//  1/3/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha comment on several cases addressing whether the Trump Administration may legally expand the number of employers who do not need to provide insurance that includes coverage for contraception.  As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 

The trio start by doing a quick run-through of the many ups-and-downs of this controversial policy. They then turn to decisions from the Ninth Circuit and a court in Pennsylvania that stopped the Administration from implementing their proposed change that would expand the exemption from coverage. They note, however, that new rules are set to go into effect on January 14, so they opine on whether those rules may eventually become effective. 

They end with some promised listener feedback. Keep your emails coming!

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

  • The Ninth Circuit's decision in California v. Azar is here. The decision from EDPa in Pennsylvania v. Trump is here.
  • A very useful Health Affairs article about the California case is here.
  • Nick Bagley's excellent post on the legal issues around the forthcoming final rules is here, at The Incidental Economist.

Religious Discrimination And Racial Discrimination

6/30/20  //  Quick Reactions

The Court’s decision in Espinoza is similar to the trajectory of the law of racial discrimination in some respects, it also offers a striking contrast in others

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

June Medical As The New Casey

6/29/20  //  Quick Reactions

As in prior abortion cases, the Chief Justice gave abortion supporters a victory while at the same time laying the groundwork for much weaker protections for abortion rights.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

The DACA Decision is Trouble for Discrimination Law

6/24/20  //  Commentary

The Dreamers’ victory has been celebrated as a sign that the Court is above partisanship and willing to serve as a check on executive branch abuses. But the price of that victory was a defeat for the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

Jessica Clarke

Vanderbilt Law School