Rule of Law

January 2024 Newsletter: In 2024, CAC Fights to Hold Insurrectionists Accountable

As 2023 came to an end, the fight for constitutional accountability won an important victory: the Colorado Supreme Court determined that Donald Trump should not be on the Colorado ballot because he was disqualified from holding office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. CAC filed a brief at the Colorado Supreme Court explaining that Section Three, which disqualifies insurrectionist politicians from holding office again, applies to the president and the presidency. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed, concluding that an interpretation of Section Three that exempts presidents and the presidency would depart from the provision’s clear text and be at odds with its history. The Supreme Court has now been asked to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision.

As CAC’s Praveen Fernandes and Jess Zalph wrote in Newsweek, this case will represent a test of the Justices’ commitment to originalism. A number of Supreme Court Justices claim to interpret constitutional language according to the way the public would have understood that language when a particular constitutional provision was enacted. Donald Trump’s lawyers are making a strained legal argument that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was enacted in the aftermath of the Civil War, did not intend for Section Three to apply to the presidency or former presidents. By their logic, the Framers meant to disqualify former Confederates from serving as postmasters or governors, but would have allowed Jefferson Davis to serve as President of the United States. This case will be a high-profile test of the Supreme Court’s commitment to its stated values.

Holding insurrectionists accountable to the Constitution is more important than ever as the country observes the third anniversary of the January 6th insurrection. January 6th was a deadly attack not just on the Capitol itself, but also on American democracy. Failing to hold Trump accountable tacitly blesses insurrectionist conduct and could embolden future officers to deploy violence to thwart the will of the electorate.

CAC continues to work for constitutional accountability in the aftermath of January 6th. In addition to our filings in Section Three cases in Colorado and elsewhere, we have filed amicus briefs in support of Capitol police officers and members of Congress seeking damages for physical and emotional harm inflicted on January 6, 2021. Our brief explained why President Trump is not entitled to immunity for his actions in connection with January 6. Last month, the D.C. Circuit panel affirmed a district court’s denial of Trump’s immunity claims in this case. We’re continuing to follow this and other cases where courts are considering a president’s accountability to the rule of law.

As the nation marks this solemn anniversary, CAC remains committed to our mission of constitutional accountability, ensuring that nobody is above the law.

  • Cascino v. Nelson — The Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether a Texas law that only allows voters over age 65 to vote by mail violates the Twenty Sixth Amendment’s prohibition on age-based discrimination in voting. In CAC’s brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the case and reverse the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, we explain that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment forbids the government from curtailing or diminishing the rights of any adult voter on account of age. Supreme Court, filed January 8.
  • LaBrant v. Benson — The Michigan Supreme Court decided that Donald Trump should be allowed to appear as a candidate on the Michigan ballot. In doing so, the Court affirmed the ruling from the Michigan Court of Claims that state law determined placement on the state primary ballot and that the plaintiffs presented a nonjusticiable political question. Michigan Supreme Court, decision rendered December 27.
  • Garland v. Cargill — The Supreme Court is considering whether bump stocks were correctly classified as “machineguns” under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). CAC’s amicus brief in support of the classification explains that the ordinary public meaning of “machinegun” at the time the NFA was passed, as well as the history of the NFA, make clear that bump stocks fall within that definition. Supreme Court, filed December 22.
  • Nelson v. Griffin-Valade — The Oregon Supreme Court is considering whether Donald Trump should be allowed to appear as a candidate on the Oregon ballot due to his disqualification from office under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. CAC filed an amicus curiae brief, which explains why Section Three applies to both presidents and the presidency. Oregon Supreme Court, filed December 20.
  • Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California — The Supreme Court is considering whether traffic impact mitigation fees violate the Takings Clause of the Constitution. CAC’s brief argues that the Takings Clause does not prohibit—and the Supreme Court has never understood it to prohibit—governments from charging the sorts of fees at issue in the case. Supreme Court, filed December 20.
  • Anderson v. Griswold CAC WIN – The Colorado Supreme Court held that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to presidents and to the presidency and that Donald Trump is disqualified from holding office under Section Three. CAC’s brief in support of Anderson argued, among other things, that an interpretation of Section Three that exempts presidents and the presidency would have departed from the provision’s clear text and be at odds with its history. Colorado Supreme Court, decision rendered December 19.
  • Gonzalez v. Trevino — The Supreme Court is considering what threshold requirements individuals must satisfy to bring First Amendment claims against a state or local official for arresting them in retaliation for their speech. CAC’s brief in favor of Gonzalez argues that the Fifth Circuit’s decision to dismiss Gonzalez’s claims is at odds with the text and history of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it contradicts the common-law standards in place when Section 1983 was enacted and facilitates the very type of speech retaliation that Section 1983 was meant to eliminate. Supreme Court, filed December 18.
  • Illumina v. Federal Trade Commission CAC WIN – The Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the FTC’s determination of anticompetitive behavior and rejected a challenge to the FTC’s structure. The Fifth Circuit echoed our brief’s argument that the constitutional challenge to the FTC’s structure is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. Fifth Circuit, decision rendered December 15.
  • Cantero v. Bank of America — The Supreme Court is considering whether a state law protecting New York homeowners is preempted by the federal National Banking Act (“NBA”). Bank of America argued that the NBA preempts the application of New York state’s escrow interest law. CAC’s brief in support of Cantero explains that the dual-banking system has deep roots in our country’s history and that state lawmakers have regulated banks, including national banks, for centuries. The NBA does not change this. Supreme Court, filed December 15.

Farewell, CAC Chief Operating Officer and Chief of Staff Surjeet Ahluwalia, and Congratulations to Keo Xiong!

This month, our Chief Operating Officer and Chief of Staff of six years, Surjeet Ahluwalia, left Constitutional Accountability Center to begin a new journey at the U.S. Department of Labor. Her incredibly meaningful work has helped make CAC the effective organization that it is today, and we wish her all the best. We are pleased to share that our Office Manager, Keo Xiong, will be stepping into Surjeet’s role. Farewell, Surjeet, and congratulations, Keo!

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
July 25, 2024

USA: ‘The framers of the constitution envisioned an accountable president, not a king above the law’

CIVICUS
CIVICUS discusses the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and its potential impact...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
July 19, 2024

US Supreme Court is making it harder to sue – even for conservatives

Reuters
July 19 (Reuters) - Over its past two terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has put an end...
By: David H. Gans, Andrew Chung
Rule of Law
July 18, 2024

RELEASE: Sixth Circuit Panel Grapples with Effect of Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Decision on Title X Regulation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
July 17, 2024

Family Planning Fight Poised to Test Scope of Chevron Rollback

Bloomberg Law
Justices made clear prior Chevron-based decisions would stand Interpretations of ambiguous laws no longer given deference...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Mary Anne Pazanowski
Rule of Law
July 15, 2024

Not Above the Law Coalition On Judge Cannon Inappropriately Dismissing Classified Documents Case Against Trump

WASHINGTON — Today, following reports that Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
July 15, 2024

Federal judge dismisses Trump classified documents criminal case

Kansas Reflector
MILWAUKEE — The federal classified documents case against former President Donald Trump was dismissed Monday...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Ashley Murray