent Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Opinion concluding that the President and executive agencies are not obligated to respond to requests for information from individual members of Congress—only to requests from committees and Congress as a whole.Next, Jason interviews Steven Wu of the office of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman [28:30-1:01:30]. Jason and Steven discuss the fraud case against Trump University that his office brought several years ago and recently settled. They then discuss the role of states, progressive and conservative, in challenging federal policies that are adverse to the interests of citizens of states or the state's own interests. Finally, Jason asks Steven a few lightning round question about New York's role in debates about healthcare, climate change, and voting rights.The episode concludes with a few quick Trump Lumps and listener feedback. [1:01:30-end]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 a new episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Easha and Jason dig into healthcare for the first time. Easha and Jason open [start-10:55] with a summary of the history of payments to insurance companies and the claims by the Republican House of Representatives that so-called "cost-sharing reduction" payments were not properly appropriated in the Affordable Care Act. They next explain how the Trump Administration has failed to commit to making these payments to insurers for the remainder of the year, which has introduced substantial uncertainty into the healthcare market and lead to a major lawsuit. The two then turn [from 10:55-29:48] to an analysis of the merits of the challenge, and they also discuss whether the House of Representatives had a right to bring the lawsuit in the first place. Jason and Easha then drop a few Trump Lumps, and do quick hits regarding immigration rhetoric vs. action and drug testing for unemployment benefits. [29:50-end.]

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

We lead off this week [start-34:40] with a roundtable discussion of the G.G. case, which is a challenge to a public school's policy that requires students to use bathrooms that correspond to their "biological gender." In our interview segment [35:10-57:50], Charlie speaks with Patti Goldman, the managing attorney of EarthJustice's Seattle office. Patti discusses a legal challenge to the so-called "2-for-1" executive order, which requires agencies to repeal two regulations for every new regulation that is adopted. Our discussion segment closes with listener feedback, including our first voicemail! [57:50-end.] You can be caller number two: 505-333-8106.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.

In our interview this week [available separately as Episode 5.1], Jason discuss sanctuary cities with James Williams. James is the County Counsel of Santa Clara County in California, which has sued the Administration on the grounds that an executive order that purports to withhold funding from "sanctuary cities" is unconstitutional. James and Jason discuss the recent ruling in which a federal court agreed with his arguments and has temporarily barred the Trump Administration from enforcing the executive order. We also discuss the definition of a sanctuary city, how much money the executive order would withhold, and why the Department of Justice's litigation strategy does not match up with the President's own statements about the case.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.

Our discussion segment this week contains an increasingly relevant discussion of three Frequently Asked Legal Questions that the ongoing Comey scandal has raised. First, was the President legally allowed to fire FBI Director Comey? Second, now that Comey is gone, how can a special prosecutor or independent counsel be appointed to continue to the Russia investigation? [Note: this just happened. Our episode talks about the legal mechanism by which former FBI Director Mueller has just been appointed special prosecutor.] And third—and most speculatively—can a sitting President legally be indicted and stand trial in a criminal case? The answers may be surprising. [If you want to skip right to the main event, the discussion of the possible prosecution of the President starts at 18:09.]Our discussion segment closes with a Trump Lump about whether the President can be sued over appointing unqualified officials to high government office. [38:21-end.]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.

It's our first emergency podcast! Right after the full Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments in the Muslim Travel Ban appeal, the Versus Trump co-hosts hopped on the line to do a deep-dive into the argument. The podcast includes audio clips of many key moments from the oral argument audio.We start off by analyzing what happened when Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall got up to the podium to defend the travel ban [1:20-19:50]. We point out that the court was overwhelmingly populated by Democratic appointees, and they were not afraid to ask hard questions—like how the court could possibly ignore the President's repeated statements that he wanted to implement a Muslim ban. We thought that the Acting Solicitor General did his very best to offer up appealing reasons for upholding the ban, but we all thought that, as Charlie said, the SG made a fantastic argument "about a case that isn't this case." Ultimately, we doubt his arguments will hold up in light of the extraordinary and unusual clarity of the President's anti-Muslim rhetoric.We then break down the argument of plaintiff's counsel, Omar Jadwat of the ACLU, who was arguing that the Muslim travel ban was unconstitutional [19:50-30:30]. We wonder why Jadwat wasn't more forceful in pointing out how extraordinary and unusual this case is, and why he seemed to want to evade questions that could have been answered straightforwardly by pointing directly to the President's own clear, anti-Muslim statements. Still, given the strength of the plaintiffs' case and the left-leaning majority on the court, we predict that the court will agree with the plaintiffs, hold that the Muslim ban was unconstitutionally adopted, and continue to prohibit the federal government from enforcing the controversial executive order. We end with a few final thoughts and a prediction about how the case will come out. [30:30-end.]

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