//  5/17/18  //  Commentary

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Charlie, and Jason discuss a series of recent rulings that have stopped the Trump Administration from revoking federal grants to entities that have been working to reduce teen pregnancy. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 

They start the episode by discussing the creation of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program in 2010, and then they explain how the Trump Administration last summer stopped renewing grants that were supposed to last until 2020. They then analyze the recent rulings that have found the Trump Administration's actions to have been arbitrary or contrary to the rules of the Department of Health and Human Services. That leads to a larger discussion about the ability of new administrations to reverse rules and policies of prior administrations.

The episode ends with a round of Trump nuggets about lawyer misconduct and new—and then revoked—rules from the Bureau of prisons. And then they turn to listener feedback and respond to several listener questions and comments.

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. And, of course, we'll be live and on stage at the ACS National Convention on the afternoon Saturday, June 9, at the Capitol Hilton! You can find our more information and register here. More details to come on who are our special guests will be.

Notes

  • You can find our more information and register here for the ACS National Convention. Join us!
  • The Maryland decision can be found here. The D.C. decision is here.
  • Reveal has done excellent reporting on this issue. One recent article is here.
  • Jason mentioned this article at NBC News that details how political appointees who are abstince-only advocates overruled career staff at HHS on this issue.

A Tainting of Judicial Independence

10/8/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

Kavanaugh's potential perjury means that his seat on the Court may depend on continuing Republican control in Congress. This is plainly inconsistent with any account of judicial independence.

Tom Ginsburg

University of Chicago Law School

Aziz Huq

University of Chicago Law School

The 'All of the Above' Approach to Justice Kavanaugh

10/7/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

Do progressives give up on the Court? Declare war on it? Pretend nothing has changed? Each of us will have to decide for ourselves. There is no 'right way' to respond to our new reality.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

The Vicious Entrenchment Circle: Thoughts on a Lifetime with a Republican-Controlled Court

10/7/18  //  In-Depth Analysis

By the time the Supreme Court’s current Term ends in June, it will have been more than 50 years of GOP-appointed control, even though Democrats have won a majority or plurality of the popular vote in seven of the twelve elections in that period.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law