//  11/30/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie has an interview with antitrust expert Lina Khan, Director of Legal Policy of the Open Markets Institute, about the lawsuit filed by the Trump Administration to block the proposed AT&T/Time Warner merger. 

Charlie and Lina first discuss the background of antitrust law and the mechanics of how the Department of Justice reviews mergers for antitrust concerns. Lina then explains the difference between vertical and horizontal mergers and explains why vertical mergers like the one here are typically not a major antitrust concern. They then get into the nitty gritty of this deal and discuss why the communications sector is unique, why this deal may be problematic, and whether this lawsuit may have been motivated by the President's expressed animus toward CNN, which is owned by Time Warner. They end with a discussion of whether it's valid to oppose the Administration's actions on the grounds that DOJ is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

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 government's press release about its case against the merger is here. The complaint itself is here.
  • Eric Citron's commentary on the DOJ lawsuit is here, at Take Care.
  • Lina's excellent article about Amazon in the Yale Law Journal is here.

Versus Trump: Legal Challenges, Plus The Post Office Case

11/8/20  //  Commentary

On this week's Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss the (frivolous) legal challenges to come. They are then joined by Public Citizen's Matthew Seligman to learn what happened with all those last-minute ballots, and what might happen in ongoing litigation in the Supreme Court.

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

It's Over. What's Next? Just Recounts, Shenanigans, and Hail Marys

11/6/20  //  Commentary

I catalog the legal attacks to come from the Trump team. None of his strategies have any chance of changing the outcome.

The Affordable Care Act Does Not Have An Inseverability Clause

11/5/20  //  In-Depth Analysis

Contrary to challengers’ claim, Congress nowhere directed the Supreme Court to strike down the entire ACA if the individual mandate is invalidated. Congress knows how to write an inseverability directive, and didn’t do it here. That, combined with Congress’s clear actions leaving the ACA intact and the settled, strong presumption in favor of severability, make this an easy case for a Court that is proud of its textualism.

Abbe R. Gluck

Yale Law School