Standing in for the Executive: The Latest in House v. Price

5/26/17  //  Commentary

States standing to defend a federal law against Congress and the President when “lives are at stake”? Just the latest, fascinating turn that federalism has taken in the Age of Trump, however brief that age may be.

Seth Davis

U.C. Irvine School of Law

Taking the Nuclear Option Off the Table

5/23/17  //  Commentary

Last Thursday, fifteen states and the District of Columbia moved to intervene in House v. Price, the case about the ACA’s cost-sharing reductions. At the same time, they asked the court to hear the case promptly. This is a bigger deal than it may seem, and could offer some comfort to insurers that are in desperate need of it.

Nick Bagley

University of Michigan Law School

Versus Trump Podcast: Prosecuting Trump FAQ + James Williams

5/17/17  //  Commentary

On today's two-part episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, we answer three burning questions related to whether the sitting President can face criminal charges, and how that prosecution could be started. We also have an interview with James Williams, the County Counsel for Santa Clara County, where he discusses his County's lawsuit against Trump Administration that has so far successfully prevented the Trump Administration from enforcing an executive order that would have withdrawn federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities.

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Why Trump’s Firing of Comey is Terrifying

5/10/17  //  Commentary

Our country has a very strong, very important norm of apolitical law enforcement. But this norm, ironically, is enforced mostly by politics, not law—and Trump’s action has risked doing it irreparable damage. Going forward, here's what to watch at the state and federal levels.

Zachary Price

U.C. Hastings College of the Law

The Attorney General, Hawaii Statehood, and National Injunctions

4/21/17  //  Quick Reactions

The AG's comments denigrating Hawaii statehood are objectionable for many reasons. But don't overlook his underlying complaint about national injunctions—which conservatives spent years developing and have suddenly, painfully discovered can be used against them.

California v. DOJ on Immigration Enforcement

4/11/17  //  Commentary

An exchange of letters between the California Chief Justice and Attorney General Sessions offers valuable lessons for states considering immigrant protective policies that respect human rights and dignity (but might annoy the Trump Administration).

Jennifer Chacón

U.C. Irvine School of Law

The Attack on American Cities

4/7/17  //  Commentary

Trump's anti-urban rhetoric has fanned the flames of a war by state governments against progressive cities. We see this in battles over sanctuary cities, LGBT rights, gun regulation, employee rights. The time has come for a campaign on behalf of city power.

Richard C. Schragger

UVA School of Law

States Can Require Financial Disclosure by Presidential Candidates to Safeguard Electoral Transparency

4/6/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Many states are considering bills requiring future federal presidential candidates to release tax returns, or comparable information, in order to be listed on the ballot. Such requirements are good policy and should be upheld under the Constitution.

Danielle Lang

The Campaign Legal Center

DOJ Begins to Turn Its Back on Policing Reform

4/4/17  //  Quick Reactions

AG Sessions’s eleventh-hour effort to avoid a consent decree in Baltimore is indefensible and unmistakably political. The court should not allow it.

Chiraag Bains

Harvard Law School

Is The GOP ACA Repealer Unconstitutional on Federalism Grounds?

3/24/17  //  Commentary

Abbe Gluck explains that, ironically, the GOP proposal to repeal the Affordable Care Act in the name of returning authority over health care to the states has potentially serious constitutional issues on federalism grounds.

Take Care

Why California Stands in the Way of Trump's EPA

3/24/17  //  Commentary

President Trump recently announced that EPA will reconsider fuel efficiency standards. But so long as California remains free to set its own, more protective standard, Trump's decision may not matter very much. And the law is squarely on California's side.

Take Care

NFIB v. Sebelius As Anti-Canon (a.k.a. This Administration’s Galling Constitutional Hypocrisy)

3/23/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

The Trump administration is engaged in stunning constitutional hypocrisy. Measured against conservatives' professed commitment to "liberty" and "freedom," there is no serious distinction to be drawn between Obamacare and Trump's American Health Care Act.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

The Sessions DOJ Turns a Blind Eye to Discrimination

3/22/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

In the landmark Texas Voter ID case, DOJ has begun its official retreat from the protection of minority voting rights. This is the wrong decision and an ominous sign for the future.

Danielle Lang

The Campaign Legal Center

An Unconstitutional Threat to Sanctuary Cities

3/21/17  //  Commentary

DOJ argues that courts can't hear challenges to Trump's executive order threatening to punish sanctuary cities. Its arguments are wrong and prove that Trump's policy is illegal.

Nikolas Bowie

Harvard Law School

A Powerful Statement by the California Chief Justice

3/20/17  //  Quick Reactions

In urging the Attorney General to cease using state courthouses as bait for undocumented migrants, the California Chief Justice displayed admirable bravery and commitment to the rule of law.

Laurence H. Tribe

Harvard Law School