In July, the Supreme Court’s justices hung up their robes for the summer, but CAC’s litigators leapt into action. Last month, CAC’s attorneys and scholars were featured in a wide range of outlets to help explain some of the important decisions of the Supreme Court term and their implications.

Of course, one of the most important decisions of the term was also one of the final ones to come out: the presidential immunity decision. Speaking to a wide range of audiences, CAC’s experts dissected the decision and explained why it was completely ahistorical. Smita Ghosh, CAC Appellate Counsel and one of the drafters of the brief we filed on behalf of constitutional law scholars in the case, joined a panel of constitutional history experts at Seattle University School of Law to help break down the immunity decision. Smita explained that the conservative majority’s opinion “didn’t use the text of the Constitution and didn’t use much history, either.” CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes brought the immunity conversation to the international stage, as well. In an interview with the international civil society group CIVICUS, Praveen spoke about the immunity decision’s implications for democracy in in the United States. As Praveen explained, this decision is “a danger that extends to anyone who holds such a powerful role without being held accountable to the same criminal laws that bind all other individuals.”

Our litigators also broke down two of the term’s other important cases for scholars and others in the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s The Regulatory Review. CAC Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen contributed an essay about Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries, an important textualist win for workers. As Miriam explained, although the case didn’t make headlines, it has important implications for thousands of workers who can now challenge their employers’ attempts to force them into arbitration.  CAC’s Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle contributed an essay discussing Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, which held that the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment did not prevent cities from penalizing homeless people for sleeping in public when they have nowhere else to go. Brian’s essay examined how “Grants Pass endorses a narrow and ahistorical new definition of ‘cruel’ punishment,” contrary to the history we presented to the Court in our brief.

Finally, our litigators also took a broader look at the term that just ended. David Gans, the director of CAC’s Human Rights, Civil Rights & Citizenship Program, took a deep dive into the ways the Court either used or ignored historical arguments in some of its most recent cases. In Slate magazine, David concluded, “This term, the court’s conservative justices wrote long paeans to the idea that text and history is the only legitimate form of constitutional interpretation. But scratch beneath the surface, and the pretense that originalism is what consistently drives this court’s conservative bloc falls apart. Supporters of an imperial, unaccountable presidency, enfeebled agencies, and a hobbled democracy may like this term’s results, but they have no grounding in our Constitution’s text and history.” And in Bloomberg Law, CAC President Elizabeth Wydra explained that though Justice Barrett has split with the conservative supermajority on some historical questions, Justice Barrett is still “the conservative justice that Donald Trump thought he was going to get when he picked her.”

With a flood of legal news coming from the Supreme Court, it can be hard to make sense of the stakes. Whether it’s in conversation with legal scholars breaking down the unsung but important decisions of the past term or in the popular press explaining how legal concepts like standing have a real impact on people’s daily lives, CAC is proud to be a part of the conversation as we make sense of the Supreme Court’s decisions and their effects.

• Texas v. Department of Homeland Security — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is hearing a challenge to the Department of Homeland Security’s programs for parole for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. CAC’s amicus brief on behalf of former executive branch officials in support of the government explains that federal law gives immigration officials broad authority to use parole, and that the requirement to consider individuals on a “case-by-case basis” does not preclude the government from recognizing certain “categories” of individuals that presumptively satisfy the parole criteria, who are then evaluated individually under the program in question. Fifth Circuit filed August 2.

• Petteway v. Galveston County — The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned its precedent that allowed coalitions of racial and ethnic minorities to file claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that such coalitions “do not comport with Section 2’s statutory language or with Supreme Court cases interpreting Section 2.” Echoing the brief CAC filed in support of the plaintiffs, the dissent asserted that “the majority reaches an atextual and ahistorical conclusion” that “dismantle[s] the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act.” Fifth Circuit, decision rendered August 1.

• Oklahoma v. United States Department of Health and Human Services — CAC WIN — The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in favor of HHS, holding that the Department does not need to award federal funding to state-run reproductive healthcare clinics that refuse to comply with the funding condition requiring clinics to offer non-directive counseling and referral upon request for abortion care. Rejecting Oklahoma’s arguments premised under the Spending Clause, the Tenth Circuit held that Oklahoma was able to make an “informed decision” whether to accept the funding “based on the combination of Title X’s language and HHS’s conditions” considered together. Tenth Circuit, decision rendered July 15.

• July 15: CAC President Elizabeth Wydra spoke to Bloomberg about the government’s appeal of Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss the classified documents and obstruction of justice case against Donald Trump. “CAC’s Wydra Joins Bloomberg TV to Discuss Appeal in Trump Classified Documents Case.”

• July 31: Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle published an essay in The Regulatory Review in which he discusses how the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson was not supported by the text and history of the Eighth Amendment. “Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness.”

• July 25: CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes was interviewed by CIVICUS, an international civil society NGO, about the Supreme Court’s immunity decisions and its implications for American democracy. “The framers of the constitution envisioned an accountable president, not a king above the law.”

• July 23: CAC Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen published an essay in The Regulatory Review in which she discusses Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries, an important textualist win for transportation workers. “Bissonnette and the Future of Federal Arbitration.”

• July 19: CAC Civil and Human Rights Director David Gans spoke to Reuters about how questions of standing have shaped the past term at the Supreme Court. “US Supreme Court is making it harder to sue – even for conservatives.”

• July 17: CAC Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen spoke to Bloomberg Law about how challenges to federal family planning clinic requirements are not impacted by the overturning of Chevron “Family Planning Fight Poised to Test Scope of Chevron Rollback.”

• July 15: CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes was a signatory to a press release quoted in the Kansas Reflector discussing the dismissal of the classified documents and obstruction of justice case against Donald Trump. “Federal judge dismisses Trump classified documents criminal case.”

• July 15: CAC Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen was quoted in Courthouse News Service discussing a win for reproductive rights in the Tenth Circuit in a case CAC filed in. “10th Circuit refuses to restore federal family planning grants in Oklahoma.”

Farewell to Our 2024 Legal Interns!

The end of July and beginning of August marks the end of the summer internship for Zach Brown (Yale ’26), Harith Khawaja (Standford ’25), Indu Pandey (Yale ’26), and Alex Siegal (Harvard ’26). We are so appreciative of their work here with us, producing legal research and writing to aid in CAC’s mission of fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. We are sad to see them go but look forward to staying connected and seeing how they take what they have learned at CAC and use it in their future pursuits. See below for their insightful reflections on their time here:

Zachary Brown

Yale Law School 2026

I could not have hoped for a more exciting, interesting, or fulfilling summer than my time as a legal intern at the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC). The entire office was incredibly welcoming from day one . . .

Harith Khawaja

Stanford Law School 2025

My summer at CAC has been amazing! The work has been deeply rewarding: I’ve had the opportunity to engage with a range of substantive issues, from sovereign immunity to state constitutional law to personal jurisdiction . . .

Indu Pandey
Yale Law School 2026

I have had a wonderful summer at CAC! Beginning the first hour of my internship, I’ve been involved with a variety of interesting and substantive matters from reproductive rights to state constitutional law . . .

Alex Siegal
Harvard Law School 2026

My time at CAC has been an exceptional learning experience. Not only did I get to do exciting, real legal work, but I got to do so alongside a group of kind and talented CAC attorneys and staff who were all invested in my development . . .

YOUR Support Directly Enables CAC to Fulfill Our Progressive Constitutional Mission

CAC’s work helps defend voting rights, advance economic justice, protect the ability of the government to act for the common good, and much more. In this critical year, will you support CAC with a gift of $50, $100, $500 or more to fulfill the Constitution’s progressive promise?