This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in three important cases affecting access to justice and gun safety. The Constitutional Accountability Center filed briefs in all of them.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard a case considering whether state courts can force civil rights claimants to exhaust their state administrative remedies. This case involves a number of Alabama residents who applied for unemployment benefits during the devastation of the initial wave of the COVID pandemic. Years later, some of them have still not heard back about their applications. When they went to court to challenge the years-long delays on their applications under Section 1983, a federal law which prohibits state actors from depriving people of their constitutional rights, the Alabama Supreme Court held that state law prohibits these individuals from going to court unless they first exhaust their administrative remedies by presenting their challenges to the Alabama Department of Labor. This forced the plaintiffs into a cruel catch-22: they couldn’t challenge the Department’s failure to decide on their applications until they received a final decision on their applications. As our brief explained, this is contrary to the text and history of Section 1983, which was passed to allow the vindication of federal rights in court notwithstanding contrary state policies, as well as Supreme Court precedent.

CAC Counsel Nina Henry said after oral argument, “State and federal courts shouldn’t have different thresholds for justice when plaintiffs seek to vindicate their constitutional rights.” CAC’s Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle explained, “Whether the Supreme Court rules broadly or narrowly, it should not let stand Alabama’s attempt to steer plaintiffs from the courts back to the very agency that failed to take action on their claims in the first place.”

On Tuesday, the Court heard oral argument in two cases in which CAC filed amicus briefs, Garland v. VanDerStok and Lackey v. Stinnie.

In VanDerStok, the Court considered whether ghost guns, untraceable weapon kits that can be converted to fully functioning firearms in as little as minutes, are “firearms” under the Gun Control Act. As our brief explained, the text and history of the Gun Control Act show that the weapons parts kits and incomplete frames and receivers at issue in this case are firearms under the GCA. The GCA was passed in 1968 in response to a national outcry about the sale of untraceable guns to purchasers whose qualifications were never checked, and used language broad enough to encompass both the modified starter pistol of 1968 and the 3D-printed ghost gun of 2024.

After Tuesday’s argument, CAC Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen wrote, “As several of the Justices’ questions this morning revealed, it is difficult to understand how or why a build-your-own-gun kit designed and marketed as an untraceable firearm should not be classified and regulated as a ‘firearm’ by the federal government.” Counsel Nina Henry agreed, writing, “As Justice Sotomayor mentioned and our brief discussed, even in 1968, ‘starter guns’ were incomplete or modifiable weapons that Congress deliberately included in its definition of ‘firearms.’ The Supreme Court should respect Congress’s decision to ban weapons that are designed to be readily converted into firearms.”

Next, in Lackey v. Stinnie, the Court heard a case about when civil rights plaintiffs should be considered the “prevailing party” eligible for attorney’s fees. Damian Stinnie had his driver’s license suspended without the opportunity for a hearing. He and other drivers in a similar situation sued the State of Virginia under Section 1983, alleging that this violated their constitutional rights, and a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law. Virginia then repealed the law before litigation could continue. The question before the Court is whether Stinnie and the other plaintiffs were the “prevailing party” under Section 1988, a federal law which provides that the prevailing parties in Section 1983 cases are eligible to receive attorney’s fees. Our brief argued that the meaning of “prevailing party” is simple—it is the party that succeeds. And by all reasonable measures, Stinnie and his co-plaintiffs were successful in this case.

After argument in the case, CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod explained, “Sometimes even cases at the Supreme Court are simple, and this is one of them: the ‘prevailing party’ is the party that succeeds, and Stinnie and the other plaintiffs in this case plainly succeeded.”

It was a busy week here at CAC, but our work this term is just getting started. As this term continues, we’ll keep bringing important text and history arguments to the Court, just as we did in all of these cases.

• SpaceX v. National Labor Relations Board — The Fifth Circuit is considering whether the leadership structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is constitutional. CAC’s brief explains that recent Supreme Court precedent did not call into question the constitutionality of multimember independent agencies like the NLRB, and that established practice places the validity of such agency structures beyond doubt. Fifth Circuit, filed September 23.

• Stanley v. City of Sanford — The Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. CAC’s brief demonstrates that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in this case, which held that the ADA only prohibits discrimination against current—not former—employees, is at odds with the text and history of the ADA. Supreme Court, filed September 23.

• In re: MCP No. 185 (Open Internet Rule) — The Sixth Circuit is considering the legality of the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality regulations, and industry associations are arguing that the FCC may not regulate broadband as a telecommunications service because of the “major questions doctrine.” CAC filed a brief in support of the FCC, explaining why the doctrine should not apply in this case. Sixth Circuit, filed September 18.

• Banyee v. Garland — The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and ruled in favor of the government, holding that detention during deportation proceedings is constitutionally valid, even when the government has not demonstrated the need for detention in a bond hearing. The court rejected Banyee’s challenge under the Due Process Clause, reasoning that as long as a person’s deportation proceedings are still pending, detention remains constitutional. Eighth Circuit, decision rendered September 17.

• Bristol Myers Squibb v. Becerra and Janssen v. Becerra — The Third Circuit is considering whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program amounts to an unconstitutional taking of drug manufacturers’ property. CAC’s brief explains why the drug manufacturers’ argument that the program violates the Takings Clause finds no support in the text or history of that Clause. Third Circuit, filed September 16.

• Wilson v. Midland County — The en banc Fifth Circuit issued its decision, affirming the district court’s dismissal of Wilson’s case. Although the court acknowledged that Wilson’s criminal trial was “tainted by egregious due process violations,” it concluded that Wilson could not bring a due process claim under Section 1983 premised on her state court conviction without first having her conviction “set aside, expunged, or otherwise favorably terminated.” Six judges dissented, agreeing with our position that denying non-custodial plaintiffs access to a federal forum to vindicate their constitutional rights runs counter to the text and history of Section 1983. Fifth Circuit, decision rendered September 13.

• Mayfield v. Department of Labor — CAC WIN — The Fifth Circuit issued a decision in favor of the Department of Labor, upholding the Department’s new salary threshold for exemptions from overtime pay. The court held that the major questions doctrine did not apply in this case. In reaching this determination, the court agreed with our brief that economic-impact analysis should focus only “on the impact of the rule that [the agency] actually promulgated.” Fifth Circuit, decision rendered September 11.

• October 8: CAC’s Counsel Nina Henry published an op-ed in the Washington Monthly discussing the text and history of the Gun Control Act and explaining why the ghost guns regulation at issue in Garland v. VanDerStok should be upheld. “The Supreme Court Should Listen to Congress in Ghost Guns Case”

• October 4: CAC’s long-term study of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s record before the Supreme Court was cited in an article from The Lever discussing Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo., an upcoming Supreme Court case. “An Oil Giant Railroads Its SCOTUS Connection To Gut Environmental Law”

• October 3: CAC’s Equal Justice Works Fellow Anna Jessurun published an op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star discussing the efforts in Arizona, Georgia, and Texas to disqualify voters and explaining why the laws must be rejected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Arizona opinion: Minor paperwork errors shouldn’t cost anyone the right to vote”

• September 19: CAC’s Equal Justice Works Fellow Anna Jessurun published an op-ed in Slate in which she discusses the independent state legislature theory and explains why efforts to revive that theory should not succeed in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Moore v. Harper. “Will the Supreme Court Revive the Dangerous Fringe Election Theory It Just Rejected?” Anna’s article was further highlighted by Politico’s Playbook and Election Law Blog.

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?