Cecillia Wang, the National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), recently reflected on her experience arguing the high-profile case Trump v. Barbara at the Supreme Court. The case challenged an executive order by former President Donald Trump that aimed to end the guarantee of U.S. citizenship for nearly everyone born in the country. Wang described the argument, which took place on April 1, as the “most high-stakes and stressful task” of her career. Despite her initial nervousness, she felt prepared after conducting several moot courts in advance.
Wang discussed this during SCOTUSblog’s term-in-review event titled “Executive Power and its Limits,” where she spoke alongside historian Martha Jones, whose work was cited by Chief Justice John Roberts in the case, and several other legal experts in a live taping of the Advisory Opinions podcast.
Reflecting on other cases from the ACLU’s docket, Wang spoke about the organization’s involvement in the voting rights case Louisiana v. Callais and United States v. Hemani. The latter involved a unanimous Supreme Court decision concerning the prosecution of a Texas man who used marijuana, demonstrating the complexities and diverse nature of the ACLU’s legal work.
Looking forward, the ACLU is involved in challenges to a Texas law that mandates the posting of the King James version of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. Wang expressed optimism about the ACLU’s chances, arguing that enforcing a display of sectarian religious texts in classrooms might be deemed too extreme even for the current Supreme Court.
For aspiring lawyers and law students interested in impact litigation, Wang offered a hopeful perspective, encouraging them to seize the opportunities available in the field today. More details about her speech at the event are available on SCOTUSblog.