This newsletter spends a lot of time on the U.S. Supreme Court, but here at CAC, we’re working to bring text-and-history arguments to the lower courts and state supreme courts as well. Two of our recent filings epitomize how CAC is using text-and-history arguments in courts around the country.

In Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, CAC, along with Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, filed an amici curiae brief in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of political scientists Kosuke Imai, Christopher T. Kenny, Phil Jones, and John Griffin. These scholars are experts on gerrymandering and the ways in which gerrymandering inhibits political competition, and this case is about Wisconsin’s congressional redistricting map, an anti-competitive gerrymander designed to suppress competition and make it nearly impossible to oust incumbents. Our brief explains that anti-competitive gerrymanders harm fundamental democratic principles and violate the Wisconsin state constitution. Voters deserve a meaningful choice between candidates, not a rigged system where the deck is stacked in favor of incumbent candidates. CAC is proud to partner with scholars and local partners to fight for fair maps.

And in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, CAC filed an amicus brief in In re Trump, a case with major potential repercussions for the rule of law. In March of 2025, the D.C. District Court held an emergency hearing regarding allegations that the government was preparing to deport Venezuelan nationals in immigration custody without due process. The court quickly ordered “any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air” to be returned to the United States, but in defiance of the court’s order, the government continued transporting immigration detainees to a notorious foreign prison in El Salvador where they were subjected to physical abuse and deprived of food, water, and medical care. According to the Trump administration, the court could not even investigate whether the government defied the court’s order. Our brief explains that the district court’s investigation can proceed because, in part, federal courts have the inherent authority to investigate and sanction bad-faith conduct.

No one, no matter how powerful they are, is above the law. That means politicians don’t get to rig electoral maps to make it more difficult for voters to hold them accountable. It also means the government has to comply with court orders and face accountability if it doesn’t. In state and federal courts across the country, CAC is both pushing back on the abuses of the Trump administration and also supporting affirmative litigation trying to create a fairer system for us all.

Womble v. Patel

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is considering whether a North Carolina prison’s failure to provide a prisoner with a hearing-aid battery violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). CAC filed an amicus brief explaining why the text and history of the ADA support the plaintiff’s claim. Supreme Court, brief filed September 9.

Genalo v. Black

The Supreme Court is considering whether prolonged detention without a bond hearing during immigration proceedings violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. CAC filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court that uses the text and history of the Due Process Clause to show that the Clause forbids the use of prolonged imprisonment pending removal hearings with no opportunity for bail for citizens and noncitizens alike. Supreme Court, brief filed September 8.

Perlmutter v. Blanche

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether the President can unilaterally remove the Register of Copyrights. Congress created the office of the Register of Copyrights over a hundred years ago to, among other things, provide advice to Congress on the nation’s copyright program. Congress also specified that the Librarian of Congress had the exclusive authority to appoint, supervise, and remove the Register. However, President Trump attempted to unilaterally remove Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter. CAC filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of the Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration and the Ranking Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary in support of Register Perlmutter. D.C. Circuit, brief filed September 8.

United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates – WIN

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit considered whether the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act violates the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution. The qui tam provision of the False Claims Act authorizes private persons to bring suit to redress frauds against the United States. In response to a whistleblower suit alleging Florida Medical Associates engaged in Medicare fraud, Florida Medical Associates claimed the FCA’s qui tam provision violates various provisions of the Constitution. CAC filed an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit explaining that the qui tam provision is constitutional under the Appointments Clause. The Eleventh Circuit agreed, holding that the qui tam provision does not violate the Appointments Clause, vacating the district court’s dismissal, and remanding the case back to the district court. Eleventh Circuit, brief filed January 15, 2025, decision rendered September 1.

Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering the legality of Wisconsin’s congressional redistricting map. A group of democracy advocates and Wisconsin voters challenged Wisconsin’s new map in state court as a violation of the Wisconsin Constitution, alleging it is an anti-competitive gerrymander. CAC, along with Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of political scientists in support of the plaintiffs. Wisconsin Supreme Court, brief filed September 1.

