D. John Sauer

Rule Changes

Argued for the government before the Supreme Court

Since 1968, federal law has barred anyone who uses illegal drugs from owning a firearm. On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court heard arguments over whether that ban violates the Second Amendment—a question that could reshape gun rights for the roughly 50 million Americans who use marijuana in states where it is legal under state law but still illegal under federal law.

Updated Mar 2

Rule Changes

Arguing in support of EO 14160 before the Supreme Court

On January 20, 2025, the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," directing federal agencies to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil if their mother was in the country unlawfully or only on a temporary visa and the father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. The order directly challenges more than 125 years of legal consensus, grounded in the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that nearly everyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth regardless of parental status.

Updated Feb 27

Rule Changes

Argued government's position before Supreme Court

President Trump declared national emergencies over fentanyl trafficking and trade deficits, then used a 1977 law never intended for tariffs to slap duties on nearly every country. Federal courts at every level said he exceeded his authority. The tariffs stayed anyway, collecting approximately $150 billion while 301,000 importers waited to see if they'd get refunds. The Supreme Court heard arguments in November 2025, with justices expressing deep skepticism about the government's position, but has yet to issue a ruling as of late January 2026.

Updated Jan 21

Rule Changes

Arguing for Trump administration before Supreme Court

A small wine importer and a toy company are forcing the Supreme Court to answer a question that could redefine presidential power: Can the president slap tariffs on the entire world without Congress? Trump used emergency powers law to impose tariffs collecting $130 billion, courts said he overstepped, and now the justices will decide if emergency powers mean what they've always meant—or something radically new.

Updated Jan 5

Rule Changes

Driving the government’s push to keep CSRA channeling strict and stop discovery

Immigration judges say the Justice Department has effectively muzzled them: speak publicly about immigration and you need permission, and what you say can be steered into “agency talking points.” The Trump administration’s response has been procedural: you don’t get federal court—go through the civil-service machinery first.

Updated Dec 19, 2025

Rule Changes

Lead advocate urging the Supreme Court to overturn or narrow Humphrey’s Executor

In 2025, President Donald Trump launched an aggressive campaign to assert sweeping authority over independent federal agencies, testing the long‑standing 1935 Supreme Court precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that limited presidential power to fire members of multi‑member regulatory commissions. After the Supreme Court used its emergency docket to let Trump remove Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the conflict escalated when Trump fired Democratic Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter in March 2025 and later attempted to oust Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, both before their fixed terms expired.

Updated Dec 11, 2025