//  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 [email protected] 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.

A Tale of Two Neil Gorsuches

10/8/19  //  Quick Reactions

It seems just last month Justice Gorsuch was saying his rule was not to “make it up" and was to "follow the law.” The Title VII cases allow us to see whether that's the case.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

Could A Ruling Against LGBT Rights in Bostock Allow Employers to Discriminate on the Basis of Religion?

10/7/19  //  Commentary

Permitting employers to discriminate against LGBT employees would open to the door to the same kind of discrimination against millions of Americans of faith

Aaron Tang

UC Davis School of Law

Symposium on June Medical Services v Gee

10/4/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

June Medical Services v. Gee involves a Louisiana law that would require abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where they perform abortions. SCOTUS has granted review of the constitutionality of that law.

Take Care