//  3/8/18  //  Commentary

UPDATE: We've now published this episode, and you can listen on iTunes or in the player below. Sorry for the delay!

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss a recent district court opinion that rejected California's challenge to the Trump Administration's expedited border wall projects in California. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

They start the episode by discussing the boringly-named but legally-interesting opinion in In Re: Border Infrastructure Environmental Litigation. As they explain, the plaintiffs in this case are California and several environmental groups, and all have challenged the Trump Administration's waiver of state and federal environmental laws in order to allow the federal government to build new border fencing in Southern California. After recapping the case, they mention the politics in the background, including the unique fact that the judge who ruled in favor of the Trump Administration—Judge Gonzalo Curiel—was previously demeaned by Trump during the campaign. The trio then grapple with the argument that Secretary of Homeland Security acted without any legal authority at all and move on to several consitutional challenges that the plaintiffs lost on. Easha also brings up an argument not made in the case: that the Secretary's actions were motivated by anti-Mexican animus. The episode ends with a few Trump nuggets.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at [email protected] And you can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

Links

  • The opinion in the case is here. (All 101 pages of it.)
  • Jason's Trump nugget is about a trial that just started in Kansas over the state's new requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote. High Plains Public Radio has excellent updates from the courtroom here
  • Easha mentioned the new lawsuit by DOJ against California over the state's alleged defiance of federal immigration laws. More info on that is here. We'll cover the case soon in detail.

Versus Trump: An Impeachment Primer...

10/3/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Gotcha! No impeachment dessert until you eat your immigration broccoli. On this week’s Versus Trump, Easha (back from parental leave!) and Charlie (just starting parental leave) discuss two immigration losses for the Trump administration. The first concerns Trump’s attempts to roll back court-ordered protections for migrant children; the second, Trump’s attempt to subject more immigrants to expedited removal. Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

The Supreme Court’s Indefinite Immigration Detentions Of Children And Families

10/1/19  //  Commentary

How the Supreme Court facilitated DHS’s plan to indefinitely detain minors and their families.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

Same Flores Song, Different Verse

9/30/19  //  Commentary

Judge Gee’s earlier ruling on DOJ’s “application for relief” from the Flores settlement makes clear why her recent ruling invalidating DHS’s new regulation is correct.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School