//  12/13/18  //  Uncategorized

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss the Trump Administration's fondness for Court-hopping: that is, taking matters directly to the Supreme Court without waiting for the usual appellate process to conclude. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. 

Jason and Easha first discuss the inside baseball of the way appeals normally work, which leads them to a discussion of cert. before judgment—that is, when the Supreme Court takes a case before it's had the normal appellate review, which usually means two levels. They then look at a few instances of the Supreme Court asking for this unusual form of review: two DACA cases and the transgender ban case. They wonder whether this new practice will have long-term impacts on the government's relationship with the Court. And then they talk about the census case, in which the Administration repeatedly asked for emergency relief from the Supreme Court—and, after not finding too much early success, got the Supreme Court to review an important issue on an expedited basis.

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

Notes

  • The duo mentioned a 2011 SCOTUSblog post by Kevin Russell talking about cert. before judgment. That's here.
  • Cases mentioned in this episde include two DACA cases (here and here) and the transgender ban case (here).

The Procedure Fetish

3/7/19  //  Commentary

If adding new administrative procedures will so obviously advance a libertarian agenda, might not relaxing existing administrative constraints advance progressive goals?

Nick Bagley

University of Michigan Law School

SCOTUS And The Wall

3/4/19  //  Commentary

One of the Supreme Court’s pending cases is potentially relevant to one of the challenges to the President’s emergency declaration.

Leah Litman

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Insubordination and Impeachment

3/4/19  //  Commentary

The widespread executive branch practice of ignoring Trump's statements—or treating them as merely advisory—has saved him from potentially dire political consequences

Joshua Matz

Publisher

Laurence H. Tribe

Harvard Law School