//  4/26/18  //  Commentary

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Charlie, and Jason discuss the Trump Administration's lawsuit against California. The lawsuit seeks to prevent the state from enforcing three new state laws that the federal government says will undermine enforcement of immigration law. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 

The three start the conversation with a summary of the law of federal preemption, which provides that federal laws must trump—no pun intended—conflicting state laws. They then proceed to analyze each law at issue. The first California statute, which is called the “Immigrant Worker Protection Act,” prevents private employers in California from voluntarily cooperating with federal officials who seek to ensure compliance with federal immigration laws in the workplace. The trio agrees this is the most vulnerable law, but they disagree about whether California might have viable defenses. They then discuss the two other laws, and Jason maintains his general pro-preemption stance while Charlie and Easha think California is on fairly strong legal ground.

You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. And you can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here.

Notes

  • The Complaint and the federal government's motion for a preliminary injunction are all here. California's brief is due on May 4, with a hearing set for June 20.
  • Easha mentioned a post by Ilya Somin about whether there is a legal principle that states cannot discriminate against the federal government. That's here.
  • Vox has this useful article with some quickie reactions to the lawsuit.

The Special Prosecutor and Government Institutions

1/15/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Does the special prosecutor qualify as an 'institution'? Does it matter? (Hint: Yes, it does.)

David Marcus

UCLA Law School

Clear Statement: The Barr Memo is Disqualifying

1/14/19  //  Commentary

His dangerously misguided legal analysis demonstrates that William Barr is the wrong man to serve as Attorney General

Neil J. Kinkopf

George State University College of Law

Prosecuting the President

1/14/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

Why have presidents appointed special counsels when they are not required to do so? Why do presidents tolerate special counsels, even when they can fire them?

Andrew Coan

University of Arizona