Dear John,
As we near the conclusion of another week of lawless flood-the-zone activity that is this administration's unrelenting focus, LDAD remains resolute in our commitment. We will speak out in every way we can. To succeed, however, we need your engagement and support. This is a time for our own relentless focus – demonstrating why we must all meet this moment and fight to preserve our constitutional form of government.
LDAD's Working Group on Amicus Briefs continues to respond to the onslaught of lawsuits challenging administration actions that denigrate the norms and principles of democracy and the meaning of the Constitution. Recently, LDAD filed an amicus brief in United States v. Texas, warning that the federal government’s attempt to block Texas’s in-state tuition law crosses a constitutional line - using federal immigration authority to control state education law. The brief argues that this violates basic principles of federalism reflected in the Tenth Amendment because it seeks to compel Texas to enforce federal immigration policy.
Even beyond the deeply troubling constitutional principles at issue in this case are the circumstances surrounding the litigation. The Attorney General of the State of Texas colluded with the Department of Justice to sue his own state after its legislature failed to repeal the Dream Act. In a lawsuit filed without notice to the students, families, and colleges that were directly affected, the Texas AG and DOJ obtained a court order to block the law. These groups are now represented by intervenors in this litigation and on whose behalf LDAD filed its amicus brief.
We are grateful for the incredibly talented lawyers who volunteer their time to LDAD, and proud that they are recognized by others. Recently, the Fulcrum wrote an article about LDAD’s amicus brief in Neguse v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement. The article also noted the leadership of LDAD volunteers, retired Justice Rosalyn Richter (New York Appellate Division) and Professor of Law Julie Goldscheid, for our Fulcrum series linking the administration's executive orders to their source in Project 2025 and explaining why this connection and these actions matter to us all.
The Fulcrum article concludes:
The Neguse brief is a call to conscience for the legal profession. Lawyers are stewards of the rule of law. When executive agencies defy congressional oversight, it is our duty to respond. This case is not merely about access—it is about accountability. It is about whether Congress can fulfill its constitutional role without obstruction. And it is about whether lawyers will rise to defend the democratic architecture that makes such oversight possible.
We invite you to join LDAD's upcoming webinar, Free Speech Under Siege: Echoes of McCarthyism, on Tuesday, November 4, from 4:00 - 5:00 pm ET, featuring:
- Moderator: Gary J. Simson, Macon Chair in Law, Mercer University; LDAD Board Member
-
Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of Berkeley Law
- Kermit Roosevelt, David Berger Professor for the Administration of Justice, Penn Carey Law School
- Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, ACLU
Please RSVP for the webinar using this form.
This is a time when we must all engage and act as if our children’s and grandchildren’s future depend on it. Because it does.
Thank you,
Lawyers Defending American Democracy
P.S. We are living in extraordinary times that require constant advocacy to reverse the significant democratic backsliding that we are experiencing. LDAD’s work depends on individual contributions like yours. Please join us in our efforts by donating to LDAD, a 501(c)(3) organization.
