On September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the document that would become the original articles of the United States Constitution, and we now mark that day as both Constitution and Citizenship Day. At a time when the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship is under attack, this year’s Constitution and Citizenship Day is a reminder that the Constitution belongs to “We the People,” not the President, and no President has the right to rewrite the fundamental guarantees enshrined in our founding charter.

The text of the Fourteenth Amendment states that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This Amendment means what it says: everyone who is born in the United States and subject to its authority is entitled to the privileges of citizenship at birth.

Yet the guarantee of birthright citizenship is now under attack from the Trump administration. As CAC President Elizabeth Wydra and CAC Counsel Nina Henry wrote in Newsweek, “For more than 150 years, our Constitution has protected all persons born or naturalized here, whether their parents were enslaved or free, rich or poor, whether they came over on the Mayflower or whether they were recent immigrants. Trump’s attack on our Constitution is an attempt to take us back to some of our nation’s darkest days before the Civil War.”

Across the country and at the Supreme Court, CAC has filed amicus briefs on behalf of an ideologically diverse group of leading scholars of constitutional law and immigration defending the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. Among other things, the brief explains that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause were aware that the Clause would apply to the children of noncitizens who were in the country unlawfully or who did not intend to stay in the country permanently—that was the point.

Donald Trump doesn’t get the final word on what the Citizenship Clause or any other part of the Constitution means. This Constitution and Citizenship Day, and every day, we’ll be fighting for the meaning of the Constitution reflected in its text and history and to help realize its progressive promise.

• Bristol Myers Squibb v. Becerra and Janssen v. Becerra — WIN — The Third Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Medicare prescription drug price negotiation program. Among other things, the court, echoing our brief, rejected Plaintiffs’ constitutional arguments, including their Takings Clause argument, finding that there was no physical taking. Third Circuit, decision rendered September 4.
• League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President — The D.C. District Court is considering whether President Trump’s executive order requiring proof of citizenship on federal mail voter registration application forms is unconstitutional. CAC filed an amicus brief in opposition to the government’s and intervenor’s motions for partial summary judgment, explaining that, under the Elections Clause, Congress—not the President—has the authority to regulate federal elections, and that the executive order violates the separation of powers. C. District Court, brief filed September 3.
• Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety — The Supreme Court is considering whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLIUPA). After Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian, had his dreadlocks forcibly shaved by prison officials, the Fifth Circuit concluded that RLIUPA does not provide for damages against individual state officials. CAC’s brief in support of Landor explains that under the Spending Clause, Congress has broad power to condition funding and craft remedies for violations of those conditions­—a power long recognized by Supreme Court precedent. Supreme Court, brief filed September 3.
• Louisiana v. Callais — The Supreme Court is considering whether to reverse a district court decision that held unconstitutional the map the Louisiana legislature enacted to remedy a prior violation of the Voting Rights Act. After the Court ordered supplemental briefing on the question of whether the new map violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments, CAC filed a brief explaining that it does not, detailing why it is constitutionally permissible for state mapmakers to take race into account in drawing maps that comply with the VRA. Supreme Court, brief filed September 3.
• M.M. v. Trump — WIN — The Fifth Circuit held that it had the authority to review the President’s use of the Alien Enemies Act and granted a preliminary injunction barring the government from removing a group of Venezuelan citizens. Citing our brief, the court analyzed the AEA’s history, and the court concluded that mass immigration does not qualify as an “invasion or predatory incursion” and therefore that the Trump administration had unlawfully invoked the Act. Fifth Circuit, decision rendered September 2.
• Boyle v. Trump — The Supreme Court is considering whether President Trump’s attempt to fire three Commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission was illegal. CAC filed a brief in support of the Commissioners, explaining that the constitutionality of agencies such as the CPSC is supported by Supreme Court precedent, long-standing practice, and the text and history of the Constitution. Fourth Circuit, brief filed August 29.
• Chiles v. Salazar — The Supreme Court is considering whether Colorado can prohibit mental health professionals from practicing “conversion therapy” on LGBTQ minors. A licensed counselor in Colorado is challenging the state’s ban on the practice, claiming that therapy is purely private speech and that Colorado cannot, under the First Amendment, regulate how she treats her clients. CAC filed an amicus brief in support of Colorado, explaining that professional advice and treatment are different from private speech under the First Amendment and can be more strictly regulated, as Supreme Court precedent has long recognized. Supreme Court, brief filed August 26.
• Burgess v. Whang — The Fifth Circuit remanded the case with instructions for the lower court to dismiss it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court did not address the merits of Burgess’s Seventh Amendment claim. Fifth Circuit, decision rendered August 25.
• Minor v. Florida — The Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether the Sixth Amendment requires a 12-person jury for a conviction. After being convicted by a jury of only six people, Mark Todd Minor is asking the Court to hear his case and reconsider precedent that allows such a conviction. CAC filed a brief in support of Minor, explaining that at the Founding and throughout common law, juries were understood to consist of twelve people. We argue that the prior case that allowed such small juries improperly dismissed the history of the Sixth Amendment. Supreme Court, brief filed August 25.
• NAACP v. United States — The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to halt the Trump administration’s dismantling of the Department of Education, finding that “the current fabric of the law” prevented plaintiffs from demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits. The court cited similar recent cases brought by other litigants that resulted in the Supreme Court staying much of the exact relief sought by plaintiffs in this case, concluding that there are “serious concerns about this court’s authority” to grant the injunction. District of Maryland District Court, decision rendered August 19.
• AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Department of State and Global Health Council v. Trump — The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s injunction, concluding that the grantees lacked a cause of action and thus allowing the Trump administration’s freezing of foreign aid funding to go back into effect. The grantees petitioned for rehearing en banc, and CAC filed a brief in support of the petition, reiterating our previous arguments and further explaining why Supreme Court precedent should allow review of the constitutional claim. The court denied the petition for rehearing. C. Circuit, decision rendered August 13; brief in support of rehearing filed August 15; decision denying rehearing rendered August 29.
• National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought — The D.C. Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction that prevented the Trump administration from effectively dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to review the claims. Judge Pillard cited our brief in her dissent, highlighting the extensive history of the CFPB and its vital role in protecting American consumers and underscoring that only Congress has the power to abolish the Bureau. C. Circuit, decision rendered August 15.
• Rutherford v. United States and Carter v. United States — The Supreme Court is considering the scope of a sentencing judge’s discretion to grant compassionate release under the Sentencing Reform Act. The petitioners moved for reduced sentences because of the significant difference between the sentences they are serving and the ones they would serve if they were sentenced under the same law today. CAC filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners, explaining that the text and history of the compassionate release statute make clear that the significant sentencing discrepancy here can qualify as an “extraordinary and compelling reason[]” sufficient to justify a sentence reduction. Supreme Court, brief filed August 15.
• Nairne v. Landry — WIN — The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Louisiana’s legislative maps diluted the voting strength of Black voters. They determined that the plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and rejected the state’s challenge to the constitutionality of the VRA, citing “decades of binding precedent affirming Congress’s broad enforcement authority under the Fifteenth Amendment.” Fifth Circuit, decision rendered August 14.
• J. Doe 4 v. Musk  — WIN — The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in almost all substantive respects. Echoing our brief, the court rejected the atextual and ahistorical conception of the Appointments Clause advanced by the defendants. District of Maryland District Court, decision rendered August 13.

