//  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 versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. 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: The ACA's Still Here...

2/7/19  //  Uncategorized

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss last month's federal court decision holding that Maryland could not proceed in its lawsuit that sought a declaration that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and must be enforced. Listen now!

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Korematsu And The Entry Ban (Again)

2/4/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Recently revealed errors in the report that the administration created pursuant to the second entry ban further underscore the parallels between Korematsu v. United States and the entry ban.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The National Emergencies Act Is Not a Blank Check

2/1/19  //  Uncategorized

The National Emergencies Act doesn't give the President unlimited power to declare a national emergency even when no emergency exists

Brianne J. Gorod

Constitutional Accountability Center