//  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.

Trump and Text: An Open Relationship

12/23/19  //  Commentary

President Trump claims he is appointing federal judges who will stick strictly to constitutional text. But he has shown few qualms about ignoring parts of the Constitution he finds inconvenient.

Impeachment Trials and the Senator’s Oath of Impartial Justice

12/19/19  //  Commentary

Senators who vote on removal following impeachment trials must take an oath akin to that of a juror. The oath requires them to be impartial and vote regardless of the president's party affiliation. Will Senators do that here?

Ira C. Lupu

George Washington University Law School

Robert W. Tuttle

George Washington University Law School

Versus Trump: Method or Manner?

12/19/19  //  Commentary

On this week’s Versus Trump, Easha and Charlie discuss the Trump Administration’s efforts to resume federal executions after a decade-and-a-half hiatus. Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps