Daily Update | June 6, 2019
Adam Smith // 6/6/19 //
With the President in London to tend to our special relationship with the United Kingdom, it’s been—comparatively, at least—a slow news day. The Trump campaign asked a federal court to sanction the DNC for its lawsuit over the campaign’s alleged ties to Russia. The SEC and HHS delivered a series of blows to consumer and abortion rights advocates. And Take Care debuted its symposium on an exciting new book on reproductive rights and the law.
PODCAST
This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie answer listener mail and talk about nationwide injunctions at Gregory's request; talk more about court packing at the request of Micah; and respond to Ben's thoughts on subpoena enforcement. Listen now!
CIVIL RIGHTS
The responses to our edited volume promise continuing conflict over questions of reproductive justice in federal and state courts—but also highlight new arenas of action in politics, science, and religion, write Melissa Murray, Katherine Shaw, and Reva B. Siegel on Take Care.
TRUMP: INVESTIGATIONS AND LITIGATION
Citing the Mueller Report, the Trump campaign asked a federal court to sanction the Democratic National Committee for suing the campaign over its alleged ties to Russia (The Hill).
DEMOCRACY
Recent revelations about partisan motivations behind the proposed addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census could also bolster challenges to partisan gerrymanders, opines Leah Litman at Take Care.
The Census litigation may well affect future challenges to the recent spate of highly restrictive abortion laws, too, observes Joel Dodge at Take Care.
REGULATION
The SEC approved—over the objections of consumer advocates—a controversial new rule that would water down fiduciary requirements for financial advisors (WaPo).
The Department of Health and Human Services announced Tuesday that it would begin terminating its contracts with researchers who use aborted fetal tissue (NYT).
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE
Congress could prevent another Wikileaks-style October surprise—without running afoul of the First Amendment—by criminalizing the dissemination of stolen campaign documents, argues Stewart Baker at Lawfare.
But even if Julian Assange should be held criminally liable in the first instance, his prosecution under the retrograde Espionage Act of 1917 still raises significant concerns about the freedom of the press, contends Aryeh Neier at Just Security.