This past year has been tumultuous, to say the least, but CAC has risen to meet the challenges of the moment while still moving forward on other core issue areas. I have learned a tremendous amount during my time as a Kendall Fellow with CAC, but of the many words I could use to describe my fellowship, one keeps coming back to me: steadying. Amidst the dizzying barrage of lawless executive actions and unreasoned shadow docket orders threatening to upend the constitutional order, the work still goes on.

And we still secure wins where we can, like we did in Barnes v. Felix and Martin v. United States. In Barnes, which happens to be the very first brief I had the chance to work on, the Supreme Court rejected the moment-of-threat rule.  Ashtian Barnes was pulled over by Officer Roberto Felix, Jr. for toll violations associated with the rental car he was driving. With his gun already drawn despite no threat to his safety, Felix ordered Barnes to exit the vehicle. When the car began rolling forward, Felix jumped onto the moving vehicle and blindly shot into the vehicle, killing Barnes. Under the moment-of-threat rule, all that the lower court considered was the two seconds after Felix already jumped onto a moving vehicle, at which point he claimed his life was in danger. The court did not look into the context of Felix’s actions to determine if they were reasonable. In our amicus brief, we highlighted how the moment-of-threat rule is at odds with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, which were written as safeguards against unfettered police discretion and police violence.

In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s “outlier position” that the Supremacy Clause barred the Martin family from pursuing a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) lawsuit against the government after a SWAT team in full tactical gear wrongfully raided their house in the middle of the night. The FTCA expressly authorizes suits against the government for the tortious conduct of federal employees and incorporates state law as the source of tort liability for such claims. Eleventh Circuit precedent at the time recognized a Supremacy Clause bar to FTCA claims when a federal employee’s actions had “some nexus with furthering federal policy” and could “reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law,” based on its view that the FTCA’s incorporation of state law would “impede or burden the execution of federal law.” We filed an amicus brief in support of the Martin family and explained how the Eleventh Circuit’s position was entirely unmoored from the text and history of the Supremacy Clause and the FTCA, making clear that the FTCA’s incorporation of state law did not alter its status as the “supreme Law of the Land” in this case.

While to some these wins may seem small in the grand scheme of things, I see Barnes and Martin as special and worth celebrating. Most importantly, two families get another chance to pursue justice for the wrongs they suffered. And we saw the Court uphold established precedent, which has felt like a rare occurrence lately. I hope to see favorable outcomes in the handful of other cases that I worked on and are currently pending before the Court, involving the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel, sentencing and compassionate release, and exceptions to FTCA liability.

My work on these cases is what I think of when I describe my fellowship as “steadying.” Every day, we wake up to jarring news reports: deployment of the military to stifle protest, lawless kidnappings and attacks on immigrant families, gutting of federal agencies, politicized firings of federal workers, immigrant children almost being deported in the dead of the night; the list goes on for miles. So, while I certainly have worked on cases challenging the lawfulness of executive branch actions, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to help keep all the other work going too.

I have also gained valuable experience as a new attorney. A true highlight of the past year was my work on CAC’s amicus brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley, involving a challenge to North Dakota’s abortion ban. I conducted extensive research into the state’s constitutional history and developed an original argument to show that the right to reproductive freedom is guaranteed by the North Dakota Constitution’s Inalienable Rights Clause based on its text and history. The support and guidance I received from Brianne, Miriam, and David while working on this brief supplied me with lessons that I will carry with me as I continue to grow.

I truly could not have asked for a better way to begin my career as an attorney. The folks at CAC are incredibly intelligent, kind, and supportive. The fellowship was immersive, the work was inspiring, and the professional development opportunities were impactful. The only downside: it went by too quickly!