There’s no sugar-coating the most recent term of the Roberts Court. Not only did the Court’s conservative supermajority weaken the voting power of communities of color and dismantle the Voting Rights Act, it also made it much easier for big businesses and billionaires to pour money into our elections, elevating the voices of the privileged few. The Roberts Court hollowed out the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee of equal treatment by upholding discriminatory laws that exclude transgender women and girls from participation in sport teams and clubs without the hard look the Constitution requires.

It rewrote Congress’s commitment to protecting refugees, interpreting the law in a way that lets the Trump administration turn away asylum seekers. It made it more difficult for civil rights claimants to vindicate their rights and for victims of torture abroad to seek justice against American corporate enablers. And in a monumental upheaval of the separation of powers, the Roberts Court’s conservative supermajority made it much easier for President Trump to fire the heads of agencies that Congress designed to have some degree of independence from the President. As CAC Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle observed, “By preventing Congress from requiring good cause to fire regulatory officials, the Roberts Court today has given presidents a power that not even the kings of England possessed.”

To be sure, there were some important victories at the Court this term, including in the birthright citizenship case. But those victories don’t negate all of the other ways the Roberts Court “turned back the clock on American progress toward multiracial democracy,” as CAC President Elizabeth Wydra explained in NBC News. Indeed, the Trump administration’s arguments in the birthright citizenship case were “so far out there that simply preserving the status quo is not a serious check on Trump’s power,” Elizabeth told the Wall Street Journal. If anything, it is incredibly disturbing that four Justices would have come out the other way on the meaning of this fundamental constitutional protection.

Between the Roberts Court’s attacks on the Constitution’s hard-won protections and President Trump’s increasing resemblance to King George the III, it falls to “We the People” to reclaim the spirit of July 4, 1776. Notably, this isn’t the first time the American people have had to fight for a more perfect Union. As Jamelle Bouie wrote in the New York Times, discussing CAC Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David H. Gans’s forthcoming article in the Stanford Law Review about the Black Conventions of the 1860s, “We need not wait for politicians and judges to build a new constitutional world. We can articulate our vision of the political community and work to make it a reality using whatever means are at our disposal.” As David explained on Slate’s Amicus podcast, generations of activists have turned to the Declaration of Independence’s values and fought to make them real, from abolitionists and the first women’s rights movement to the present day. On the 250th anniversary of the Declaration’s signing, their legacy is worth celebrating—and continuing.

Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega – WIN

The Fifth Circuit considered whether the Trump administration policy of imprisoning all undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings against them violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. CAC filed an amicus brief explaining why the Trump policy does violate the Due Process Clause, and the Fifth Circuit agreed—upholding the due process rights of these individuals to a bond hearing, through which they can secure release from detention while their cases proceed. Fifth Circuit, brief filed Apr. 24, decision rendered July 2.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox v. B.P.J.  

The Supreme Court considered whether laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit all transgender women and girls from joining women’s and girls’ sports teams – across all levels of competition and at any public education institution – are constitutional. CAC filed an amicus brief in support of the student athletes. In a consolidated decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Idaho and West Virginia laws. Supreme Court, brief filed Nov. 17, decision rendered June 30.

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Committee

The Supreme Court considered whether to strike down a law that limits the amount of money a national political party committee may spend in coordination with federal candidates for elected office. CAC filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold FECA’s coordinated party expenditure limits. Instead, the Supreme Court struck down FECA’s limits, overturning its own precedent that upheld the provision two decades ago. Supreme Court, brief filed Oct. 6, decision rendered June 30.

Rutherford v. United States and Carter v. United States

The Supreme Court considered the scope of a sentencing judge’s discretion to grant compassionate release under the Sentencing Reform Act. CAC filed an amicus brief explaining that both the text and history of the compassionate release statute give judges broad discretion to consider major changes in the law that result in sentencing disparities based solely on when a person was sentenced. The Supreme Court ruled that judges cannot consider these disparities when deciding whether a sentence reduction is warranted. Justice Sotomayor dissented, echoing CAC’s brief. Supreme Court, brief filed August 15, decision rendered May 28.

Trump v. Barbara  – WIN

The Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s executive order purporting to limit birthright citizenship to children who have at least one parent who is a citizen or is lawfully admitted for permanent residence. CAC filed an amicus brief on behalf of an ideologically diverse group of leading scholars of constitutional law and immigration urging the Supreme Court to hold the order unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Trump administration’s executive order is unconstitutional. Supreme Court, brief filed Feb. 26, decision rendered June 30.

