//  5/24/18  //  Commentary

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Charlie, and Jason discuss the Fifth Circuit's recent decision striking down the so-called "Fiduciary Rule" that would have required those who sell retirement investment products in 401(k) plans to act in the best interests of their clients. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 

They start the episode by discussing how Congress has regulated the management of retirement accounts, and they explain why many employees receive advice on where to put their retirement savings from advisors that have a potentially hard-to-discover financial incentive to sell employees certain high-cost products. They then discuss the Obama Administration's efforts to change this by classifying many more investment advisors as fiduciaries that would be required to look out for their clients' best interests. The trio then discuss the recent ruling by the Fifth Circuit that struck down the rule. That leads into a discussion of the Trump Administration's somewhat unusual position in this litigation: the Administration defended the rule on appeal, but have since then failed to appeal the adverse ruling, and they seem unlikely to take the case to the Supreme Court. That segues into a discussion about the role of the executive branch in enforcing the law and defending laws and rules in court—even those, like here, that the Administration might not like as a policy matter.

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

And, of course, we'll be live and on stage at the ACS National Convention on the afternoon Saturday, June 9, at the Capitol Hilton! You can find our more information and register here. More details next week about who are our special guests will be.

Notes

  • You can find our more information and register here for the ACS National Convention. Join us!
  • The Fifth Circuit's ruling is here.
  • Jason mentioned a Take Care blog post by Danielle D'Onfro. That's here.
  • The States' motion to intervene is here. It was denied here.
  • Here is an article that Easha mentioned about the dispute in the Department of Labor over this rule.
  • The White House issued this memo to the Department of Labor asking it revisit the rule.

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