//  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.

 


Attacking North Korea Would Be Illegal

8/10/17  //  Commentary

President Trump threatened this week to launch "fire and fury like the world has never seen" against North Korea. That is not something the Constitution lets him do without Congress.

Zachary Price

U.C. Hastings College of the Law

Versus Trump: Quick Hits

8/10/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we bring you a quick-hitting episode with multiple Trump Nuggets about such topics as the nomination of a non-scientist to a "chief scientist" position, a defamation suit that alleges collusion between the White House and Fox News, and a misplaced "only" that could change the meaning of a bill. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Easha Anand

San Francisco

The Functions and Potential (but Fixable) Flaws of the “Protect Mueller” Bills

8/7/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The bills to protect the special counsel from removal have some rough spots that can and should be worked out.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law