Recent | Take Care

Versus Trump: (Judicial) Independence Day Spectacular!

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, we celebrate Independence Day with a look at the past, present, and future of judicial independence. Jason and Easha discuss the origins of judicial power, and then talk about what the Trump Administration has done that may undermine the authority of the judiciary—and where that kind of talk might lead us. Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

With Supreme Court Opinions, More Is Not Always More

6/29/17 // In-Depth Analysis

Justice Gorsuch has already written seven separate opinions in his 78-day tenure on the Supreme Court. What should we make of that?

Nancy Leong

Sturm College of Law

Making Sense of the SCOTUS Per Curiam in Arkansas SSM Birth Certificate Case

6/29/17 // Commentary

The challenged Arkansas law most certainly violated Obergefell's call for equal access to the constellation of benefits that accompany marriage. The per curiam got it right.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

No, the Chief Justice Did Not Just Embrace Obergefell

6/27/17 // Commentary

Many commentators have misunderstood the significance of a per curiam ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday.

Joshua Matz

Closing the Courthouse Doors: Justice Kennedy’s Very Bad Day

6/22/17 // Commentary

David Gans discusses Ziglar v. Abassi, a new SCOTUS ruling that makes it very hard for individuals to sue federal officials for trampling on federal constitutional rights

Take Care

An Open Letter to Sen. Ben Sasse

6/21/17 // Latest Developments

I recently wrote an open letter to Senator Ben Sasse regarding the American Health Care Act. Here's the conclusion.

Richard Primus

University of Michigan Law School

SCOTUS Severely Narrows Civil Rights Suits Against Federal Officers

6/20/17 // Commentary

Yesterday's SCOTUS ruling in Ziglar v. Abbasi makes it all but impossible for civil rights plaintiffs to sue federal officials for money damages.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School

Congressional Standing Is Not an All-or-Nothing Proposition

6/19/17 // Commentary

It is perfectly consistent to think the House lacks standing in House v. Price, but that members of Congress have standing to sue for Foreign Emoluments Clause violations.

Brianne J. Gorod

Constitutional Accountability Center

The Fire Alarm Function of Office-Holding

6/19/17 // Commentary

Trumps can fire Mueller only by issuing a directive to Acting AG Rod Rosenstein. Here's why -- and why it really matters.

Zachary Price

U.C. Hastings College of the Law

Against Type Briefs

6/16/17 // Commentary

Filing an amicus brief joined by Republicans critical of the Trump Administration and with some claim of expert knowledge made by these Republicans related to the constitutional issues can be a powerful tactic to use in courts.

David Fontana

George Washington University Law School

Trump Is Ushering In A Kleptocracy. That's Why He Is Being Sued

6/14/17 // Commentary

If recent events are any sign, the public will not stand idly by as Trump turns our nation into a banana republic.

Joshua Matz

Because President Trump Has Chosen Not To Go to Congress, Members of Congress Must Go to the Courts

6/14/17 // Commentary

Today, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Representative John Conyers, and 194 other members of Congress have gone to federal court seeking to put an end to the President’s willful violations of the Constitution.

Brianne J. Gorod

Constitutional Accountability Center

Sessions Preview and Review

6/13/17 // Commentary

The already strong case for felony false statement might get unbearably stronger

Jed Shugerman

Fordham Law School

Why Trump Can’t (Lawfully) Fire Mueller

6/13/17 // Commentary

There’s been a great deal of noise from some of the President’s confidants over the past 48 hours suggesting that he might (try to) remove Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Marty Lederman

Georgetown Law

Yes, Hope is a Sufficient Basis for Obstruction of Justice

6/13/17 // Commentary

I reviewed all federal circuit courts of appeals cases, federal district court cases, and state supreme court cases for obstruction of justice cases involving a defendant’s use of language similar to “I hope” or “I’m hoping.” The results are in line with what we would expect if “hope” verbiage is uncontroversially and generally understood as implying direction.

Ryan Hayward