June Medical Symposium: Louisiana’s Salvo Against Abortion Providers' Standing is Another Attack on Precedent and on Common Sense

2/28/20  //  Commentary

Three leading scholars call Louisana's attempt to deny doctors standing in abortion-related cases "cynical," and they explain why the Court would have to upset decades of well-settled, sensible precedent to agree with Louisiana.

Take Care

June Medical Symposium: How We Know that Louisiana’s Admitting Privileges Law is Rooted in Unconstitutional Sex Stereotypes

2/27/20  //  Commentary

Many have argued that the law at issue in June Medical does not promote anyone's health. But, looking deeper, Priscilla Smith argues that the state's whole statutory scheme "reflects and entrenches unfounded stereotypes about women."

Take Care

June Medical Symposium: The History Behind Third Party Standing Arguments

2/26/20  //  Commentary

In the third post in our Symposium on June Medical, Professor Mary Ziegler links Louisiana's argument that doctors lack standing to litigate cases related to abortion with a broader shift in litigation tactics by those opposed to abortion. And she wonders whether a reversal of precedent on standing doctrine could lead inevitably to the end of Casey and Roe.

Take Care

June Medical Symposium: The Quiet Erasure Of The Right To Abortion

2/25/20  //  Commentary

In our Symposium on June Medical, Andrew Beck of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project wonders if a decision in this case will leave many Americans with a right to abortion on paper—but not in practice.

Take Care

June Medical Symposium: Abortion Returns To The Supreme Court

2/24/20  //  Commentary

On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear its first abortion case in several years. In the first entry of our symposium, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky sets up the stakes—and fears that the case is going to end with the five conservative justices allowing severe restrictions on abortion, such as have not been upheld since Roe v. Wade.

Erwin Chemerinsky

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Blame Game

2/18/20  //  Commentary

The administration often tries to foist blame on the courts for its politically unpopular policies--or to have the courts effectuate its politically unpopular policies for the administration.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

Versus Trump: State Immunity Under The VRA + Adios, Easha :(

2/13/20  //  Commentary

On this week’s Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss a dissenting opinion by a Trump-appointed judge arguing that states cannot be sued for violating the Voting Rights Act. They then say goodbye to Easha with a tribute to her thinking about Versus Trump law and litigation. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Was Impeachment Good Or Bad? The Conclusion

2/9/20  //  Commentary

Last week, I took both sides of a series of important, related question: was Trump’s impeachment a good thing for democracy? The rule of law? For Democrats? Now I have to render a verdict. Which one was it?

Versus Trump: Was Impeachment Good or Bad?

2/6/20  //  Commentary

On this week’s Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason discuss Jason's ongoing essays for the Take Care blog about whether impeachment was good or bad, net-positive or net-negative. This leads them to discuss whether the Democrats should have more aggressively pursued witnesses and whether this whole proceeding did much to vindicate the rule of law. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Was Impeachment Good Or Bad? The "Bad" Side

2/5/20  //  Commentary

I'm not sure whether the impeachment and expected acquittal of Donald Trump was a good or bad thing. This series presents both sides. In this post, I make the "bad idea" case.

Was Impeachment Good Or Bad? The "Good" Side

2/4/20  //  Commentary

I'm not sure whether the impeachment and expected acquittal of Donald Trump was a good or bad thing. This series presents both sides. In this post, I make the "good idea" case.

Versus Trump: Vs. The Inaugural Committee, Plus Bolton Update

1/30/20  //  Commentary

On this week’s Versus Trump, Charlie and Jason look at a new lawsuit by D.C. claiming that Trump's inaugural committee overpaid for space at the Trump Hotel and thus "wasted" at least $1 million in charitable funds. Spoiler alert: the lawsuit seems convincing. Listen now!

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Versus Trump: Who Are Presidential Electors?

1/25/20  //  In-Depth Analysis

On this week’s Versus Trump, Charlie and Easha take a deep dive into two recently granted Supreme Court cases that go to the heart of the systems that we use to elect the President. The discussion takes us deep into questions of political accountability, free choice, and constitutional history. A classic Versus Trump cat's-away-mice-will-play episode chock full of fun analysis of, among other things, Jason's work. Listen now! (I mean right now.)

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Versus Trump: Trump vs. The Equal Rights Amendment

1/16/20  //  In-Depth Analysis

On this week’s Versus Trump, Jason, Easha, and Charlie discuss the Trump Administration's new legal opinion regarding the legal status of the Equal Rights Amendment, also known as the ERA. They consider what will happen now that Virginia has become the 38th state to ratify the ERA since 1972. Is it too late, or can Congress do anything to add this amendment to the Constitution? Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

SCOTUS should hear the ACA case now.

1/15/20  //  Commentary

The government's filings on why the Court should delay hearing the case only underscore the reasons for the Court to end this litigation now.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School