Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Reaction to Court’s Ruling in Allen v. Cooper

WASHINGTON – On news this morning of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Allen v. Cooper, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Dayna Zolle and Civil Rights Director David Gans issued the following reaction: 

“We are disappointed in today’s ruling,” Zolle said. “Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, by design, grants Congress broad authority to enact ‘appropriate legislation’ to enforce that Amendment’s guarantees, and Section 5’s text and history confirm the substantial breadth of Congress’s enforcement authority. The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act is, in fact, a ‘congruent and proportional’ response to a history of unconstitutional conduct by states that Congress sought to remedy and deter.”  

“As Justice Stephen Breyer’s separate opinion noted,” Gans continued, “the Court’s cases have gotten the Constitution wrong and incorrectly denied Congress the authority to protect individuals from state infringement of constitutional rights. While Justice Breyer and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred in the ruling, they noted their continuing dissent from the Court’s repeated closing of the courthouse doors on individuals injured by state governmental action.”  

# 

Resources:

CAC case page in Allen v. Cooper: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/allen-v-cooper/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2025

CAC Release: Purporting to Effectuate “Pure Textualism,” Supreme Court Guts ADA’s Protections for Retirees, Neglecting Critical Statutory Context and History

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Stanley v. City of...
Civil and Human Rights
June 18, 2025

CAC Release: Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority Allows Tennessee to Flout Constitution’s Equal Protection Guarantee

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in United States v. Skrmetti,...
Civil and Human Rights
June 21, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.