//  2/28/19  //  Uncategorized

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha discuss a decision from a federal court in Los Angeles ordering the Government to grant citizenship to both children of a same-sex couple born abroad to one U.S. parent. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 

The trio dig into the little-known world of how children born abroad to U.S. parents are granted citizenship to understand whether the State Department has been discriminating against same-sex couples. Federal law says that children born abroad are citizens at birth if they are "born of parents," one of whom is a U.S. citizen. In the Dvash-Banks case, the parents are a married same-sex couple, one of whom is a U.S. citizen, but only one of two twins is genetically related to the U.S. citizen father. Under an obscure policy, the State Department granted citizenship to the genetically-related twin but denied it to the other twin—even though the U.S. citizen parent is the "parent" of both children. A federal judge in L.A. recently said this was incorrect and ordered that both children be granted citizenship.

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 opinion in the case is here.
  • We found this opinion through a nice recap by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern. That's here.
  • Easha mentioned this WaPo article and this excellent (and excellently-titled) law review article called "Friends With Benefits?"

Deferred Reaction To the Courts

6/22/20  //  Commentary

Democratic and Republican responses to the DACA decision illustrate the different focus the two parties put on the federal courts.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

Versus Trump: Easha's Back, To Talk Qualified Immunity and Police Reform

6/21/20  //  Commentary

On this week’s Versus Trump, Easha Anand makes her triumphant return to talk qualified immunity and police reform. The trio talk about the proposal to reform qualified immunity and debate whether that will do much. They then break down other new legal innovations in the various proposals and ask: is it enough to create new grounds for people to sue? Or are other reforms more important? Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

On Bill Stuntz, the Supreme Court’s (Sort of) Unanimous Opinion In Bostock, and the Relationship To Black Lives Matter

6/16/20  //  Commentary

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock, it's worth asking: Why has the law been so successful at improving the lives of gay people but much less successful at improving the lives of people of color?