Raquel Dominguez , // 4/28/17 //
Episode 2 of the Versus Trump podcast covers the incitement suit against Trump and the revised travel ban. Commentators have weighed in on the ruling against Trump's executive order threatening sanctuary cities with loss of federal funds. Use of the federal death penalty may increase under Trump. The FCC Chairman has proposed rolling back Obama-era net neutrality rules. Still more Trump-related conflicts have been discovered.
PODCAST
Episode 2 of Versus Trump (@VersusTrumpPod), the podcast of Take Care, covers a lawsuit against Trump for allegedly inciting violence at a campaign rally in Kentucky. It also includes a discussion with Professor Richard Primus (University of Michigan Law School) about the concept of unconstitutional animus. It's great, we promise.
IMMMIGRATION
An amicus brief filed by constitutional scholars in the Muslim Ban cases offers a compelling alternative basis for invalidating Trump's executive order (The Economist).
The Trump Administration often argues that sanctuary cities are violating a federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a), but that isn't true, explains Nikolas Bowie on Take Care.
David Bier discusses the murder of Kate Steinle and the Trump Administration’s use of her death to publicize a harsh immigration agenda (CATO Institute).
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Maslenjak v. United States, a case considering whether immaterial falsehoods on a naturalization application can warrant revocation of citizenship (WaPo, NYT, WSJ).
Immigration has drastically decreased since President Trump took office (NPR).
The Trump Administration's arguments for a border wall are overstated, write Eric Schmitt and Linda Qiu (NYT).
DEMOCRACY
President Trump's statements at campaign rallies calling for the ejection of protestors do not amount to incitement, argues Lee Rowland (ACLU).
President Trump’s tweets blaming Democrats for a government shut down came as a surprise to many and garnered push back (WaPo, Business Insider).
SAFETY AND JUSTICE
Use of the federal death penalty may increase under President Trump, argues Ian Eppler for Take Care.
Section 702 gives the executive branch wide latitude when examining Americans' emails, web-browsing, internet chats, and phone calls, says Ashley Gorski (ACLU).
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Leah Litman continues her series of posts explaining why the CREW emoluments case against President Trump satisfies the requirement of "standing" (Take Care).
President Trump may have violated the domestic as well as the foreign Emoluments Clause because state public pension funds pay one of his management companies to run a New York hotel (Take Care, Slate).
Corey Lewandowski has not registered as a lobbyist even though his firm is offering to secure face time with President Trump for foreign politicians, irking ethics watchdogs and competing lobbyists (Politico).
President Trump and his family have made money in his first 100 days and may view the presidency as a moneymaking venture (Vox).
REGULATION
President Trump has signed more executive orders in his first 100 days than any president since FDR, but many of them have been overhyped and fail to take into account the legal and structural barriers against rolling back existing administrative rules (Politico).
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposed plans to roll back Obama-era net neutrality rules have attracted heavy criticism (The Hill, HuffPo).
The House delays a vote on a revised healthcare bill, denying President Trump a 100-day win (Washington Post, Politico).
Reversing course, President Trump decided not to pull out of NAFTA (Washington Post).
President Trump’s tax overhaul would disproportionately benefit the highest-income and wealthiest people (NYT).
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE
The Pentagon’s top watchdog has initiated an investigation into whether Michael Flynn failed to obtain proper approval to receive money from Russian and Turkish groups (Washington Post).
Jeanne Shaeen (D-N.H.) said Thursday that Russian meddling in U.S. elections could become “normalized” if the government does not respond to Moscow’s interference in the 2016 election (The Hill).
And that's our update today! Thanks for reading. We cover a lot of ground, so our updates are inevitably a partial selection of relevant legal commentary. If you have any feedback, please let us know here.