//  1/4/18  //  Uncategorized

On the first episode of Versus Trump of 2018, Jason and Charlie look back at Versus Trump cases in 2017 and score them as Administration wins, losses, or not-yet-decided. They also look ahead at big issues to come in 2018.

Charlie and Jason begin the discussion by evaluating the cases that fall in the "big case" bucket: litigation involving the Muslim Ban, the Emoluments Clause, military service by transgender people, the revised contraceptive mandate, and the attempt to revoke funding from sanctuary cities. Charlie and Jason score those cases as one Administration win, though with an appeal coming (Emoluments Clause); a clear Administration loss (transgender service); two Administration losses, though with an appeal or potential appeal (contraceptive mandate and sanctuary cities*); and one "it's complicated" (Muslim Ban). They then move on to other cases and issues discussed on the podcast in 2017. Finally, they look at the big picture and speculate about what the lessons of 2017 will mean for litigation in 2018.

Also, thanks to all of the listeners who responsed to our holiday t-shirt offer. While that offer is now closed, stick with us in 2018 for more Versus Trump analysis and, maybe, another giveaway down the line.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.

As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

* On sanctuary cities, we inititally goofed and said that Administration did not appeal. In fact, they did appeal, as we say in our last-minute insert. Sorry for the confusion!

Links

  • Details on the status of "Big Five" cases:
    • An analysis of the opinion in the Emoluments Clause case is here.
    • The latest on the contraception mandate is here.
    • The news that the Administration is not appealing the courts' rejection of the the transgender military ban is here.
    • The latest decision in the travel ban case is discussed here. More to come in 2018 on that one.
    • The latest news on the sanctuary cities case is here.
  • Other links:
    • The decision about the International Entrepreneur Rule is here. The Administration's "yeah, it's over" press release is here.
    • The latest on the voter fraud commission is here. News about EPIC's lawsuit is here.
    • News about the seeming end of the Arpaio pardon case is here.
    • The encouraging news that Justice Kennedy has hired law clerks for next Term is here.

Disestablishing the Mother

5/20/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Artificial reproductive technology might disestablish the traditional ideas of maternity on which abortion law and discourse rests

Courtney Cahill

FSU College of Law

Race, Class, and Challenges to Abortion Restrictions

5/17/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Race and class are intricately entwined with laws like the Hyde Amendment, and no advocacy on the issue can ignore this fact

David S. Cohen

Thomas R. Kline School of Law

The Constitutionality of the 5-5-5 Supreme Court Plan

5/17/19  //  Commentary

It would be constitutional to have a 15-person Supreme Court consisting of five Republican-affiliated justices, five Democratic-affiliated Justices, and five more justices unanimously selected by the first ten from judges of the federal court of appeals for a single-year term

Daniel Epps

Washington University Law School

Ganesh Sitaraman

Vanderbilt Law School