You are here

Prior Cases

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | M | N | O | P | R | S | T | U | V | W | Z

Ali Hamza Suliman Ahmad Al Bahlul v. United States involved the application of the Ex Post Facto Clause to individuals detained at Guantanamo. 

In Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami and Wells Fargo & Co. v. City of Miami – consolidated for Supreme Court review – the Supreme Court considered whether or not a city government can sue alleged perpetrators of racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act as an “aggrieved” person within the meaning of the statute.  

Baskin v. Bogan was a federal-court challenge to discriminatory marriage laws in Indiana that prohibit same-sex marriage.  

In Bethune-Hill, et al. v. Virginia State Board of Elections, et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Virginia legislature’s use of a fixed racial quota to draw its state legislative districts violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

On May 25, 2011, CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of the petition for a writ of certiorari in Blueford v. Arkansas. The petitioner has asked the Court to hear the case to decide whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, permits the government to subject a criminal defendant to a second trial for the same serious charges of which a jury has acquitted him, simply because the jury deadlocked on a lesser-included offense.

On May 24, 2012, the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision upholding Arkansas' ruling that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not prevent the state from retrying Blueford on charges that the jury in his first trial unanimously rejected, relying on the fact that the jury deadlocked on a lesser-included offense.  

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.

Bostic v. Schaefer is a federal-court challenge to discriminatory marriage laws in Virginia that prohibit same-sex marriage.

Bourke v. Beshear was a federal court challenge to discriminatory marriage laws in Kentucky.  Four same-sex couples who validly married outside the state challenged Kentucky laws that prohibited the state from recognizing their marriages and that excluded them from the benefits of marriage available to married opposite-sex couples. 

In Buck v. Davis, the Supreme Court considered whether an African American man who was sentenced to death following a hearing that included racially biased testimony from an expert witness should be allowed to appeal a district court’s refusal to undo the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood v. Burwell—consolidated for Supreme Court review—raised the question of whether for-profit, secular corporations could deny their employees coverage for contraceptives in their group health insurance plans, a requirement under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Plaintiffs Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood argued 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 (RFRA), and that the ACA’s requirements violated the corporations’ free exercise rights.  They also argued that the ACA’s requirements violated the free exercise rights of the corporations’ individual owners.