We weren’t surprised that President Donald Trump violated his oath to uphold the Constitution within hours of his swearing in, and as the illegal actions have piled up, so have the lawsuits. As a public interest law firm focused principally on filing amicus briefs at the Supreme Court and courts of appeals, we’re gearing up to support these efforts to hold Trump and his administration accountable as these cases progress. Here are just a few of the (many) things that have been keeping us busy over the last few weeks.

To start, there’s the fight to protect birthright citizenship. As CAC President Elizabeth Wydra and Counsel Nina Henry wrote in an op-ed in Newsweek, “Trump’s attack on our Constitution is an attempt to take us back to some of our nation’s darkest days before the Civil War.” We were delighted to see Trump’s order quickly paused by multiple federal courts, and we’re going to be well-positioned to support those rulings and other efforts to challenge the executive order in court, because our work on the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment and its guarantee of birthright citizenship goes back well over a decade. And in the meantime, CAC’s resources explaining the scope and history of birthright citizenship have been a valuable resource as others try to understand the executive order and why it’s unconstitutional. We were cited in the Washington Post, HuffPost, The Oregonian, and News13, bringing real constitutional text and history back into the conversation at a time when disinformation is being used to threaten and intimidate our friends and families in immigrant communities.

We’re also going to be supporting National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member Gwynne Wilcox as she challenges President Trump’s unlawful attempt to fire her. Federal law makes clear that she can’t be fired without good cause, and while President Trump may think that law is unconstitutional, he’s wrong, as we actually explained in briefs defending the constitutionality of the NLRB’s leadership structure just last year. (Believe it or not, those challenges to the NLRB were brought by SpaceX. Yes, that’s right – Elon Musk’s SpaceX.) After reports of the firing came out, we quickly denounced it. CAC Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle explained that “President Trump’s firing of an NLRB Member without good cause flies in the face of that precedent and practice and is blatantly unconstitutional.” CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod added, “In purporting to fire an NLRB Member without good cause, President Trump has shown, yet again, his utter contempt for the rule of law and Supreme Court precedent.”

Another example of Trump’s utter contempt for the rule of law: his efforts to stop federal spending as a means of ending agencies and policies he doesn’t like. There’s a big problem for President Trump, though. As Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen explained on WJXT’s Morning Show, “Every American learns in their 5^th grade civics class that Congress holds the power of the purse.” Miriam said it best: Donald Trump’s attempt to unlawfully freeze all federal funding was a “blatant violation of foundational constitutional principles about the separation of powers.” Fortunately, we’re going to bring lots of experience to this fight. We’ve filed briefs on the text and history of the Spending Clause in multiple contexts, including in fighting back against the first Trump administration’s attempt to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities.

On top of all his illegal actions, there are also many other Trump actions that are deeply troubling, if not unlawful. When Trump issued pardons and commutations for individuals convicted of offenses related to the January 6th attack on the Capitol, CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes issued a statement reminding the world that “Trump’s actions today cannot erase the true facts of what happened on January 6th—facts developed through years of painstaking factfinding by nonpartisan and bipartisan governmental bodies, including the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol.” As a co-chair of the Not Above the Law coalition, Praveen is part of the fight for accountability and the rule of law, whether explaining the dangers of the Kash Patel nomination or describing how Trump’s self-dealing tactics blur the lines between his business and his presidency.

From the ongoing attacks on our Constitution, like the unconstitutional orders targeting birthright citizenship and federal funding, to all of the issues that are yet to come, CAC will be ready to fight back.

• Texas v. Biden —CAC WIN— The Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the Department of Labor and held that President Biden’s Executive Order on minimum wages did not exceed his statutory authority. The court determined that the major questions doctrine did not apply because the statute’s meaning was “clear and unambiguous.” In addition, the court declined to extend the major questions doctrine to the government’s exercise of proprietary authority, stating that the “government is less restricted when exercising its proprietary as opposed to its regulatory authority.” Fifth Circuit, decision rendered February 5.

• Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al. — The Second Circuit is considering whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional taking of drug manufacturers’ property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. CAC filed a brief in support of the government, explaining why the drug manufacturer’s Takings Clause claim is unsupported by constitutional text and history. Second Circuit, filed January 22.

• Nebraska v. EPA — The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering the legality of the EPA’s latest motor vehicle emissions standards. CAC filed a brief in support of the EPA, explaining that the new standards are well within the EPA’s authority and thus do not require application of the major questions doctrine.C. Circuit, filed January 21.

• FCC v. Consumers’ Research, et al. — The Supreme Court is considering whether a federal law that requires the FCC to establish programs making internet access more affordable is unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine. CAC filed a brief in support of the FCC on behalf of law professors Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley explaining that the Constitution’s history and original meaning do not support the restrictions the Fifth Circuit imposed on Congress’s ability to delegate authority to agencies. Supreme Court, filed January 16.

