//  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: States vs. Conscience Rule

11/14/19  //  Uncategorized

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason, Charlie, and Easha discuss a court's opinion vacating the Trump Administration's so-called "conscience rule." This rule would have broadly permitted many employees in the healthcare sector from in any way participating in procedures with which they have religious or moral disagreements—even in emergencies. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Versus Trump: Sanctions Versus DeVos!

11/8/19  //  Uncategorized

On this week’s special edition of Uncle Charlie's Sanctions Corner–wait, we mean Versus Trump—Jason, Charlie, and Easha bring on Eileen Connor of the Project on Predatory Student to discuss a major opinion issuing sanctions against the Department of Education. Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

The DACA Trap

11/6/19  //  Commentary

The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in a case about whether the Trump Administration can revoke DACA. But progressives ought to be wary of the long-term effects of prevailing. A win here could very well make it very hard to undo the lax enforcement policies of the current Administration.

Zachary Price

U.C. Hastings College of the Law