Earlier this month, voters made their voices heard, and they plainly had a lot to say. While there are lots of important takeaways from this year’s midterm elections, there were a few that stood out as we at CAC think about the work we’ve been doing over the last two years—and will continue to be doing in the years to come.

First, voters want a check on the Trump administration and a return to the rule of law. That’s something that we’ve been working for in cases up and down the federal courts. For

example, CAC filed an amicus brief supporting D.C. District Court Judge Boasberg’s authority to investigate the administration’s defiance of his court’s order to halt and turn around the planes illegally transporting Venezuelan immigration detainees to a notorious Salvadoran prison where they would be subjected to physical abuse and deprived of food, water, and medical care. Our brief explains that federal courts have the inherent authority to investigate and sanction bad-faith conduct, including fraud on the court.

And we filed an amicus brief in support of Maurene Comey’s challenge to the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate her. Comey, an award-winning prosecutor, was allegedly fired because members of President Donald Trump’s inner circle wanted to punish her father, James Comey. Last month, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York delivered a win for the rule of law when it reinstated Maurene Comey. Echoing CAC’s amicus brief, the court held that civil service statutes constrained the administration’s ability to fire Assistant U.S. Attorneys.

Second, voters are deeply concerned about corruption.  We are too, and that’s why when Florida officials gave President Trump a piece of state-owned property worth hundreds of millions of dollars, we went to court to challenge this violation of the Constitution’s Domestic Emoluments Clause. The Domestic Emoluments Clause provides that when the President is in office, he or she “shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument”—meaning any benefit, profit, or gift—“from the United States, or any of them.” The Founders were deeply concerned that government corruption could undermine the new republic, leading Presidents to put their personal interests above those of the nation. Our lawsuit, on behalf of a Miami nonprofit, Miami residents, and a Miami Dade College student, asks the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to void this unconstitutional transaction and hold President Trump accountable to the Constitution.

Third, voters are deeply concerned about the impact of data centers on our communities. In Southaven, Mississippi, Elon Musk’s xAI, which runs the “Grok” chatbot, installed and is illegally operating 60 unpermitted gas turbines. To satisfy the bot’s massive power demands, these turbines are pumping air pollution into a nearby residential community, creating noise and smog while driving up health risks. The NAACP and its local affiliate sued xAI on behalf of community members for violating the Clean Air Act. The plaintiffs invoked the Clean Air Act’s citizen-suit provision, which allows injured persons to initiate a lawsuit against polluters. Instead of stepping in to enforce the law, the Trump administration is trying to intervene to get the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that this important mechanism for holding polluters accountable is unconstitutional. CAC filed an amicus brief explaining why the Clear Air Act’s citizen-suit provision is constitutional.

While the voters made their voices heard earlier this month, there’s going to be a lot of work to do to achieve the change that they’re seeking. We’re energized to be doing that work and are ready for this next chapter.

AbbVie v. Department of Health and Human Services

The District Court for the District of Columbia considered a challenge to the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program. In June, CAC filed an amicus brief explaining why the drug manufacturer’s Takings Clause claim is at odds with constitutional text and history. The district court ruled in favor of AbbVie, but did not reach the Takings Clause issue. Instead, it concluded that the drug at issue in this case falls under a provision of the Inflation Reduction Act that exempts it from the negotiation program. D.C. District Court, brief filed June 29, decision rendered October 29.

Comey v. Department of Justice  – WIN 

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether the Attorney General can fire Maurene Comey, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, in contravention of the legal protections AUSAs enjoy under federal law. In July, CAC filed an amicus brief explaining why the removal protections governing AUSAs are constitutional. In October, the district court ruled in Comey’s favor, concluding that the Trump administration violated civil service statutes and the constitutional separation of powers in attempting to fire her. Southern District of New York, brief filed July 24, decision rendered October 26.

Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara

The Fifth Circuit considered whether the Due Process Clause allows the Trump administration to imprison, without bail, all undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings against them. In April, CAC filed an amicus brief explaining why the Trump policy, even if it were authorized by the nation’s immigration laws, violates the Due Process Clause. In July, a Fifth Circuit panel upheld a lower court ruling mandating that the government provide bond hearings to detainees. Shortly after the decision, the Fifth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc, and in September, CAC again filed an amicus brief in support of the detainees. In October, the en banc Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the Trump administration and against the detainees. Fifth Circuit en banc, brief filed September 11, decision rendered October 23.

Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota

The Supreme Court is considering, among other things, whether the federal National Voter Registration Act prohibits Arizona from requiring voter-registration applicants to produce “satisfactory evidence” of U.S. citizenship when registering with a state registration form. In October, CAC filed an amicus brief in support of those challenging the Arizona law. Supreme Court, brief filed October 20.

NAACP v. xAI  – WIN 

The Fifth Circuit considered whether the federal government can block people harmed by the operation of a massive power plant near their homes from suing the plaint’s owners and operators under the Clean Air Act. The government attempted to intervene to stay all proceedings in the Fifth Circuit, pending the district court’s ruling on the government’s motion to intervene to dismiss the lawsuit. In October, CAC filed an amicus brief in opposition to the government’s motion to stay. The Fifth Circuit quickly denied the government’s motion to stay, and on the same day, the district court rejected the government’s attempt to unilaterally dismiss the case. Fifth Circuit, brief filed October 16, decisions rendered October 19.

Hayat v. Diaz

The full Fourth Circuit is being asked to consider whether police officers may forcibly enter homes without a warrant based only on “reasonable suspicion” of a crime. The plaintiff, Professor Fareed Hayat, sued the officers and the county for violating his rights, but a divided Fourth Circuit panel held that the officers had the necessary “reasonable suspicion” to temporarily stop and question Hayat under a 1968 Supreme Court decision. Hayat sought rehearing from the full en banc Fourth Circuit, and in October, CAC filed an amicus brief in support of Hayat’s petition for en banc rehearing. Fourth Circuit en banc, brief filed October 13.

November 3: CAC Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen spoke to Higher Ed Dive about Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, a case where the Supreme Court is considering whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can bring Title IX suits for sex discrimination. “Inside the Supreme Court case that could decide Title IX employee protections”

October 23: CAC Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle explained in the New York Times that the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara upholding immigrant detention without due process was “a sadly predictable result” from that court, but that it “won’t be the last word on this subject.” “Appeals Court Backs Trump on Constitutionality of Detentions”

October 23: CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes spoke to HuffPost about the various ways a new Congress can hold Trump accountable. “Democrats Will Have to Outsmart Trump’s DOJ To Hold Him Accountable”