On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss last month's federal court decision holding that Maryland could not proceed in its lawsuit that sought a declaration that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and must be enforced. 

Easha and Jason start by explaining the unusual lawsuit, which is the inverse of the more widely-reported case Texas v. United States. In Texas, red states are seeking to strike down the ACA; in Maryland, that state is trying to uphold it. But, as they explain, a district court a few weeks held that Maryland could not proceed because, despite the Administration's hostility to the ACA, it does continue to be enforced (at least in meaningful part), so the court held there was no live case or controversy. After breaking this finding down, Easha and Jason turn to some listener feedback about shifting positions of the government.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• The decision in Maryland v. U.S. is here.

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

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Easha, and Charlie discuss recent developments in Juliana v. U.S., a long-running case where young people claim that the federal government's inaction on climate change violates their right to live in a habitable world in the future. 

They start by stating the unusual claims and then discuss the threshold issue of whether a court could actually give them the relief they seek: a declaration that they government has violated their rights and, possibly, an order requiring some kind of action on climate change. They then get philosophical and discuss whether there is a constitutional right to a future habitable world and whether the government has violated that right by taking minimal action to curb carbon emissions. They end with a few more technical thoughts about the case.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• All of the legal documents in this case can be found at the excellent case page here.

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

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason asks Charlie to take us through the mammothly long, massively important opinion from the Southern District of New York invalidating the proposed citizenship question on the 2020 Census.  

Jason starts by asking Charlie to lay out the background of the case and then take us through the highlights of the 277-page opinion in New York v. Dep't of Commerce. He talks about the factual findings about how damaging the question would be for response rates, and then gets into several reasons the court found the addition of the question was either contrary to law or arbitrary. They then discuss why the court did not accept the plaintiffs' constitutional claims—but why that may be a good thing. They end, as usual, with listener feedback. (Note: we apologize for the poor audio quality on this episode; everyone is on the road this week!)

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• The opinion is here.

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

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha hit three topics: the mysterious case of the subpoena to a foreign corporation that may be related to the Mueller investigation; the nomination of William Barr as Attorney General; and the temporal nature of an emergency, as prompted by live listener feedback.  

The trio start by quickly discussing the mysterious subpoena case, and Easha gives us inside baseball on the usual process for securing a stay at the Supreme Court. The trio then comment quickly on Barr's nomination and his bizarre, unsolicited memo that reveals some of his thoughts about the Muller investigation. Finally, listener Ross Harrow (Jason's brother) comes into the Versus Trump studio and asks whether it's plausible that emergencies can really take a very long time to solve. 

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• Easha mentioned Marty Lederman's post on Just Security about the Barr memo. It's here.
• Charlie mentioned the Green Bag's writings on in-chambers opinions by single Supreme Court justices. See here, especially the introductory essays.

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

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha bring you a shutdown special, where they talk about the President's emergency powers as well as a lawsuit contending the government is violating federal labor law by not paying workers on time. 

The episode starts with a discussion of the President's claim that he can use emergency powers to build the wall without Congress's appropriation. They discuss the law of emergencies and the specific laws that might authorize a wall and decide that it's a surprisingly close question. Next, they delve into a lawsuit filed in the Court of Federal Claims contending that the Fair Labor Standards Act requires on-time payments for work done by most government employees, and they explain the consequences of the government's violation of this law. They end with listener feedback. 

Notes

• As noted at Lawfare, there are currently at least 28 national emergencies. See here. 
• Lawfare has an excellent Q and A on emergency powers here and a detailed overview here.
• A website about litigation related to a prior shutdown is here. The recently filed FLSA complaint is here.

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

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha comment on several cases addressing whether the Trump Administration may legally expand the number of employers who do not need to provide insurance that includes coverage for contraception. 

The trio start by doing a quick run-through of the many ups-and-downs of this controversial policy. They then turn to decisions from the Ninth Circuit and a court in Pennsylvania that stopped the Administration from implementing their proposed change that would expand the exemption from coverage. They note, however, that new rules are set to go into effect on January 14, so they opine on whether those rules may eventually become effective. 

They end with some promised listener feedback. Keep your emails coming!

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• The Ninth Circuit's decision in California v. Azar is here. The decision from EDPa in Pennsylvania v. Trump is here.
• A very useful Health Affairs article about the California case is here.
• Nick Bagley's excellent post on the legal issues around the forthcoming final rules is here, at The Incidental Economist.

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

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha recap the year that was and offer some themes and predictions.

The trio start with a massive lightning round of updates. If you're wondering what happened to all those cases you heard about earlier in the year, you'll find out here. They then offer up a few themes and then get into 2019 predictions, hot takes, and even a resolution or two. 

Thanks for a great year, listeners! We'll be back with more in 2019...

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. 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 this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss Friday's unexpected ruling that the current version of the Affordable Care Act—that is, Obamacare—is unconstitutional and must be entirely struck down.

Jason and Charlie first discuss the nature of the case and wonder whether anyone actually has standing to bring this claim, though they are less skeptical than some others that there is no standing here. They then briefly discuss the constitutional merits and agree that the mandate is technically unconstitutional under the first Obamacare Supreme Court case. But what happens next? Both Jason and Charlie are skeptical that the whole law must fall, as the court held.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• The ruling in Texas v. U.S. is here.
• Take Care contributor Nick Bagley's piece on standing in The Atlantic is here.
• Jason mentioned a Cato post criticizing the decision. That's here.
• Abbe Gluck's post about what the ACA contains is here.

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

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss the Trump Administration's fondness for Court-hopping: that is, taking matters directly to the Supreme Court without waiting for the usual appellate process to conclude. 

Jason and Easha first discuss the inside baseball of the way appeals normally work, which leads them to a discussion of cert. before judgment—that is, when the Supreme Court takes a case before it's had the normal appellate review, which usually means two levels. They then look at a few instances of the Supreme Court asking for this unusual form of review: two DACA cases and the transgender ban case. They wonder whether this new practice will have long-term impacts on the government's relationship with the Court. And then they talk about the census case, in which the Administration repeatedly asked for emergency relief from the Supreme Court—and, after not finding too much early success, got the Supreme Court to review an important issue on an expedited basis.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• The duo mentioned a 2011 SCOTUSblog post by Kevin Russell talking about cert. before judgment. That's here.
• Cases mentioned in this episde include two DACA cases (here and here) and the transgender ban case (here).

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

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, the gang is re-united, and they discuss the Supreme Court motion contending that Matthew Whitaker was not legally appointed as Acting Attorney General.

Jason, Easha, and Charlie finally get a chance to do a three-person pod, and they use it to discuss Michaels v. Whitaker (or Rosenstein?). In this case, a Supreme Court petitioner has filed a motion to substitute Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein as Acting Attorney General instead of Matthew Whitaker, whom Trump designated, on the ground that Whitaker's appointment is illegal. The gang discuss the statutory law governing appointments as well as the impact of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. They then wonder whether the Supreme Court may take up the issue directly or whether the question is more likely to first work its way through lower courts.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected]. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. 

Notes

• SCOTUSblog's case page is here. That page links to the motion to substitute, the response, the reply, and the amicus brief that Easha mentioned.

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