//  12/7/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Charlie, Jason, and Easha are joined by Take Care publisher Joshua Matz to talk about the Masterpiece Cake Shop oral argument, plus the status of Muslim Ban litigation and the future of Take Care

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard argument in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, which presents the question of whether a baker in Colorado may refuse to create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding even though Colorado prohibits retailers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Joshua Matz, who filed an amicus brief in the case in support of the same-sex couple, joins the podcast to help break down the argument. They talk first about the involvement of the Trump Administration and whether its legal position withstood questioning at the argument. They then analyze both the free speech and free exercise issues in the case, and they make some perhaps unexpected predictions about what the decision might be and how far its legal rule might reach.

Next, just minutes after the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in a case about Muslim Ban 3.0, Joshua and Easha offer some quick takes on what happened there and what the Supreme Court's recent denial of a stay portends. Finally, Joshua discusses the past and future of Take Care.

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 oral argument transcript in Masterpiece Cakeshop is here. The oral argument audio will be posted here on December 8, 2017.
  • Additional Take Care commentary on the case is here.

The Constitutionality of the 5-5-5 Supreme Court Plan

5/17/19  //  Commentary

It would be constitutional to have a 15-person Supreme Court consisting of five Republican-affiliated justices, five Democratic-affiliated Justices, and five more justices unanimously selected by the first ten from judges of the federal court of appeals for a single-year term

Daniel Epps

Washington University Law School

Ganesh Sitaraman

Vanderbilt Law School

Key Context for Trump's Rhetoric About Immigrants

5/17/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

President Trump's rhetoric draw upon a familiar narrative that pathologizes immigration and immigrant reproduction as a threat while protecting and supporting the nation’s “good” mothers, families, and neighborhood

Yvonne Lindgren

UCSF Law School

Versus Trump: Trump Loses On Family Planning, Wins In The Ninth, and More

5/16/19  //  Uncategorized

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Easha go through a few updates to cases involving Title X, which provides money for family planning; the Administration's policy to have many asylum applicants removed to Mexico; and the controversial border wall. Trump lost one, won one—for now, and hasn't yet gotten a decision in the third. Listen now!

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

Easha Anand

San Francisco