Every year, as the Supreme Court wraps up oral arguments for the Term, CAC convenes a panel of legal experts to break down the major cases before the Court at Home Stretch at the Supreme Court. This year, the day before Home Stretch, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Louisiana v. Callais gutting the Voting Rights Act. In a rejection of the text and history of the Constitution and its protections for our multiracial democracy, the conservative supermajority’s devastating decision made all too clear how the Supreme

Court can entrench inequality when it turns its back on the Reconstruction Amendments. As CAC President Elizabeth Wydra stated in her opening remarks, history nonetheless teaches us that “no matter how hard oppression seeks to take hold in this country, the desire for liberty will never be extinguished, and we will continue to claim the rights and freedoms we are owed under the Constitution.”

This year’s discussion was moderated by Law Dork’s Chris Geidner, and featured an all-star panel of legal experts, including Kelsi Brown Corkran, Supreme Court Director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy & Protection and Senior Lecturer at Georgetown University Law Center; Easha Anand, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School; Melissa Murray, Frederick I. and Grace Stokes Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, and author of The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader; Jennifer Bennett, Principal of Gupta Wessler LLP; and CAC’s own Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod. From battles over tariffs, birthright citizenship, and voting on the Court’s merits docket, to important questions about the separation of powers and presidential overreach on the Court’s shadow docket, our panel walked listeners through the enormous stakes at the Court. As Chris Geidner observed, this Term has been “momentous/horrific depending on where you are standing or sitting.” The recording of the panel is available for anyone who was unable to join us.

At such a consequential moment for the nation, it’s more important than ever to defend the rule of law and our constitutional values. On national Law Day, in partnership with groups like Lawyers for Good Government, CAC co-hosted a event for attorneys, legal professionals, and members of the public to affirm our oath to uphold the Constitution outside the Supreme Court. Across the country, in the face of unprecedented attacks on judges, lawyers, civil society, and the rule of law itself, over 3,000 people participated in Law Day of Action, with over 75 events across the country. As Judge Herbert Dixon remarked to attendees before administering the oath at the event at the Supreme Court, you don’t need a law degree or a bar card to defend the rule of law, because “Law Day belongs to everyone. It honors the idea that the rule of law is not the property of any profession, but the shared inheritance of every person who lives under its protection.” CAC is proud to be a part of that inheritance in our work to fulfill the progressive promise of our Constitution.

Sistrunk Seeds v. Trump

On behalf of a Miami nonprofit, Miami residents, and a Miami Dade College student, CAC, along with the law firm of Gelber Schachter & Greenberg, sued to hold President Trump accountable for violating the Domestic Emoluments Clause by accepting a lucrative land parcel from the State of Florida. Although the land is purportedly for his “library,” President Trump has acknowledged that the building on the site is “most likely going to be a hotel with a beautiful building underneath and a 747 Air Force One in the lobby,” with significant personal financial benefits flowing to President Trump. The suit asks the District Court for the Southern District of Florida to void this unconstitutional transaction and hold President Trump accountable to the Constitution. Southern District of Florida, complaint filed May 13.

Nemer v. Bondi

The District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether an Immigration Judge can invoke the protections of Title VII and the First Amendment after being removed by the Attorney General. CAC filed an amicus brief in support of Ms. Nemer explaining why the Trump administration’s argument is at odds with the text and history of the Constitution, as well as centuries of historical practice. D.C. District Court, brief filed May 12.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Office of Management and Budget

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering whether President Trump’s Office of Management and Budget must comply with a federal law requiring it to post its apportionment decisions on a public website. CAC filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs explaining why the Constitution does not allow the Trump administration to ignore spending transparency laws. D.C. Circuit, brief filed May 4.

Louisiana v. Callais

The Supreme Court considered whether to reverse a district court decision that held unconstitutional the map the Louisiana legislature enacted to remedy a prior violation of the Voting Rights Act. CAC filed a brief explaining that the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district does not violate the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments. The Court struck down Louisiana’s map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Supreme Court, brief filed September 4, decision rendered April 29.

RAICES v. Noem  — WIN

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considered whether the Trump administration could prohibit certain people within the country from seeking asylum. CAC filed a brief explaining that the administration’s asylum restrictions are unlawful. The D.C. Circuit agreed and held that the text, structure, and history of the Immigration and Nationality Act make clear that the administration defied Congress’s plan for the country’s immigration system. D.C. Circuit, brief filed September 19, decision rendered April 24.

Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega

The Fifth Circuit is considering whether the Due Process Clause allows the Trump administration to imprison all undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings against them. CAC filed an amicus brief explaining why the Trump policy violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Fifth Circuit, brief filed April 24.

Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC

The Third Circuit is considering whether the Due Process Clause allows the Trump administration to imprison all undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings against them. CAC filed an amicus brief explaining why the Trump policy violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Third Circuit, brief filed April 24.

May 7: CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod and her fellow panelists at CAC’s 13th Annual Home Stretch at the Supreme Court were cited in Roll Call discussing the past Term at the Supreme Court. “Supreme Court yet to decide on Election Day, Trump firings.”

May 7: CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes co-authored an article in Bloomberg Law with former D.C. Bar President Patrick McGlone explaining how Congress can push back on the Trump DOJ’s threats to the rule of law. “Bondi Corroded DOJ’s Integrity. Congress Must Now Demand Change.”

April 27: CAC Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen was interviewed by Bloomberg Law about our brief in Cisco Systems v. Doe. “Human Rights Suit Over Cisco Work for China Heads to Supreme Court.”

April 25: CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes was interviewed by HuffPost about Trump’s attacks on the Southern Poverty Law Center. “The Chilling Message Behind Trump’s Attack On The SPLC.”

April 24: CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod spoke to CNN about big business at the Supreme Court. “How the Supreme Court will have a major impact on the economy this spring”

April 17: Balls & Strikes featured Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David Gans’s article on the importance of the Black Conventions. “The Most Offensive Thing a Supreme Court Justice Can Do Is Be Honest About the Supreme Court.”

April 15: CAC’s amicus brief on behalf of legal scholars in Sripetch v. SEC was featured in SCOTUSblog. “Court to contemplate SEC’s use of disgorgement in securities enforcement.”

April 15: David Gans wrote about the Black Conventions after the Civil War and their role in shaping our Constitution for Slate magazine. “The Supreme Court Has a Chance to Revolutionize Its Approach to the Law.”

April 15: David Gans’s article in Slate about Black Conventions after the Civil War was featured on the Election Law Blog. “David Gans on the History of the Reconstruction Amendments, and the Connection to Current Supreme Court Cases, including Callais.”

April 14: CAC Kendall Fellow Michelle Berger discussed CAC’s amicus brief in M. v. University of Maryland with Law360, explaining why this case has enormous implications for civil rights. “Doctors Hope Justices Maintain Shield Against Med Mal Suits.”