In re Trump

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether a district court can investigate whether the Trump administration defied its orders when it sent Venezuelan immigrants to a prison in El Salvador without due process. In March 2025, the D.C. District Court held an emergency hearing regarding allegations that the government was preparing to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to remove Venezuelan nationals in immigration custody without due process. The government decided to transport these immigration detainees to a notorious foreign prison where they were subjected to physical abuse and deprived of food, water, and medical care. The district court investigated whether government officials intentionally violated the order, and the Trump administration filed a writ of mandamus trying to block the proceedings. CAC filed an amicus brief in the D.C. Circuit opposing the government’s request. D.C. Circuit, brief filed August 28.

Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC – WIN

The Third Circuit considered whether the Due Process Clause allows the Trump administration to detain all undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings against them without providing bail hearings. CAC filed an amicus brief explaining why the Trump policy, even if it were authorized by the nation’s immigration laws, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Third Circuit agreed, holding that the detentions without hearings violated the Immigration and Nationalization Act and the Due Process Clause. Third Circuit, brief filed April 22, decision rendered August 28.

Lugot-Solet v. Mullin

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

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy

The Supreme Court is considering whether the Free Exercise Clause requires Colorado to allow religious preschool providers to join its state-funded universal preschool program even if they refuse to comply with the state’s neutral and generally applicable rule barring discrimination against children and families based on sexual orientation and gender identity. CAC filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of First Amendment scholars in support of Colorado. Supreme Court, brief filed August 24.

National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation

The Supreme Court considered the Trump administration’s application to stay a lower-court injunction preventing President Trump from building a massive ballroom at the White House without Congress’s permission. The D.C. Circuit previously considered whether President Trump could build the ballroom, and CAC filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of Members of Congress urging the court to recognize that the President may only use funds authorized and appropriated by Congress to maintain and renovate the White House. The D.C. Circuit agreed, enjoining the Trump administration from continuing construction. Trump appealed to the Supreme Court for a stay. CAC again filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of Members of Congress, arguing that the Court should not permit the President to continue with the challenged White House construction as litigation proceeds, but the Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction. Supreme Court, brief filed August 18, decision rendered August 21.

Grant v. Knapp – WIN

The Fourth Circuit considered whether a South Carolina law that only allows voters who are 65 and older to vote by mail without a qualifying excuse violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment’s prohibition on age-based discrimination in voting. The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina had previously upheld the state’s age-based restriction on mail-in voting. CAC filed an amicus brief urging the Fourth Circuit to reverse the district court’s ruling. The Fourth Circuit did and held that the restriction of “no excuse” absentee-by-mail ballots to voters older than 65 violated the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Fourth Circuit, brief filed August 6, 2025, decision rendered August 18.

Kian v. State of Florida

The Supreme Court is considering whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to have at least twelve members. CAC filed an amicus brief explaining why the Court should overturn Williams v. Florida, a 1970 Supreme Court case which held that a jury with fewer than twelve members was compatible with the Sixth Amendment, and hold that the twelve-person jury is a constitutional floor. Supreme Court, brief filed August 13.

Climate United Fund v. Citibank  – WIN

The en banc United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit considered whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress. The D.C. District Court had previously enjoined the Trump administration’s actions, but a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit reversed the decision. In February 2026, CAC filed an amicus brief explaining why the en banc D.C. Circuit should enjoin the government’s actions. The en banc panel upheld the district court’s preliminary injunction in August 2026. D.C. Circuit en banc, brief filed February 9, decision rendered August 4.

August 29: CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes spoke to Abby Winters about the weaponization of the Department of Justice. “Interview with Praveen Fernandes, Vice President at the Constitutional Accountability Center”

August 18: CAC’s amici curiae brief to SCOTUS on behalf of Members of Congress opposing Trump’s illegal ballroom was featured in the Washington Post. “Ballroom opponents ask Supreme Court to keep Trump project on hold”

August 18: Praveen Fernandes and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse spoke about what accountability looks like now that Todd Blanche has been confirmed as Attorney General. “Not Above the Law Creator Call”

August 11: Praveen Fernandes joined Sonali Kolhatkar on the Rising Up with Sonali podcast to discuss the confirmation of Todd Blanche as Attorney General. “Discussion on Todd Blanche’s confirmation, data centers, and Missouri’s primary election results.”

August 8: Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David Gans’ June 2026 appearance on the Amicus podcast was cited in a later episode about the American people’s role in shaping constitutional meaning. “Now It’s Your Turn”