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
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 is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional. 
Civil and Human Rights
March 11, 2025

Equality and Protection: The Forgotten Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment

102 Denv. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025)
Civil and Human Rights
North Dakota Supreme Court

Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley

In Access Independent Health Services Inc. v. Wrigley, the North Dakota Supreme Court is considering whether North Dakota’s abortion ban violates the state constitution.