You are here

Current Cases

CAC’s lawyers recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of 196 Members of Congress asking the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to compel President Trump to comply with the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, which requires the President, before accepting any benefits from foreign states, to first seek and obtain the consent of Congress.

In Darweesh v. Trump, the district court for the Eastern District of New York is being asked to grant a preliminary injunction blocking President Trump’s travel and refugee ban on the grounds that it violates the Religion Clause of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in the INA.

In Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is considering whether the Gloucester County (Virginia) School Board’s policy, which denies transgender students access to the restrooms used by the rest of the student body, violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

In Hernández v. Mesa, the Supreme Court is considering whether a U.S. Border Patrol agent can be sued for fatally shooting a Mexican teenager across the U.S.-Mexico border as a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In Hodes & Nauser M.D.s, P.A., et al. v. Schmidt & Howe, the Kansas Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether Sections 1 and 2 of the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights protect a woman’s right to obtain an abortion.

In Lee v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering when the Sixth Amendment requires vacating the criminal convictions of noncitizens who pleaded guilty after their attorneys failed to advise them that doing so would result in deportation.

In MetLife, Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering a challenge to the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s designation of MetLife as a systemically important non-bank financial institution.

In Pavan, et al. v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether the Arkansas Supreme Court properly concluded that Arkansas may, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, prevent a mother’s same-sex spouse  from being listed on her child’s birth certificate, even though the general rule under Arkansas law is that a mother’s opposite-sex spouse  must be listed on the child’s birth certificate, even when he is not the child’s biological parent.

PHH Corporation, et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau involves a challenge to the leadership structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), an agency created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act to end the longstanding fragmentation of responsibility for consumer financial protection that contributed greatly to the 2008 financial crisis.

In State of Hawaii v. Trump, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is considering whether President Trump’s travel and refugee ban violates the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

In United States House of Representatives v. Price, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering whether the executive branch acted lawfully when it reimbursed health care insurers for cost-sharing reductions as it was required to by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), as well as whether the House of Representatives has standing to bring this lawsuit against the executive branch in the first place.

In Vo v. Gee, et al., the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana is considering whether a state law that requires marriage license applicants to present a birth certificate, but only allows individuals born in the United States to receive a waiver of that requirement, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the fundamental right to marry.

In West Virginia v. EPA, states and others are challenging the EPA’s Clean Power Plan rule (CPP), which established emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to limit CO2 emissions from existing power plants. The goal of these guidelines is to achieve significant reductions in CO2 emissions by 2030, while offering states and utilities substantial flexibility and latitude in achieving these reductions.