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.
You are here
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 Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is being asked to enjoin President Trump from violating both the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
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 Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia 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 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 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 International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump and Hawaii v. Trump, the courts are considering 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 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 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 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 ODonnell v. Harris County, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether Harris County’s use of a secured money bail system for misdemeanor offenders violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution.
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 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 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 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.