• United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC — The Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act violates the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution. CAC filed an amicus brief explaining that the qui tam provision of the FCA is constitutional under the Appointments Clause because the Clause does not apply to private litigants who hold no government position. Eleventh Circuit, filed January 15.

• Riley v. Garland — The Supreme Court is considering whether the deadline for appealing an immigration removal order is jurisdictional. Our brief argues that the Fourth Circuit erroneously concluded that the statute in question is jurisdictional rather than a claim-processing rule. Our brief also explains why the rule is subject to equitable tolling. Supreme Court, filed January 10.

• Ryan, LLC v. FTC — The Fifth Circuit is considering the legality of the FTC’s rule restricting the use of noncompete clauses. CAC filed a brief in support of the FTC, explaining why the FTC’s noncompete rule does not meet the high standard the Supreme Court has prescribed for applying the major questions doctrine. Fifth Circuit, filed January 8.

• In Re: MCP No. 185 — The Sixth Circuit struck down the FCC’s net neutrality regulation after concluding that the regulation exceeded the FCC’s statutory authority. Because the court concluded that the regulation was inconsistent with the language of the Telecommunications Act, the court saw “no need to address whether the major questions doctrine also bars the FCC’s action.” Sixth Circuit, decision rendered January 2.

• FBI v. Fazaga —CAC WIN— In this case, the plaintiffs argued that the FBI violated the law when it used a confidential informant to secretly record private conversations among the members of a Southern California mosque, allegedly based on their religion alone. The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ religion claims and remanded back to the district court to consider how the case should proceed. Echoing CAC’s brief, the opinion also reaffirmed that dismissing cases under the modern state secrets doctrine “is a remedy not provided by rule or statute and was created entirely as a matter of federal common law.” Ninth Circuit, decision rendered December 20.

• January 10: CAC President Elizabeth Wydra joined Bloomberg to discuss the TikTok ban case argued in front of the Supreme Court last month. “TV (Bloomberg): CAC’s Wydra Joins Bloomberg’s Balance of Power to Discuss TikTok Supreme Court Case”

• February 5: CAC Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle was quoted in an article in the Latin Times on the illegal firing of NLRB Member Gwynne Wilcox. “Former Labor Board Watchdog Sues Trump Over ‘Blatant Violation’ Firing”

• February 1: CAC was cited in an article from WBTW News13 on birthright citizenship. “News13 fact check: Graham, Mace make bold political statements days apart”

• January 30: CAC Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen appeared on News4Jax to discuss Trump’s unlawful attempt to freeze federal funding. “TV (WJXT News4Jax): Legal Expert Discusses Saga Over President’s Freezing of Federal Funding”

• January 28: CAC President Elizabeth Wydra and Counsel Nina Henry published an opinion piece in Newsweek on birthright citizenship and the history of the 14th Amendment. “Donald Trump’s Attempts to Bring Back Dred Scott Decision Will Fail | Opinion”

• January 28: CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes was quoted in an article in the Washington Post on the House GOP’s annual retreat at a Trump property. “House GOP holds retreat at a Trump property, a windfall to president’s resort”

• January 28: CAC’s brief in Burgess v. Whang was quoted in an article from the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog about the case. “Federal Deposit Insurance as Jarkesy Waiver”

• January 21: CAC President Elizabeth Wydra was quoted in an article in the Washington Post on Trump’s unlawful executive order trying to restrict birthright citizenship. “States, civil rights groups sue to stop Trump’s birthright citizenship order”

• January 21: CAC was cited in an article from HuffPost on the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship. “Trump Tried To Rewrite Part Of The Constitution On Day 1. Here’s What You Need To Know.”

• January 21: CAC President Elizabeth Wydra was quoted in an article in the Oregonian on the constitutional challenges to President Trump’s attempt to restrict birthright citizenship. “Oregon joins growing list of states challenging Trump administration over birthright citizenship”

• January 14: CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes published an opinion piece in Newsweek, situating Kash Patel’s nomination for FBI director in the historical context of the FBI’s previous illegal, covert projects and abuse of power under the Counterintelligence Program. “Civil Rights-Era Abuses Could Return to the FBI Under Kash Patel | Opinion”

• January 13: CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes was quoted in an article in Roll Call on Pam Bondi’s confirmation hearing. “Trump’s attorney general pick must navigate lobbying background”

• January 10: CAC President Elizabeth Wydra joined CSPAN to discuss the legal and constitutional issues surrounding President Trump’s sentencing in the New York hush money case. “TV (C-SPAN): Elizabeth Wydra on Trump Sentencing in New York Hush Money Case”

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?