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.
You are here
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.
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.
On August 30, 2013, Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in David Leon Riley v. State of California, a case with important implications for the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. At issue in Riley is whether, and under what circumstances, the police may conduct a warrantless search of a person’s cell phone upon that person’s arrest.
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius -- consolidated for Supreme Court review -- raise the question of whether for-profit, secular corporations can deny their employees coverage for contraceptives in their group health insurance plans, a requirement under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Plaintiffs Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood argue that for-profit, secular corporations are entitled to protection under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and/or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and that the ACA’s requirements violate the corporations’ free exercise rights. They also argue that the ACA’s requirements violate the free exercise rights of the corporations’ individual owners.
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (“UARG”) is the Supreme Court’s most recent foray into the issue of climate change. Most famously, in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) had the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, clearing the way for EPA’s recent (and future) efforts to reduce these emissions and combat climate change. While the Court turned away industry challenges to the core of Mass. v. EPA when it granted review in UARG, it did agree to hear a narrow challenge to EPA’s decision to apply an important permitting program to greenhouse gas emissions.