//  7/5/18  //  Commentary

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha are back with a regular episode to discuss a stunning recent development in Texas v. United States, a case by Texas seeking to invalidate the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Last month, the Trump Administration not only agreed with Texas that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but it also told the district court that the requirement to cover everyone with a pre-existing condition on the same terms as healthy folks should be struck down as well. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 

Easha starts the discussion by giving us a background on the Affordable Care Act, including previous major cases about it and the recent change in the law that zeroes out the tax penalty for not having health insurance. She then explains the Trump Administration's new legal position, which is 1) that the individual mandate is unconstitutional beause it's no longer a tax and 2) the guarantee of coverage for those with pre-existing conditions should also be struck down because Congress would not have wanted that provision without the accompanying individual mandate. They then discuss three aspects of the Administration's position. First, are they right about the mandate? Second, do they have any plausible argument on the pre-existing conditions point? And third, just how unusual and potentially destructive is the Administration's surprising refusal to defend most of a validly-enacated law?

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 government's legal brief in Texas v. U.S. is here.
  • DOJ's list of 530d letters telling Congress when it would not defend certain laws is here.
  • Nick Bagley and others at Take Care have some great coverage of this case. See the most recent posts here.

Can Congress Investigate Whether the President Has Conflicts of Interest, is Compromised by Russia, or Has Violated the Law?

7/29/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

The President's lawyers are urging courts to hold that Congress’s oversight and regulatory authorities simply don't extend to investigating the wrongdoing, foreign influence over, and possible conflicts of interest of, the President of the United States. That's wrong.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

Ask Mueller about Indicting a President: The Legal Error at the Heart of his Cryptic Report

7/23/19  //  Commentary

Let's not have unrealistic expectations of Mueller dropping bombshells. But if Congress is going to hold hearings, it should ask these questions.

Jed Shugerman

Fordham Law School

A Memorandum of Misunderstanding

7/22/19  //  Commentary

Mueller didn't indict Trump because DOJ policy prohibited him from doing so. That same policy points to the need for impeachment.