//  5/10/18  //  Commentary

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason reveal their big announcement: we're doing our first ever live show! We'll be on stage on the afternoon of Saturday, June 9, at the ACS National Convention in Washington, DC. After that excitement, they get into a handful of updates about cases about auto emissions, HUD programs, the ban on military service by transgender individuals, and more. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 

First things first: 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.

Then, Easha and Jason get into recent developments. Jason mentions a new suit by California and other states about auto emissions standards, and he says the Trump Administration may have a tough time defending the suit because of their heavy reliance on industry data. Easha then mentions a new lawsuit contending that the Department of Housing and Urban Development unlawfully suspended a requirement that local and state governments document their efforts to combat segregated housing patterns as a condition of receiving HUD funding. The list then goes on, as Easha and Jason discuss the status of the ban on military service by transgender individuals, what's going on at the Supreme Court, and a new filing in an Emoluments Clause case.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. And you can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

Notes

  • You can find our more information and register here for the ACS National Convention. Join us!
  • The auto emissions rule that California and other states are challenging is here. A useful post on The Verge dissecting the rule is here.
  • The HUD lawsuit Easha mentioned is discussed here at the website of one of the counsel to the Plaintiffs. That page also links to court filings.
  • The AP reported on recent deveopments in one of the transgender ban cases here.
  • Joshua Matz blogged about the filing of the opening brief in the Second Circuit Emoluments Clause case here.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue – Requiem for the Establishment Clause?

7/1/20  //  In-Depth Analysis

Those who still believe that the Constitution precludes state involvement in promoting religious thought and experience now have some work cut out for them

Ira C. Lupu

George Washington University Law School

Robert W. Tuttle

George Washington University Law School

Religious Discrimination And Racial Discrimination

6/30/20  //  Quick Reactions

The Court’s decision in Espinoza is similar to the trajectory of the law of racial discrimination in some respects, it also offers a striking contrast in others

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

The DACA Decision is Trouble for Discrimination Law

6/24/20  //  Commentary

The Dreamers’ victory has been celebrated as a sign that the Court is above partisanship and willing to serve as a check on executive branch abuses. But the price of that victory was a defeat for the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

Jessica Clarke

Vanderbilt Law School