My time as an Equal Justice Works Fellow at CAC began and ended with Supreme Court cases with major consequences for our multiracial democracy. A few months before I started, voting rights litigators obtained significant victories at the Court that upheld bedrock protections for the right to vote. But threats to voting rights lingered, and two years later, on the last week of my fellowship, CAC filed an amicus brief in the latest challenge to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and its ability to ensure equal opportunity for voters of color. Much can change in a few years, and I feel exceptionally fortunate that I’ve spent these years at CAC.

Two Supreme Court decisions from June 2023 affected the course of my Fellowship. First, in Moore v. Harper, the Court soundly rejected the so-called independent state legislature theory (ISLT). At the same time, however, the Court created a small potential opening for ISLT proponents, writing that, under the Elections Clause, the Court has the power to review state court decisions on state election law when those courts “transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review.” During the first half of my fellowship, I delved into historical and legal research to combat any future invocations of ISLT and demonstrate that federal court review of state court decisions in this area is only appropriate in extremely rare and unlikely circumstances. This project culminated in an article published in the Boston College Law Review in April 2025 that I co-authored with my colleagues David Gans and Brianne Gorod. As legal scholarship plays a critical role in developing and promoting pro-democracy arguments, I am thrilled that CAC was able to contribute to the important academic discourse on ISLT and support future litigation against the doctrine.

The second case was Allen v. Milligan. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the longstanding legal framework governing Section 2 of the VRA’s protection against vote dilution, which is critical to ensuring that voters of color have an equal opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice. After the Court’s decision in Milligan, several lower court vote dilution cases resumed, and new challenges to the VRA were raised in courts of appeals. I worked on two amicus briefs in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits defending the constitutionality of Section 2 of the VRA and another amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit arguing that Section 2 protects coalitions of voters of color who jointly bring vote dilution claims.

These were not the only voting rights cases that I had the privilege to work on. CAC filed three amicus briefs in litigation challenging state election laws under the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits laws that disenfranchise voters for minor errors in voting paperwork. And in Florida state courts, I worked on briefs defending against efforts to weaken the Florida Constitution’s voting rights protections.

During the last year of my fellowship, however, new threats to democracy emerged, including several actions taken by the Trump Administration to weaken bedrock constitutional rights and principles. And as case after case has been filed to challenge the Trump administration’s lawlessness, CAC has been there defending democracy and the rule of law, and I am grateful to have contributed to the fight as a Fellow. For example, after President Trump purported to curtail birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants, CAC filed several amicus briefs in the Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal on behalf of an ideologically diverse group of scholars of constitutional law and immigration in which we explain that the Fourteenth Amendment means what it says: all children born in the United States are citizens of the United States, and no executive order can change that. I have also worked on amicus briefs CAC has filed in cases challenging the administration’s efforts to unilaterally dismantle executive departments and agencies, including an amicus brief filed on behalf of members of Congress in litigation challenging the administration’s attempt to dismantle the CFPB.

Now, as the next Supreme Court Term looms, the VRA is once again at risk. In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court is considering a challenge to a congressional map that the Louisiana Legislature passed to remedy a Section 2 violation. I worked on the amicus brief CAC filed in the case in December 2024 and wrote a piece in Slate in March 2025 recapping the oral argument. This summer, however, the Court scheduled the case to be reargued this upcoming Term and ordered supplemental briefing on the constitutionality of the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-Black district. During the last week of my fellowship, I worked on another amicus brief that CAC filed in the case, arguing that the drawing of majority-minority districts to remedy vote dilution is consistent with the text and history of the Fifteenth Amendment.

My fellowship started with significant wins for democracy and is ending with a case that could radically undermine the VRA’s ability to protect voters of color and advance the goals of the Fifteenth Amendment. But while the threats to voting rights and democracy may have changed over the past two years, CAC’s steadfast commitment to promoting the progressive promise of the Constitution has not. At the Supreme Court and lower courts, CAC and our brilliant team of attorneys have been there to explain to courts that the Constitution’s sweeping protections for democracy and voting rights cannot be undermined, whether by states seeking to weaken the voting strength of voters of color or a President taking unlawful unilateral executive action. I feel immensely privileged to have been a member of the CAC team over these two years, and I am very grateful for all the opportunities I have had and the lessons I have learned. As I finish my fellowship amidst unprecedented threats to the rule of law and democracy, I am heartened by the fact that CAC will be here to take on these challenges in the months and years to come.