• September 2: David Gans was interviewed on the podcast Circumscription to discuss Louisiana v. Callais and voting rights. “PODCAST (Circumscription): CAC’s David Gans on Voting Rights and the Supreme Court Redistricting Case”
• August 29: Praveen Fernandes co-authored an op-ed with his Not Above the Law coalition co-chairs on the National Guard deployment in D.C. and the threat it poses to the rule of law. “Trump’s authoritarian blueprint is coming for your hometown”
• August 17: An article from CNN on the upcoming Supreme Court term quoted CAC’s brief in Beck v. United States. “How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months”
• August 8: The Hill quoted Praveen Fernandes as a Not Above the Law coalition co-chair in an article discussing the threat of the use of the FBI in the Texas redistricting fight. “GOP’s FBI talk on Texas sparks firestorm with Democrats”

A Warm Welcome to Our Newest Team Members, and Farewell to Our Equal Justice Works Fellow!

CAC is pleased to announce that it has selected Professor Catherine Powell as this year’s Scholar-in-Residence. Professor Powell is the Eunice Hunton Carter Distinguished Research Scholar Professor of Law at Fordham Law School. During her stint asCAC’s second Scholar-in-Residence, Powell is studying the implications of emerging technologies for civil rights and civil liberties and is participating in the life of CAC’s ongoing work in litigation, communications, and collaboration with progressive movement partners. CAC is thrilled to work collaboratively with Professor Powell!

CAC is also delighted to welcome former CAC intern Joshua Blecher-Cohen back as Appellate Counsel. In addition to his previous time with CAC, Josh joins us with an extensive background in civil rights and appellate work, including a fellowship at the Supreme Court, clerking on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and working at the ACLU of Illinois. CAC is excited to have Josh back on the team!

We also just bid farewell to Anna Jessurun, who has been with us for the last two years as an Equal Justice Works Fellow. We are so grateful to Anna for the valuable work she did with CAC in order to fulfill the progressive promise of the Constitution. We are sad to see her go, but look forward to staying connected and seeing all that she will accomplish in her future. Read her reflection on her time with CAC here: Reflections on My Equal Justice Works Fellowship

YOUR Support Directly Enables CAC to Fulfill Our Progressive Constitutional Mission

CAC’s work helps defend the rule of law, advance economic justice, promote civil and human rights, and much more. In this critical year, will you support CAC with a gift of $50, $100, $500 or more to fulfill the Constitution’s progressive promise?