//  1/18/18  //  Commentary

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss the big decision that forced the Trump Administration to restart the DACA immigration program. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

They begin the discussion by summarizing the lawsuit over the revocation of DACA. They then to turn four buckets of issues in the district court's two opinions (here, ordering the Administration to restore DACA, and here, denying in part the government's motion to dismiss). For buckets one and two, they discuss whether DACA is a decision that is "committed to agency discretion" or whether it's a broad policy, and then they delve into the Administration's argument that it had to revoke DACA because the Obama Administration's creation of the program was illegal. They then [at 35:00] move on to buckets three and four and talk about whether this revocation was motivated by discrimination and whether DACA recipients should be able to argue that the government cannot revoke the program because they've already relied on it.

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

  • Judge Alsup issued two opinions in the case called Regents of the University of California v. US Dep't of Homeland Security. The first is here, and it orders the Administration to restore DACA. The second is here, and it denied in part the government's motion to dismiss.
  • Zach Price's commentary on Take Care is here.
  • An October post at Balkinization by Adam Cox, Marty Lederman, and Cristina Rodriguez that summarizes the revocation and outlines the "arbitrary and capricious" argument the court followed is here.
  • The latest on the government's plan to appeal directly to the Supreme Court is here.

The Affordable Care Act Does Not Have An Inseverability Clause

11/5/20  //  In-Depth Analysis

Contrary to challengers’ claim, Congress nowhere directed the Supreme Court to strike down the entire ACA if the individual mandate is invalidated. Congress knows how to write an inseverability directive, and didn’t do it here. That, combined with Congress’s clear actions leaving the ACA intact and the settled, strong presumption in favor of severability, make this an easy case for a Court that is proud of its textualism.

Abbe R. Gluck

Yale Law School

Versus Trump: The Law Headed Into The Election

11/2/20  //  Commentary

Will this be the last Versus Trump before Trump loses reelection? Who knows, but, on this week’s episode, Jason and Charlie discuss key theories that will shape which votes count. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Versus Trump: Versus The Post Office

10/15/20  //  In-Depth Analysis

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie are joined by Matthew Seligman of Public Citizen to discuss several lawsuits—including one in which he is counsel, NAACP v. USPS—where plaintiffs have challenged the cuts by the postal service that may slow down election mail. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps