The first full month of the Trump administration seemed to bring new attacks on our Constitution and the rule of law every day, but CAC was ready for this moment.

We’ve already filed multiple briefs against the Trump administration’s cruel and unlawful funding freeze, an action that has put the lives of vulnerable people around the world in danger. While the Supreme Court has already rejected Donald Trump’s efforts to avoid a district court order that he unfreeze certain funding, we know this fight is only just beginning, and we plan to stay in it until the end.

We’re also in the courts from coast to coast explaining why Trump’s unconstitutional ban on transgender people in the military draws on the same tired and unsupported arguments that were used to justify racial segregation in the Armed Forces; prevent gay and lesbian soldiers from serving openly; and forbid women from serving in combat roles.

And, on top of that, we’ve filed briefs in two cases pushing back on illegal attempts to remove independent agency leaders who protect workers and the civil service workforce. Already, the federal district court for the District of Columbia has agreed that Trump’s attempt to remove the Chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board was unlawful.  Another judge within the same district also ruled—in an opinion citing the brief that CAC filed—that Trump’s attempt to fire a Member of the National Labor Relations Board was illegal. Sadly, we know the attacks on these agencies will keep coming, and we know how important it is to stay in this fight. As CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod explained in the Associated Press, dozens of independent agencies “protect America’s workers, help ensure the safety of our consumer products and regulate the civilian use of nuclear energy.” CAC Senior Research Associate Alice Lesniak wrote about how the structure of these agencies, including the removal protections enjoyed by their leaders, helps them do their work on behalf of the American people.

Moreover, even as we’re focusing lots of energy on pushing back on Trump’s illegal actions, we’re continuing our other work as well. Recently we saw some big wins for everyday Americans in cases in which we filed last year.

In Arizona, CAC filed a brief explaining why voters can’t be disqualified if their application to register to vote has errors or omissions that are totally immaterial to their qualifications to vote. The Ninth Circuit agreed, invalidating Arizona’s requirement that voter registration forms force applicants to list their birthplace. And in the Tenth Circuit, where industry groups challenged the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s structure after it issued new rules to protect children’s safety, CAC filed a brief defending the agency’s structure, and the Court upheld it. Finally, at the Supreme Court, though the Court’s conservative majority has often undermined access to the courts, the justices recognized, as CAC argued in our amicus brief, that the Alabama Supreme Court was wrong when it allowed Alabama to force civil rights plaintiffs into a “catch-22” that made it impossible for them to get into court.

CAC’s unique combination of historical scholarship and legal advocacy is paying off in the courts, and we’re continuing to develop groundbreaking new scholarship to support our litigation work. Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David H. Gans will soon be publishing an exciting new paper in the Denver Law Review exploring the forgotten promise of “protection” in the Equal Protection Clause as an affirmative constitutional obligation. As David explained in Washington Monthly, the constitutional mandate to protect the rights and safety of marginalized people is unfortunately still deeply relevant. And later this month, David and CAC’s inaugural Scholar-in-Residence, Professor Alexis Hoag-Fordjour, are convening a CAC Spring Law Faculty Workshop with scholars from across the nation to help share and develop cutting-edge new scholarship advancing our Constitution’s progressive promise.

Together, we’re ready for the next four years and beyond as we continue to advocate for constitutional accountability. You can follow along with our filing updates on X and Bluesky.

• Wilcox v. Trump —CAC WIN— The D.C. District Court considered whether President Trump’s firing of National Labor Relations Board Member Gwynne Wilcox was illegal. CAC filed a brief in support of Wilcox, explaining that the constitutionality of agencies such as the NLRB is supported by Supreme Court precedent, long-standing practice, and the text and history of the Constitution. On March 6, the D.C. District Court ruled in favor of Wilcox and, citing our brief, upheld the constitutionality of the NLRB’s structure. The D.C. Circuit is now considering the government’s motion to stay the district court’s order in favor of Wilcox, and CAC filed an amicus brief in opposition to the government’s motion to stay the district court’s order. C. District Court, filed February 14, decision rendered March 6. D.C. Circuit, filed March 11.

• Harris v. Bessent —CAC WIN— The D.C. District Court considered whether Trump’s firing of Merit Systems Protection Board Chair Cathy Harris was illegal. CAC filed a brief in support of Harris, explaining that the constitutionality of agencies such as the MSPB is supported by Supreme Court precedent, long-standing practice, and the text and history of the Constitution. On March 4, the D.C. District Court ruled in favor of Harris and, echoing our brief, upheld the constitutionality of the MSPB’s structure. The D.C. Circuit is now considering the government’s motion to stay the district court’s order in favor of Harris, and CAC filed an amicus brief in opposition to the government’s motion to stay the district court’s order. C. District Court, filed February 24, decision rendered March 4. D.C. Circuit, filed March 10.

• SpaceX v. National Labor Relations Board—The Fifth Circuit dismissed SpaceX’s appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and did not reach the merits of SpaceX’s challenge to the constitutionality of the NLRB. Fifth Circuit, decision rendered March 5.

• Catholic Charities Fort Worth v. Department of Health and Human Services — The D.C. District Court is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to freeze funding appropriated for the Refugee Resettlement Program violates federal law and the Constitution. CAC filed a brief in support of plaintiffs, explaining that the Framers gave Congress, not the President, the power of the purse, and that centuries of practice and precedent affirm this separation-of-powers principle. C. District Court, March 5.

• MagnetSafety.org v. Consumer Product Safety Commission—CAC WIN— The Tenth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the CPSC’s leadership structure, explaining that Supreme Court precedent does not call into question the constitutionality of removal protections for the leaders of agencies like the CPSC. Tenth Circuit, decision rendered March 3.

• Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services — The Third Circuit is considering whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional taking of drug manufacturers’ property. CAC filed a brief in support of the program, explaining why the drug manufacturer’s Takings Clause claim is unsupported by constitutional text and history. Third Circuit, filed February 26.

• Mi Familia Vota v. Petersen —CAC WIN— The Ninth Circuit held that Arizona’s birthplace requirement violates the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act. Echoing our brief, the court concluded that a voter’s birthplace has no “probable impact on eligibility to vote,” and thus that the birthplace requirement is immaterial and a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Ninth Circuit, decision rendered February 25.

• Lackey v. Stinnie — The Supreme Court concluded that plaintiffs who obtain a preliminary injunction do not qualify as “prevailing parties” eligible for attorney’s fees under Section 1988. Echoing our brief, Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissented, explaining that the majority’s conclusion runs contrary to the text and history of the statute. Supreme Court, decision rendered February 25.

• 
  Williams v. Reed —CAC WIN— The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Alabama residents applying for unemployment benefits who sought to challenge delays on their applications, explaining that the state had created an impossible “catch-22.” The Court echoed our brief in concluding that the lower court’s decision ran counter to the Supreme Court’s Section 1983 precedent. Supreme Court, decision rendered February 21.

• Shilling v. Trump — The Western District of Washington is considering whether President Trump’s executive order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional. CAC filed a brief in support of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the ban violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and that it cannot withstand any level of judicial scrutiny. Western District of Washington, filed February 19.

• AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Department of State and Global Health Council v. Trump — CAC WIN—The D.C. District Court considered whether the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to freeze funding to foreign development assistance programs violates federal law and the Constitution. CAC filed a brief in support of plaintiffs, explaining that the Framers gave Congress, not the President, the power of the purse, and that centuries of practice and precedent affirm this separation-of-powers principle. On March 10, the district court issued a preliminary injunction substantially blocking the freeze, echoing the language of CAC’s brief. C. District Court, filed February 19.

• Talbott v. Trump — The D.C. District Court is considering whether President Trump’s executive order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional. CAC filed a brief in support of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the ban violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and that it cannot withstand any level of judicial scrutiny. C. District Court, filed February 14.

• Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley — The North Dakota Supreme Court is considering whether North Dakota’s abortion ban violates the North Dakota Constitution. CAC filed a brief that, drawing on the text, structure, and history of the North Dakota Constitution, showed that the Constitution’s Inalienable Rights Clause protects the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy, including abortion. North Dakota Supreme Court, filed February 5.

• March 7: CAC President Elizabeth Wydra was featured on Bloomberg’s Balance of Power discussing the unlawful federal funding freeze and the legal consequences of Trump calling Elon Musk the head of DOGE in his joint address to Congress. “TV (Bloomberg): Could Trump Saying Musk Heads DOGE Create Legal Issue?”

• March 1: CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes was quoted in an article from HuffPost about the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States and the limits of executive power. “Did The Supreme Court Already Accept Donald Trump’s Autocratic Vision Of The Presidency? Trump Thinks So.”

• February 27: CAC Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David H. Gans published an opinion piece in Washington Monthly about the Trump administration’s s effort to strip marginalized populations of legal protections and how that runs afoul of the promise of “protection” embedded in the Equal Protection Clause. “What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era”

• February 25: CAC Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David H. Gans published an opinion piece in The Hill on what it would mean if the Trump administration were to disobey the courts. “Trump defying a court order would trigger a constitutional crisis”

• February 25: CAC Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen was quoted in an article from Medill on the Hill recapping the oral argument at the Supreme Court in Gutierrez v. Saenz. “SCOTUS debates a death-row inmate’s request for DNA testing”

• February 21: CAC Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen joined Gray DC to discuss Gutierrez v. Saenz. “TV (Gray DC): CAC’s Becker-Cohen Joins Gray DC to Discuss Procedural Due Process Claim in Death Row Case”

• February 20: CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod was quoted in an article from the Associated Press about the case law that supports the constitutionality of independent agencies. “What is Humphrey’s Executor? A look at the 90-year-old Supreme Court decision Trump is targeting”

• February 19: CAC’s brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley was featured on the Center for Reproductive Rights website. “History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley”

• February 17: CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes joined TRT World to discuss President Trump’s pardons of January 6 rioters. “TV (TRT World): CAC’s Fernandes Joins TRT World to Discuss January 6 Pardons”

• February 12: CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes was quoted in an article from National Herald India on President Trump’s imposition of tariffs and the extent of his executive power. “Trump’s tariff misadventure”

The Virtues and Necessity of Independent Agencies

By Alice Lesniak

In the month and a half since President Trump took office for his second term, he has created chaos in the government by illegally attempting to fire a number of officials. This includes Gwynne Wilcox, a Member of the National Labor Relations Board; Cathy Harris, the chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board; and Susan Grundmann, the chair of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. He has also issued an executive order attempting to increase his executive power over these and other long-standing independent agencies. CAC’s Alice Lesniak wrote about how these independent agencies are structured to serve the American people on CAC’s blog.

Inaugural Spring Law Faculty Workshop

CAC is delighted that on 3/20-21, 2025, we will be hosting the first-ever Spring Law Faculty Workshop at our offices in Washington. Spearheaded by CAC’s inaugural Scholar-in-Residence, Alexis Hoag-Fordjour, and CAC’s Director of Civil Rights, Human Rights, and Citizenship, David Gans, the workshop will gather 17 professors from law schools across the nation whose work engages the Constitution, civil rights, and justice—areas at the heart of CAC’s mission.

Each professor will present a work-in-progress, seeking feedback and commentary from the participants; the workshop will also provide space for the incubation of new scholarship. Hoag-Fordjour will share a new project, “Divided Loyalties: Defense Counsel’s Self-Interests and the Accused.” As Hoag-Fordjour summarizes, the work-in-progress “explores an undertheorized aspect of the Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel: conflicts that arise between indigent defendants and counsel’s own interests. Relying on constitutional history, the relevant ethical rules and guidelines, and contemporary principles,” the work “offers a clarifying assessment of conflicts based on counsel’s self-interests.”

David Gans will present his latest work, “Equality and Protection: The Forgotten Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.” In this paper, which will be published later this year by the Denver Law Review, Gans notes that “at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause are two fundamental principles: equality and protection. Tragically, the Supreme Court has read one of these two principles—protection—out of our foundational charter.” He argues powerfully that “[we] cannot hope to recover the true meaning of the guarantee of the equal protection of the laws without taking seriously the broad concept of protection.” In a Constitution composed mostly of negative rights, the right to protection is a positive right requiring the government to act affirmatively to safeguard the life, liberty, and property of all persons.

All of us at CAC are grateful to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for its support for CAC’s Scholar-in-Residence program, and for what we hope will become an annual spring event for law faculty. In the coming months, we plan to feature additional details about the attendees and the ideas generated during the workshop.

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?