//  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 [email protected] 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.

Versus Trump: An Impeachment Primer...

10/3/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Gotcha! No impeachment dessert until you eat your immigration broccoli. On this week’s Versus Trump, Easha (back from parental leave!) and Charlie (just starting parental leave) discuss two immigration losses for the Trump administration. The first concerns Trump’s attempts to roll back court-ordered protections for migrant children; the second, Trump’s attempt to subject more immigrants to expedited removal. Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Whistleblower Scandal Contains Reminder of Last Scandal: Time for a New One?

9/27/19  //  Commentary

Although Trump isn't deliberately using each new scandal to distract from the last one, the phenomenon is nonetheless maddening. It's like a game of Bizarro World Whack-a-mole in which each time you whack a mole another hammer emerges that somehow enables the same mole to escape.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

Versus Trump: Can You Hear The Whistle Blowing?

9/25/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the legal stakes of the fight over what Trump said to the President of Ukraine and the related whistleblower complaint. A lot happened between when they recorded the episode and when it's being posted, but we still think it's a useful primer on the legal questions in this dispute. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps