CAC has defended the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since it was first challenged in 2010. Representing a group of state legislators that grew to include more than 500 legislators from all 50 states, CAC filed briefs supporting the Act’s constitutionality in the federal district court, appellate court, and the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld the Act.
You are here
On September 30, 2010, CAC filed a brief in the case of U.S. v. Arizona in support of the United States' lawsuit challenging Arizona S.B. 1070. This controversial law seeks to supplant the federal government in enforcing immigration laws in Arizona. On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court granted review of the case and will hear oral argument in Spring 2012.
United States v. Texas centered on the legality of President Obama’s 2014 executive action on immigration.
At issue in United States v. Windsor was the constitutionality of Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which defined marriage for purposes of federal law solely as between a man and a woman and thus excluded legally married same-sex couples from more than a thousand federal legal protections, rights and benefits provided to married, opposite-sex couples.
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (“UARG”) is the Supreme Court’s most recent foray into issues regarding climate change. Most famously, in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) had the authority under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, clearing the way for EPA’s recent (and future) efforts to reduce these emissions and combat climate change. While the Court turned away industry challenges to the core of Massachusetts v. EPA when it granted review in UARG, it did agree to hear a narrow challenge to EPA’s decision to apply the CAA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) program to stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions.