CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod said, “The members of Congress who signed the brief we filed today, including the principal drafters of Dodd-Frank, provide a critical perspective in this case because they can explain why Congress structured the CFPB as an independent agency led by a single director. These members of Congress know better than anyone that Congress concluded that it was critical that the Bureau be free from undue industry influence and have the ability to act promptly and decisively in response to new threats to consumers. Congress had every right to make that choice."
You are here
Wydra continued, “President Trump’s litmus tests on abortion and other issues; the need to be independent from Trump and enforce the Constitution’s anti-corruption guarantees; the prospect of continued corporate dominance at the Court; and the need to show fidelity to the whole Constitution – not just the parts that conservatives like – all weighed down Judge Gorsuch’s nomination from the start. His Senate testimony did little to cast off that burden and prove that he would be a justice for all Americans, and not merely check off a box for Trump’s core backers. For these reasons, Gorsuch failed to earn CAC’s support.”
“The business community could hardly have been more enthusiastic about Judge Gorsuch’s nomination,” said CAC Vice President, and author of the Issue Brief, Judith E. Schaeffer. “In fact, corporate interests including the Chamber, the National Federation of Independent Business, and others have done the Senate and the American people a favor. They have looked at Judge Gorsuch’s record and made a strong case for why President Trump’s pick, if confirmed, would likely extend the great success rate that big business has had in the Roberts Court. We find it hard to disagree with their assessment – though for us it raises concerns, not cause for cheer.”
“The Court properly recognized today that jury verdicts must not be based on racial discrimination,” said CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod, “and therefore gave district courts the latitude they need to look into jury deliberations when there are indications of racial bias that cast serious doubt on the fairness of the jury’s deliberations and verdict.”
“Dressing up President Trump’s Muslim ban in more professional legal clothing does not detract from the fact that underneath it’s still a Muslim ban. Trump’s manifest, unconstitutional purpose is still live on his campaign web site, with an all-caps headline speaking loud and clear: ‘DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION.’
Today’s opinion unanimously reverses the district court for applying a crabbed test for racial gerrymandering and requires further review of 11 challenged districts. This is an important reminder that courts must carefully review state district lines to ensure consistency with the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection for all persons. States cannot use racial quotas to draw district lines and hope to escape constitutional scrutiny. If the district court follows the principles laid out in today’s opinion, it should strike down the 11 districts as a violation of equal protection.