February Newsletter: CAC Supports Everyday Americans Fighting for Their Day in Court

At every level of our judicial system, a complex set of doctrines determines what cases a court can hear. And far too often, these doctrines can prevent people seeking justice from getting their rightful day in court. CAC is working to make sure the courthouse doors remain open to everyone fighting for constitutional accountability.

Stephen Miller recently assured ICE officers that they had total immunity in carrying out their duties, placing them above the law even when they violate people’s constitutional rights. That’s simply not true, but it hasn’t stopped the federal government from pushing an expansive, unsupported view of federal immunity in the courts. CAC is pushing back. In the Ninth Circuit, CAC filed an amicus brief on behalf of law professor Michael J.Z. Mannheimer in a case called O regon v. Landis about whether a DEA agent who ran over and killed a bicyclist during a routine surveillance drive can face trial in state court for his allegedly negligent driving. Our brief explains that he can, because federal courts can halt state prosecutions of a federal officer only when the evidence could not support a conviction.

The stakes of these access-to-court questions are high when someone’s seeking justice in court, and in Pitchford v. Cain, they’re higher still. In 2006, Terry Pitchford was convicted and sentenced to death, though he didn’t get an adequate opportunity at trial to argue that Black jurors were unconstitutionally struck from his jury pool on the basis of their race. CAC filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court, and that brief, filed in collaboration with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, explains that federal courts play a critical, statutorily authorized role in reviewing state-court convictions for certain errors—and that the Fifth Circuit made one such error in unreasonably deciding that Pitchford had waived his right at trial to argue that the prosecution’s race-neutral reasons for striking the jurors were actually pretextual.

As cases like Pitchford’s prove, people’s freedom, their lives, and their constitutional rights are often at stake in cases implicating questions about access to the courts. In another Supreme Court brief, T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System, CAC explained that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine shouldn’t bar a young woman’s quest for justice in the federal courts, after a state court forced her to sign onto an unconstitutional mandatory treatment plan. A misreading of the doctrine would be completely at odds with the history of Congress’s effort to throw open the doors of the lower federal courts for the vindication of federal rights.

Finally, in Flowers Foods v. Brock, CAC is fighting forced arbitration agreements that limit when workers can challenge big corporations in court. Flowers Foods is a case about “last-mile” delivery drivers, who complete the last leg of local delivery in a product’s journey across state lines. Our Supreme Court amicus brief explains that last-mile delivery drivers are obviously “engaged in interstate commerce,” and therefore exempt from forced arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. Though corporate interests are trying to keep workers like Angelo Brock out of court, CAC is fighting for their right to seek justice.

This fight for access to the courts is one we will certainly continue—both in the Supreme Court and in lower federal courts.

Litigation Updates

View All Cases

National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought

The en banc D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are constitutional. CAC filed an amicus brief on behalf of current and former Members of Congress, encouraging the full court to affirm the district court’s decision granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. D.C. Circuit, brief filed February 9.

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

The en banc D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress. CAC filed an amicus brief urging the D.C. Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision. Our brief explains why the Constitution’s separation of powers prohibits the President from unilaterally withholding federal funds based on disagreement with congressional policy. D.C. Circuit, brief filed February 9.

Grundmann v. Trump

The D.C. Circuit considered whether Donald Trump’s attempted firing of the Chair of the Federal Labor Relations Authority was illegal. CAC filed an amicus brief explaining that FLRA’s members are not removable at will by the President. Chair Grundmann moved to dismiss the case as moot because her term in office had expired, and the court granted that motion, ending the case. D.C. Circuit, case dismissed February 5.

Pitchford v. Cain

The Supreme Court is considering whether, under federal habeas law, the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably held that a criminal defendant waived his right to challenge racial bias in his jury selection. CAC and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed an amici curiaebrief in support of Pitchford. Our brief explains that federal courts play a critical, statutorily authorized role in reviewing state-court convictions for certain errors—and that the Fifth Circuit made one such error in unreasonably deciding that Pitchford had waived his right at trial to argue pretext in the dismissal of several Black potential jurors. Supreme Court, brief filed February 4.

Oregon v. Landis

The Ninth Circuit is considering when states may prosecute federal officers for state crimes. CAC filed an amicus brief on behalf of law professor Michael J.Z. Mannheimer, in support of the state’s petition for rehearing en banc. Our brief explains why Agent Landis is not immune from prosecution. Ninth Circuit, brief filed February 2.

Flores v. Bondi

The Ninth Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can terminate a settlement that protects immigrant children in detention centers. CAC filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of Members of Congress, opposing termination of the Flores Settlement. Our brief explains that a budget reconciliation bill cannot be read to silently displace the Settlement’s protections. Ninth Circuit, brief filed January 28.

Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas

The Fifth Circuit is considering whether the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act violate Article II of the U.S. Constitution. CAC filed an amicus brief in support of neither party on behalf of legal scholars, explaining that qui tam litigation has a long history and has never been considered an infringement on the executive power. Fifth Circuit, brief filed January 27.

