You are here

Current Cases

On June 10, 2013, Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Ali Hamza Suliman Ahmad Al Bahlul v. United States, a case involving the application of the Ex Post Facto Clause to individuals detained at Guantanamo.

On August 16, 2013, Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of the government in Bond v. United States, a case with important implications for the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

On September 11, 2013, Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of the government in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer. For more than 50 years, the federal government has sought to mitigate interstate air pollution and promote healthy air quality.

Halbig v. Sebelius involves a major challenge to a key component of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), a landmark law dedicated to achieving the single goal of widespread, affordable health care.  

Jackson v. Louisiana raises a question central to the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to a trial by jury: whether an individual may be convicted of a crime even if the jury in his case cannot reach a unanimous verdict. 

King v. Sebelius involves a challenge to a key component of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), a landmark law dedicated to achieving widespread, affordable health care.

Kitchen v. Herbert and Bishop v. Smith involve federal-court challenges to discriminatory marriage laws in Utah and Oklahoma. 

McCutcheon v. FEC involves a First Amendment challenge to the constitutionality of campaign finance legislation that establishes aggregate contribution limits in federal elections.  Under federal law, an individual may make a total of $123,200 in contributions in each two-year election cycle ($48,600 to candidates and $74,600 to parties and non-party political committees).  The district court rejected Shaun McCutcheon’s challenge to the aggregate limits, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning is a case with important implications for the scope of the President’s fundamental power to make temporary appointments to Executive and Judicial Branch offices pursuant to the Recess Appointments Clause.  

Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie are cases with important implications for the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.  They both raise the question whether, and under what circumstances, the police may conduct a warrantless search of a person’s cell phone upon that person’s arrest.

Pages