//  7/27/17  //  Uncategorized

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie and Easha discuss a newly-filed lawsuit brought by private plaintiffs who allege that Trump's campaign and Trump advisor Roger Stone conspired with Russians to disclose private information about the plaintiffs. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

Charlie and Easha begin by explaining the basic gist of the lawsuit, which is called Cockrum v. Trump Campaign, and they quickly turn to an in-depth discussion of each of the three particular theories of liability. The first theory they analyze [at 3:30] is public disclosure of private facts, and the two wonder whether certain key components of this tort are present in this case. They then quickly discuss the intentional infliction of emotional distress tort [at 8:30] before turning to an in-depth discussion of the past and present of the federal civil rights claim in the case [at 12:55].

The episode closes [at 29:00] with several Trump Lumps, including thoughts on when screening questions at congressional town halls might violate the First Amendment and how the Administration is enforcing immigration law in local prostitution diversion courts.

Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. 

Links

  • The complaint in Cockrum v. Trump Campaign is here.
  • Sipple v. Chronicle, the unsuccessful disclosure of private facts tort suit in which a newspaper published information about the sexuality of the man who tackled Ronald Reagan's would-be attacker, is here.
  • Elements of the publicity to private facts tort under DC law can be found in this case.
  • Cox v. Cohn, which found that the name of a rape victim was not a "private fact" for purposes of the publicity to private facts tort, is here.
  • Elements of the IIED tort under DC law can be found here.
  • The famous case of Jones v. Clinton, which Charlie and Easha discussed, is here.
  • Carpenters v. Scott is here, and Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic is here; both of these Supreme Court cases narrowly defined the KKK Act.
  • The recent Third Circuit case finding no 1985(3) claim made out by a public defender who claimed he was being punished for taking too many cases to trial is here.
  • Charlie's Trump Lump on telephonic town halls is discussed at The New Yorker here.
  • Easha's Trump Lump references ICE picking up undocumented immigrants in prostitution diversion courts, which is discussed here.
  • And Easha mentions this WSJ story about attempts to penetrate South Carolina's election system.

Versus Trump: Easha's Back, To Talk Qualified Immunity and Police Reform

6/21/20  //  Commentary

On this week’s Versus Trump, Easha Anand makes her triumphant return to talk qualified immunity and police reform. The trio talk about the proposal to reform qualified immunity and debate whether that will do much. They then break down other new legal innovations in the various proposals and ask: is it enough to create new grounds for people to sue? Or are other reforms more important? Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

The SDNY Debacle And The Supreme Court

6/20/20  //  Quick Reactions

The Trump administration's apparent desire to force out the U.S. Attorney for SDNY could have implications for several major Supreme Court cases this term.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

On Bill Stuntz, the Supreme Court’s (Sort of) Unanimous Opinion In Bostock, and the Relationship To Black Lives Matter

6/16/20  //  Commentary

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock, it's worth asking: Why has the law been so successful at improving the lives of gay people but much less successful at improving the lives of people of color?