On a new episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss a lawsuit against the President that's been brought by a D.C. gadfly who claims that Trump did not provide sufficient detail on the financial disclosure form he submitted as a candidate. Then, Easha talks with Leah Litman, a professor at UC-Irvine and a contributor to this blog, about the status of the Muslim ban litigation and the role of oral advocacy in this and other high-profile cases. As usual, you can listen online below or at takecareblog.com/podcast, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.
The episode begins, after a bit of housekeeping, 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]
Lovitky v. Trump