You are here

Current Cases

In Alasaad v. Nielsen, the district court for the District of Massachusetts is considering whether the First and Fourth Amendments permit law enforcement officers—without a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion of illegal activity—to search the contents of laptops, smartphones, and other electronic devices carried by American citizens and others as they travel to and from foreign countries.

In Benisek v. Lamone, the Supreme Court is considering whether Maryland’s partisan gerrymandering of its congressional districts violates the guarantees contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

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 California v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is considering whether the Trump Administration can lawfully refuse to reimburse health care insurers for cost-sharing reductions as required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).

In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Fourth Amendment permits police to obtain cell phone location records that show an individual’s location and movements over the course of 127 days without first obtaining a warrant.

In City of Chicago v. Sessions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is considering whether the United States Attorney General can impose funding conditions on local jurisdictions that receive certain federal funding in order to coerce those jurisdictions into adopting immigration policies preferred by President Trump.

In City of Hays v. Vogt, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause is violated when allegedly compelled statements are used in a pre-trial probable cause hearing.

In English v. Trump, the court is considering who is the lawful acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pending the nomination and Senate confirmation of a new Director: Leandra English, who was named Deputy Director of the Bureau by its prior Director, or Mick Mulvaney, who President Trump seeks to install as acting Director.

In Epic Systems Corporation v. Jacob Lewis, together with Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., the Supreme Court is considering whether employers can require their employees to forgo class and collective proceedings and instead resolve employment-related disputes through individual arbitration.

In Gamble v. United States, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits any person from being prosecuted for the same offense more than once, bars a federal prosecution for a criminal offense when the defendant has already been prosecuted for the same offense in state court.

In Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court is considering whether Wisconsin’s extreme partisan gerrymandering of its State Assembly districts violates the guarantees contained in the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

In Hawaii v. Trump, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether President Trump’s travel and refugee ban exceeds the President’s delegated powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act and violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

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 Husted v. Randolph Institute, the Supreme Court is considering whether Ohio’s practice of purging voters who are registered to vote in federal elections from voter rolls based on a registrant’s failure to vote violates the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA).

In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al., the Supreme Court is considering whether to overrule its prior decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which upheld public sector “agency shop” or “fair share” arrangements against constitutional challenge.

In Jesner, et al. v. Arab Bank, PLC, the Supreme Court is considering whether corporations may be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which allows the federal district courts to hear suits for torts “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” 

In Karnoski v. Trump, a federal district court is considering the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s ban on transgender individuals serving openly in the military.

In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court is considering whether a state antidiscrimination law that prohibits places of public accommodation from, among other things, refusing to serve gay men and lesbians because of their sexual orientation violates a commercial business owner’s First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.

In Parker v. Montgomery County Correctional Facility, the Supreme Court is being asked to hear a case that raises the question whether the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act prevents an indigent prisoner from appealing in forma pauperis the dismissal that constitutes the prisoner’s “third strike.”

In Tyler v. United States, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits any person from being prosecuted for the same offense more than once, bars a federal prosecution for a criminal offense when the defendant has already been prosecuted for the same offense in state court.

In Walker v. City of Calhoun, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the City’s use of a secured money bail system for misdemeanor offenders violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution.

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.