6/24/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Eric Segall explains why the emoluments suit by 196 Members of Congress must be decided on the merits.

6/23/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

DOJ can't distinguish a case from 1995 in which it took a diametrically opposed view on the relevance of campaign statements.

6/22/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling in Matal v. Tam, the government speech doctrine will not swallow the First Amendment.

6/15/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss a lawsuit against the President that's been brought by a D.C. gadfly who claims that Trump did not provide sufficient detail on the financial disclosure form he submitted as a candidate. Then, Easha talks with Leah Litman about the status of the Muslim ban litigation and the role of oral advocacy in this and other high-profile cases. Listen now!

6/15/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The President's "clarifying" memorandum undermines the facial legitimacy of the entry ban, and the government's stated purposes for the entry ban.

6/15/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

In this post I explain why, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision on Monday, there’s no good reason for the Supreme Court to grant any of the government’s petitions or applications.

6/14/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Early signs suggest that the Trump Administration’s strategy is to weaken unions and deregulate employers.

6/13/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Senator Risch asked Jim Comey whether a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome. We hope he finds our research instructive.

6/13/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

An updated quarterly report on instances in which there are credible allegations of President Trump, his family, and his close associates exploiting their public power for private gain.

6/12/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The most remarkable thing about DOJ’s brief is that its conclusion doesn't follow from its own explanation of the meaning of the term “emolument,” nor, for that matter, from any of DOJ’s analysis. To the contrary, DOJ’s account of the Clause, and of the meaning of the term “emolument,” actually demonstrates that the President is violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause, at least with respect to some of the conduct alleged in the CREW complaint.

6/12/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The constitutional arguments supporting state standing in this landmark Emoluments Clause case are exceptionally powerful.

6/12/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

There are strong First Amendment arguments against President Trump blocking Twitter followers due to disagreement with their views.

6/8/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

"Whether the structural safeguards the Framers inscribed in the Constitution are up to the task of constraining Trump’s authoritarian tendencies are anybody’s guess. In the end, only the force of public opinion, especially as expressed in elections, can save American democracy."

6/4/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Regulatory changes that the Trump-Pence Administration reportedly plans to implement extend well beyond our religious liberty traditions (and beyond accommodations authorized by the Supreme Court)

6/2/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

A draft of the Trump Administration's revised contraception mandate has been leaked. If implemented, this policy would weaken civil rights for women. Moreover, the plan could violate the Establishment Clause by providing a religious accommodation for some private citizens only by shifting costs to others who may not share their beliefs.