This Week’s Episode: “We’re All Hypocrites” + Zachary Price
This week on Versus Trump, the Take Care podcast, we start off with a preview of the upcoming immigration executive order oral argument [1:20-28:00]. We talk about all the nitty gritty procedural hurdles plaintiffs will have to overcome to even get a court to hear their claims: Do they have standing? Can judges review immigration policy? And can a single court issue a nationwide order? We’ll have an an emergency podcast up first thing on Tuesday, May 9, the day after the oral argument, so stay tuned. Listen online below or at takecareblog.com/podcast, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.
After our discussion, Jason talks about reliance interests with Professor Zachary Price of the University of California, Hastings, College of Law [28:00-42:15]. Jason and Zach chat about what might happen if the Trump Administration reverses the Obama Administration’s policy of non-enforcement of certain federal laws governing marijuana possession and distribution, or if it attempts to undo the Obama Administration’s promise that children who arrived here as undocumented immigrants would not be deported. Could anyone sued by the Trump Administration under these laws raise a viable defense that they relied on prior promises that these laws wouldn’t be enforced? It’s a fascinating, important question. You can find Zach’s Take Care posts about reliance interests here and here, and here’s an upcoming law review article on the subject. (Zach’s also written about state standing, which we chat about in the first half of the show.)
We close with some Trump Nuggets (Trump Chunks?) [42:15-end], so stick around till the end of the show!
Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Here are links to some of the things we talked about this week.
[Disclosure: Co-host Jason Harrow is co-counsel on an amicus brief filed in support of plaintiffs in the Fourth Circuit.]