//  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.

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

How Nervous Should You Be About Election Day?

11/2/20  //  Commentary

I'm pretty nervous. But there’s also no reason to think that the rule of law has been entirely eroded in America in 2020. So far, the center has held.

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