,
 //  6/15/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

On a new episode of Versus TrumpTake 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]

Listen online below or at takecareblog.com/podcast, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.

Links

Lovitky v. Trump

  • The complaint in the case is here.
  • The government's motion to dismiss is here.
  • Josh Gerstein of Politico has written several articles about this case, including this one on its initial filing and this one when the government moved to dismiss.

Leah Litman

  • The Ninth Circuit's decision in the Muslim Ban case is here.
  • SCOTUSblog's coverage of the case in the Supreme Court is here.
  • Our earlier podcast episode discussing the advocacy in the Fourth Circuit is here.
  • Leah Litman's writings on the case at Take Care are here.

Trump Lumps

  • The government's motion to dismiss in the New York emoluments case is here. There are now several other emoluments clause cases, which are organized here at Take Care.
  • Jason mentioned there is a case filed in New York State court, where the President claims he is immune from suit. That's discussed here.
  • The President's motion to dismiss in a conflicts-of-interest suit under D.C. common law is here
  • Easha mentioned a partisan gerrymandering case called Gill v. Whitford, which is here.
  • She also mentioned Jared Kushner's "gerrymandering" using a program called EB-5. Details of that are here.

 


More on the Unprincipled Nature of the Senate: Further Conversation with Professor Dorf

11/28/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

To persuade people that the Senate makes no sense, it’s necessary to shoot down a lot of possible defenses of the existing system

Richard Primus

University of Michigan Law School

Thoughts on Roberts and Trump

11/26/18  //  Quick Reactions

We have at once a highly political appointment process and a strong judicial ethos of being above politics.

Zachary Price

U.C. Hastings College of the Law

Versus Trump: Versus Whitaker (JH solo)

11/15/18  //  Uncategorized

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason has a solo episode where he talks about a motion by Maryland contending that Matthew Whitaker was not legally appointed as Acting Attorney General. Listen now!

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens