People sometimes talk about a summer lull, but there’s no summer lull here at CAC. Our team has remained incredibly busy—getting ready for the next Supreme Court term and filing lots of amicus briefs in the lower courts as well. This summer, one of the things that has been keeping our attorneys busy is pushing back on one of President Trump’s dangerous projects: his attempts to politicize the civil service.

As one of its final June decisions, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Trump v. Slaughter, a case in which the Court considered whether the Constitution forbids independent agencies structured like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). It’s hard to overstate how disappointing the Court’s opinion in favor of Trump was. As CAC Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle wrote at the time, the decision was “another chapter in the Roberts Court’s disrespect for democracy and its enabling of an imperial presidency,” rejecting over 150 years of precedent.

But as disappointing as the decision was, it was limited to the heads of multimember agencies like the FTC, not all federal employees. That’s not stopping the Trump administration from trying to use that case to its advantage as it seeks to politicize the civil service and expand the President’s power to remove lower-level federal officials. Here at CAC, we wasted no time before filing briefs pushing back on this effort.

One of the briefs we filed was in Comey v. Department of Justice. Maurene Comey was an award-winning Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in New York, prosecuting high profile cases like the Jeffrey Epstein case. There was just one problem: she is the daughter of James Comey, someone Trump considers an enemy. After right-wing fringe figures like Laura Loomer brought this to the President’s attention, Maurene was fired without an explanation, and the Department of Justice claimed she was not entitled to the protections AUSAs are provided under federal law. Our amicus brief in the Southern District of New York explains why Trump’s DOJ is wrong.

President Trump is also arguing that he can ignore federal civil service laws when it comes to immigration judges. Until February 2025, Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch were Immigration Judges (IJs) charged with “conduct[ing] specified classes of proceedings” involving immigration law. They were abruptly terminated in violation of federal civil service law, which provides that IJs can only be removed for cause and with at least 30 days’ advance written notice. When Jackler and Jaroch invoked these protections, the Trump administration advanced a novel claim—that because IJs are “officers of the United States,” Congress cannot impose any limitations on the Attorney General’s authority to remove them. In July 2026, CAC filed an amicus brief in the Federal Circuit in support of the IJs. Our brief explains why the Trump administration’s argument is at odds with the text and history of the Constitution, as well as centuries of historical practice.

The rule of law is in danger if the President can fire any prosecutor or immigration judge, regardless of the laws Congress has passed to protect them. Rest assured, CAC is pushing back.

• Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County – The Supreme Court is considering whether oil and gas companies that caused significant economic harm to Colorado residents by exacerbating global warming can be held accountable under Colorado law. CAC filed an amicus brief in support of Boulder County. Supreme Court, brief filed August 3.
• Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board – The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can ignore critical civil service laws when removing Immigration Judges. The Trump administration has advanced the novel claim that because Immigration Judges are “officers of the United States,” Congress cannot impose any limitations on the Attorney General’s authority to remove them. CAC filed an amicus brief explaining why the Trump administration’s argument is at odds with the test and history of the Constitution, as well as centuries of historical practice. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals en banc, brief filed July 28.
• Comey v. Department of Justice – The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections AUSAs enjoy under federal law. CAC filed an amicus brief explaining why the Trump administration is wrong to claim the ability to fire Assistant U.S. Attorneys for any reasons, despite their legal protections. Southern District of New York, brief filed July 24.
• Appalachian Voices v. Environmental Protection Agency – WIN – The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit considered whether the Trump administration can unilaterally terminate an entire mandatory grant program created by Congress. CAC filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs-appellants, explaining why the D.C. Circuit should reverse the district court’s ruling in favor of the government, with a particular focus on the district court’s erroneous dismissal of the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s dismissal of the constitutional claims and remanded the case to the district court. C. Circuit Court, brief filed November 3, decision rendered July 21.
• Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia – The Supreme Court is considering whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can bring Title IX suits for sex discrimination after the Eleventh Circuit held that Title IX only provides students, not employees, a private right to sue for sex discrimination. CAC filed a brief supporting the employees and urging the Court to hold that Title IX authorized their suits. Supreme Court, brief filed July 17.
• National Digital Inclusion Alliance v. Trump – The United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether the President can unilaterally terminate a congressionally mandated grant program created by the Digital Equity Act. CAC filed an amicus brief in support of NDIA urging the court to recognize that the President usurped Congress’s power of the purse in attempting to eliminate the program. Instead, the district court held that the provision of the Digital Equity Act that allowed for the program is unconstitutional. C. District Court, brief filed May 8, decision rendered July 15.
• Wridt v. City of New York – The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system, the Domain Awareness System, is unconstitutional. CAC filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs, explaining that the NYPD’s warrantless use of the Domain Awareness System is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment’s text and history, as well as with Supreme Court precedent recognizing that constitutional protections must keep pace with advances in surveillance technology. Southern District of New York, brief filed July 14.
• DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security – The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally reshape the federal government through the mass firing of probationary employees are constitutional and comply with federal law. In July 2026, CAC filed an amicus brief in support of the employees. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, brief filed July 14.

• August 8: CAC signed on to a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights in opposition to then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination to be Attorney General. “Reject the Confirmation of Todd Blanche as U.S. Attorney General.”
• August 6: CAC signed on to a letter by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in opposition to Todd Blanche’s Attorney General nomination. “Blanche’s documents do not solve problems with Trump v. IRS or his nomination.”
• July 30: President Elizabeth Wydra joined the NPR podcast “The Indicator from Plant Money” to discuss potential corruption on Truth Social. “Trump’s new Truth Social plan: pay $100k.”
• July 18: Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. “Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16, 2026.”

A Warm Welcome to CAC’s Newest Scholar-in-Residence!

CAC is excited to welcome our new Scholar-in-Residence, Professor Deborah Archer. Professor Archer’s project at CAC, “Defending Home: Toward a Framework of Community Equity,” argues that civil rights law has been built to address individual discrimination while leaving collective harms to neighborhoods and communities largely invisible. The project develops a new constitutional and legal framework of community equity, contending that communities themselves have protectable interests in stability, belonging, and access to essential public goods. Drawing on Reconstruction history, abolitionist thought, and civil rights traditions, it seeks to reimagine constitutional equality in ways that recognize and remedy community-level harms while providing a foundation for litigation, policy reform, and administrative advocacy.

CAC is also saying farewell to our Legal Fellow, Harith Khawaja, at the end of his year with CAC. Harith wrote a reflection on his experience for the CAC Blog. We’re grateful for his work with us and excited for his next chapter!

YOUR Support Directly Enables CAC to Fulfill Our Progressive Constitutional Mission

CAC’s work helps defend the rule of law, advance economic justice, promote civil and human rights, and much more. In this critical year, will you support CAC with a gift of $50, $100, $500 or more to fulfill the Constitution’s progressive promise?