//  4/20/17  //  Latest Developments

Take Care is pleased to announce the release of a new, affiliated podcast called Versus Trump. Each episode of the new podcast will discuss the ways that the Trump Administration is breaking the law and what people are doing about it. Versus Trump will feature in-depth discussion and explanation of one or two topics and interviews with people who have unique perspectives on the fight against the Trump Administration. You can listen to the first episode here, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

We’ve got a great first episode for you. We begin the episode with an explainer about consent decrees, and then the hosts discuss whether Attorney General Sessions will be able to undo previous agreements that the Obama Administration entered into that have provided real paths forward to reform policing in big cities, and whether there is any hope for alternate routes to law enforcement oversight if the federal government gets out of the business of trying to supervise local police departments.

We also have an interview with Zephyr Teachout, a former Congressional and Gubernatorial candidate in New York and Professor at Fordham Law School. Zephyr is co-counsel to CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which has brought an important lawsuit against Donald Trump alleging that his business arrangements violate the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Zephyr came on the show to explain the history of the Emoluments Clause—going all the way back to Amsterdam in the 17th Century—and why President Trump’s failure to divest himself from his businesses poses a serious constitutional problem. It’s a fascinating interview and an important legal challenge, and we think you’ll really enjoy it.

And that’s just the first episode. Over the coming weeks and months, Versus Trump is going to keep you updated on efforts to challenge Trump Administration policy and practices. As Take Care readers know, each effort is important on its own merits: these challenges seek to preserve the environment, protect civil rights, or put a stop to religious discrimination, among others. But the continuing legal and political pushback to the Trump Administration’s actions is also important as a whole, to make sure the Trump Administration knows that it will be subject to the rule of law. On Versus Trump, we’ll try to understand both the individual issues and the big picture, and we’ll explain what’s going on in a way that we hope both lawyers and non-lawyers will find insightful and entertaining.

Versus Trump is hosted by Jason Harrow, a lawyer in Los Angeles and a former federal law clerk; Easha Anand, an appellate lawyer in San Francisco and a former clerk to Justice Sotomayor; and Charlie Gerstein, a civil rights lawyer in Washington, D.C., who has clerked for two federal judges. We hope you’ll give Versus Trump a listen and share it widely. You can also reach the podcast hosts @VersusTrumpPod on twitter or by email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. Please do reach out with questions, comments, and feedback.


Versus Trump: So, Can California Really Do That?

10/5/17  //  Commentary

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. Jason and Charlie ask each other whether California has the constitutional power to do that, and, if so, whether it's a good idea. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Versus Trump: [This Episode Blocked]

9/28/17  //  Commentary

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. Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

DOJ's Unconvincing New Definition of 'Emolument'

9/23/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The President's reply brief in CREW v. Trump offers a new (and flawed) definition of 'emoluments'

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law