Flowers Foods v. Brock

The Supreme Court is considering whether the Federal Arbitration Act exempts from arbitration “last-mile” delivery drivers who transport goods between two points in the same state to their final destinations, when the goods were originally shipped from outside the state. CAC filed a brief in support of Mr. Brock explaining that last-mile drivers are engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the FAA. Supreme Court, brief filed January 22.

T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System

The Supreme Court is considering whether the Rooker-Feldmandoctrine requires dismissal of a request for relief from a state-court decision that did not reach the state’s highest court. CAC filed a brief explaining why Rooker-Feldman does not bar T.M.’s search for justice in federal court. Supreme Court, brief filed January 21.

Ellingburg v. United States — WIN

The Supreme Court considered whether the Ex Post Facto Clause applies to restitution ordered under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. CAC filed an amicus brief explaining that the Ex Post Facto Clause applies in this case, and the Supreme Court unanimously agreed, explaining that restitution under the MVRA is a criminal penalty and subject to the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. Echoing our brief, Justice Kavanaugh wrote in the majority decision that the statute “makes abundantly clear that restitution is criminal punishment.” Supreme Court, decision rendered January 20.

The Sustainability Institute v. Trump

The Fourth Circuit considered whether the Trump administration can unilaterally terminate grant agreements based on disagreement with the congressional policies those grants further. CAC filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs, explaining why the Trump administration’s actions violate the separation of powers and usurp Congress’s authority over appropriations and spending. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment, holding that, under Dalton, the plaintiffs’ separation-of-powers claim was really just a claim that the Trump administration had violated various statutory provisions. Fourth Circuit, decision rendered January 20.

San Francisco v. Trump — WIN

The District Court for the Northern District of California considered whether the Trump administration can unilaterally withhold federal funds from jurisdictions that decline to implement his immigration agenda. CAC filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, urging the court to deny the pending motion to dismiss. Our brief explained that the Trump administration’s actions violate the separation of powers and that Dalton v. Specter does not bar the plaintiffs’ claims. The district court denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss, agreeing with the interpretation of Dalton laid out in our brief. District Court for the Northern District of California, decision rendered January 20.

Case v. Montana

The Supreme Court considered whether police may enter homes without warrants based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring. CAC filed a brief explaining that using a standard below probable cause to allow warrantless home entries by police would be contrary to the Fourth Amendment’s text and history. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not require probable cause that an emergency is occurring in order for police to enter a home without a warrant. The Court clarified, however, that “reasonable suspicion” of an emergency is not enough. Instead, officers must have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that an emergency is occurring. Supreme Court, decision rendered January 14.

California v. Trump

The First Circuit is considering whether President Trump’s executive order on elections is unlawful. CAC filed an amicus brief in support of the states challenging the order, arguing that the executive order violates the separation of powers by usurping Congress’s established procedure for adding requirements to the federal “mail voter registration application form” that states must “accept and use” to register voters. First Circuit, brief filed January 12.

CAC in the News

January 16: CAC Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David Gans joined Grant Hermes’ podcast to discuss the constitutional and civil rights implications of ICE’s actions. “What’s Happening To Civil Rights Under ICE? w/ David Gans.”

February 4: CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes was quoted as co-chair of the Not Above the Law coalition in Common Dreams’ piece on immigration enforcement in Minnesota. “This Occupation Has to End!’ Omar Argues After Homan Says Most Agents Will Stay in Minnesota.”

January 29: CAC Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David Gans was quoted in a TriplePundit article about the rights citizens have while interacting with federal immigration forces. “We, the People: Defending the U.S. Constitution As Immigration Raids Threaten Basic Rights.”

January 28: CAC Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David Gans spoke with Pema Levy of Mother Jones about the tragic events in Minnesota and the many ways citizens’ rights are being violated. “Five Constitutional Amendments Trump Is Ignoring in Minnesota.”

January 22: Smart Cities Dive cited CAC in an article discussing the Court’s ruling in Case v. Montana. “Supreme Court broadens police authority for warrantless home entry.”

January 19: CAC President Elizabeth Wydra authored a piece in Washington Monthly reflecting on the founding of our nation and the work to be done to ensure the progressive promise of the Constitution. “On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, A Moment to Reflect on the Constitution.”

January 14: CAC’s brief in Case v. Montana was cited in a New York Times article discussing the Supreme Court’s ruling. “Supreme Court Backs Police Entry Without Warrant in Emergencies.”

More Media Hits

Litigation Updates

CAC in the News

How to Get Neil Gorsuch to Stand Up For Workers

CAC Release: A Victory for Text, History, and Delivery Workers in Flowers Foods v. Brock

CAC Release: In Cisco v. Doe Argument, Justices Grapple with the Scope of Liability Under Two Critical Human Rights Statutes

Human Rights Suit Over Cisco Work for China Heads to Supreme Court

The Most Offensive Thing a Supreme Court Justice Can Do Is Be Honest About the Supreme Court

CAC Release: Court Considers Whether to Expand or Restrict Authority of Federal Courts to Collaterally Review State Court Judgments

Donate