//  10/25/18  //  Commentary

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie talk about a new lawsuit by a group of journalists (filed by the legal group Protect Democracy) that hopes to stop President Trump from threatening adverse government action against those who criticize him. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 

They start the conversation by discussing the background of the claims in the creative new lawsuit. The suit lists several adverse actions the President has taken against those people who have offered what he views as negative coverage of him—for instance, potentially raising Amazon's postage rates in response to perceived negative coverage by the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post—and requests an injunction from prohibiting the President from taking similar retaliatory action against those critical of the Administration. Charlie and Jason then ask: does a group of journalists have standing to make this claim? If so, will they win? And even if they have a good legal claim, can get the injunction they want?

The duo then updates the Wilbur Ross deposition issue they've been following closely and end with a Versus Trump constitutional trivia question. Know the answer? Email versustrumppodcast@gmail.com.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here

Notes

  • Protect Democracy's case page for the case is here. It contains links to the Complaint and other info on the case.
  • The Supreme Court's order related to the Ross deposition is here.

Pennsylvania Legislators Invite Some Extra SCOTUS Chaos this Election season

9/29/20  //  In-Depth Analysis

Pennsylvania's Senate leadership has filed an emergency application at the Supreme Court that misreads the Elections Clause and invites electoral chaos

Justin Levitt

Loyola Law School

Freeing Purcell from the Shadows

9/27/20  //  In-Depth Analysis

The Supreme Court will soon hear a flood of election-related cases, yet one if its most important doctrines for deciding these cases remains remarkably opaque. So I will try to unpack and explain it.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos

Harvard Law School

Versus Trump: Blurring Public and Private Conduct

9/17/20  //  In-Depth Analysis

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss two new legal filings by the Trump DOJ that blur the line between the President as government official and the President as private citizen. In the first case, the government argues that the President's twitter feed is not an official public forum, so he can block people with whom he disagrees. In the second, the government argues that the President's denials that he sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll were made in his official capacity as President. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps