CAC’s Twelfth Annual Home Stretch at the Supreme Court Breaks Down Major Term at the Court

After the Supreme Court wrapped up the final oral arguments in the cases on its merits docket, the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) convened a panel of legal experts to break down what you need to know about this Term. CAC President Elizabeth Wydra delivered opening remarks, followed by a discussion moderated by Slate Senior Writer Mark Joseph Stern, and featuring Pamela S. Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School; Devi M. Rao, Director of the Washington D.C. office and the Supreme Court and Appellate Program at the MacArthur Justice Center; Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal of Gupta Wessler LLP and Lecturer at Harvard Law School; and CAC’s own Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod. If you weren’t able to join us, the recording is now available.

Our panelists did a deep dive into both the headline-grabbing cases of the Term and equally important cases which flew under the radar. Professor Karlan, for example, discussed United States v. Skrmetti and Mahmoud v. Taylor, both high-profile cases implicating LGBTQ+ rights and parental rights. Brianne Gorod discussed Louisiana v. Callais, a case about the legality of Louisiana’s congressional maps that could potentially tell us something about the future of the Voting Rights Act. Deepak Gupta highlighted LabCorp v. Davis, an important access-to-courts case he argued at the Court. And Devi Rao talked about two major police accountability cases: Barnes v. Felix and Martin v. United States.

Unsurprisingly, with a number of cases challenging Trump administration actions already on the Supreme Court’s shadow docket, our panel talked about the fight to hold Trump accountable in the courts. Deepak, who represents the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member who Trump unlawfully attempted to fire, explained that if Trump’s attempts to fire her and other independent agency leaders are ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, it would “cast a constitutional cloud on everything from the Federal Reserve to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Transportation Safety Board.” And Devi provided an overview of Trump’s “chaotic” actions sending people to a prison in El Salvador known for human rights abuses with no due process.

We hope you’ll watch our panelists discuss these and so many other issues. As the conversation makes clear, there is no shortage of critical issues being litigated in our courts today, and CAC will continue to stand up for our Constitution’s progressive promise in district courts, courts of appeals, and in the Supreme Court. As Elizabeth Wydra explained in her opening remarks, “The Constitution is enduring but not invincible, and it is ultimately up to us to keep it as a tool of liberation and progress, rather than one of oppression and authoritarianism.”

• American Center for International Labor Solidarity v. Chavez-Deremer—The Department of Labor’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB) supports international labor rights around the world by strengthening global worker protections and enforcing labor commitments in U.S. trade agreements. ILAB’s work plays a critical role in combatting child labor, forced labor, human trafficking, and other labor rights violations. The Trump Administration terminated all of ILAB’s cooperative agreements, with no plans to otherwise spend funds specifically appropriated for ILAB’s work. A group of nonprofits that carry out vital work to enhance global labor rights through cooperative agreements with ILAB filed suit to challenge these actions. Our amicus brief explains why the administration’s actions were unconstitutional. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, brief filed May 7.
• American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump —President Trump has attempted to dismantle dozens of statutorily created agencies without congressional authorization. His administration abruptly laid off or furloughed thousands of workers, froze vital community programming and humanitarian aid, and paused, dismantled, or unlawfully ended countless health, safety, research, environmental, and cultural projects. Our amicus brief explains why the administration’s actions are unconstitutional. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, brief filed May 7.
• Personal Services Contractor Association v. Trump —President Trump has ruthlessly attempted to unilaterally dismantle USAID without congressional authorization. His administration abruptly laid off or furloughed thousands of USAID employees and froze funding for USAID’s lifesaving programs. Our brief explains why trying to unilaterally dismantle USAID is unconstitutional. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, brief filed May 2.
• Shilling v. Trump — Plaintiffs are challenging President Trump’s executive order categorically barring transgender people from serving in the military. CAC filed a brief in support of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and the court, citing our brief, granted the injunction. The Trump Administration asked the Supreme Court to stay the injunction, and in May 2025, CAC filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in opposition to the Trump Administration’s application to stay the district court’s injunction. The Supreme Court granted the stay. Supreme Court, brief filed May 1, stay granted May 6.
• American Foreign Service Association v. Trump — In a similar case to PSCA v. Trump, our brief explains why the Trump Administration’s effort to unilaterally dismantle USAID is unconstitutional. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, brief filed April 25.
• Slaughter v. Trump — In Slaughter v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s attempted firing of Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya from the Federal Trade Commission was illegal. Our brief on behalf of Members of Congress explains that the FTC’s leadership structure is consistent with Supreme Court precedent and established practice, and Slaughter and Bedoya’s firing without good cause was unlawful. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, brief filed April 25.
• Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey — In these consolidated cases, the Supreme Court is considering whether to partially stay preliminary injunctions blocking the Trump Administration’s executive order purporting to limit birthright citizenship to children who have at least one parent who is a citizen or is lawfully admitted for permanent residence. CAC filed an amicus brief on behalf of an ideologically diverse group of legal scholars opposing the stay, and also filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit below. Supreme Court, brief filed April 22.
• Beck v. United States — When Staff Sargeant Cameron Beck was killed by a civilian employee on a military base who was texting while driving, the district court and the Eight Circuit held that the government could not be held liable, using a judge-made exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Our brief to the Supreme Court, also joined by the Rutherford Institute, explains why claims like those of the Beck family are allowed under the FTCA. Supreme Court, brief filed April 17.

• April 28: Miriam Becker-Cohen joined Gray DC News’s Local News to discuss Martin v. United States. “Gray DC News: Martin v. USA: A wrong-house raid ends up at the door of the Supreme Court”
• May 1: David Gans spoke to UCLA’s Daily Bruin about the history of struggle and conflict in our constitutional system and its lessons for today. “Daily Bruin: Have the Trump administration’s actions put the US into a constitutional crisis?”
• May 1: Praveen Fernandes was quoted in Law.com about how attorneys, including at the Justice Department, have a duty to comply with the law and avoid making false statements of fact. “com: Bondi’s Firing of DOJ Lawyer for Lack of ‘Zealous Advocacy’ in Deportation Case Raises Concerns”
• April 29: Miriam Becker-Cohen’s response to oral argument in Martin v. United States was quoted in the Washington Examiner. “Washington Examiner: Supreme Court signals narrow path forward in mistaken FBI raid case”
• April 29: Miriam Becker-Cohen was quoted in Gray DC News’s Local News Live’s article discussing oral argument in Martin v. United States. “Gray DC News: Martin v. USA tackles wrong-house raid, government accountability
• April 28: Miriam Becker-Cohen spoke to Stars and Stripes about what’s at stake in Beck v. United States, a case about when negligent federal employees can be held liable. “Stars and Stripes: Widow of airman killed in on-base crash asks high court for review in Feres doctrine fight”
• April 25: Praveen Fernandes spoke to Cronkite News about our current moment of “constitutional peril.” “Cronkite News: When does President Donald Trump’s defiance of courts in deportation case cross the line into a constitutional crisis?”

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?