Watson v. Republican National Committee  – WIN

The Supreme Court considered whether Mississippi may count absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received up to 5 business days later. CAC filed an amicus brief explaining why the Fifth Circuit’s decision invalidating the Mississippi law was wrong. The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision, holding that federal law sets the day by which votes must be cast, not the day by which they must be received. Supreme Court, brief filed Jan. 9, decision rendered June 29.

Cisco Systems v. Doe

The Supreme Court considered, among other questions, whether the Tortue Victim Protection Act (TVPA) imposes liability on those who aid and abet torture. CAC filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs explaining that it does, but the Supreme Court held that the TVPA does not impose liability upon those who aid and abet torture. Supreme Court, brief filed March 27, decision rendered June 23.

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections

The Supreme Court considered whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). CAC filed an amicus brief in support of Damon Landor, who sought to recover damages from prison officials who unlawfully shaved his head in violation of his religious beliefs. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that Mr. Landor cannot seek damages from state officials in their personal capacities under RLUIPA. Supreme Court, brief filed Sept. 3, decision rendered June 23.

Pung v. Isabella County

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is considering whether the President can unilaterally dismantle the Minority Business Development Agency, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. Several states whose residents relied on the agencies’ critical services challenged the Trump administration’s actions, and CAC filed an amicus brief supporting the states. First Circuit, brief filed May 13, decision rendered June 23.

Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft – WIN

The Supreme Court considered, among other things, whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is implicated when a local government seizes real property to satisfy a tax debt and then merely reimburses the property owner with the remainder of the auction sale proceeds, as opposed to the full fair market value of the property. CAC filed an amicus brief in support of the property owner, but the Supreme Court held that County’s failure to pay the full fair market value of the property did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. Supreme Court, brief filed Dec. 8, decision rendered June 23.

July 8: Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David Gans wrote for Slate about how the Roberts Court will go down in history for its many rulings hollowing out the Reconstruction Amendments that were adopted to make our nation more free, more equal, and more democratic. “Ruling Away From America’s Second Founding.”

July 8: David Gans’s Slate article on the Roberts Court was featured on Election Law Blog. “Ruling Away From America’s Second Founding.”

July 4: Vice President Praveen Fernandes wrote an op-ed for Common Dreams discussing the many similarities between Donald Trump and King George III this July Fourth. “Why Would President Trump Want to Celebrate the Declaration of Independence?”

July 1: Professor Allison Brownell Tirres reviewed David Gans’s recent scholarship on the Black Conventions of Reconstruction in the legal history blog Jotwell. “Furthering Inclusive Constitutionalism.”

June 30: President Elizabeth Wydra joined Bloomberg’s Balance of Power to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling on birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara. “Domicile Isn’t a Real Argument for Citizenship Says Wydra.”

June 29: Elizabeth Wydra joined Bloomberg’s Balance of Power to discuss the end of the Supreme Court’s Term. “The Supreme Court is ‘Unquestionably an Ideological Court’ Says Wydra.”

June 22: Elizabeth Wydra spoke to the Wall Street Journal about the major decisions left for the end of the Supreme Court Term. “The Supreme Court Is About to Decide Four Cases Defining Trump’s Power.”

June 21: David Gans discussed his forthcoming Stanford Law Review article on the Black Conventions of the 1860s on Slate magazine’s Amicus podcast. “Guns, Weed, and the Forgotten Framers.”

June 21: Praveen Fernandes joined the Legal AF podcast to discuss Todd Blanche’s nomination as Attorney General. “Trump DOJ in CRISIS MODE.”

June 17: Elizabeth Wydra spoke to NBC News about the upcoming decisions at the Supreme Court. “Trump Faces Supreme Court Showdown as Major Rulings Loom.”

June 10: David Gans’s forthcoming article in the Stanford Law Review about the Black Conventions of the 1860s was heavily cited by Jamelle Bouie in a New York Times opinion piece. “The Supreme Court Doesn’t Own the Constitution.”

June 5: Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod was quoted in Reuters discussing recent Supreme Court wins for the SEC and FCC. “US Supreme Court Backs Federal Regulators In Wins for FCC and SEC.”