Americans know the federal government has broken free of its constitutional guardrails. A 2024 national survey by Emily Ekins, Cato’s vice president and director of polling, found that 70 percent believe the Founders would be disappointed with how the Constitution is followed today.

Cato’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies (CCS) is leading the charge to restore those lost limits and protect individual liberty. Cato’s amicus brief program—one of the most prolific and influential in the nation—plays a crucial role in this fight. In 2024 alone, Cato filed 85 briefs in pivotal cases, shaping legal debates and securing landmark victories. The Supreme Court’s recent decision to end Chevron deference—a ruling that reins in unchecked bureaucratic power—is proof that Cato’s long-term strategy delivers real results.

For nearly 40 years, the Chevron doctrine tilted the legal system in favor of the government, allowing executive agencies to set policy with little judicial oversight. From the beginning, Cato was at the center of the fight against Chevron, leading a coalition of organizations dedicated to restoring the judiciary’s constitutional role in interpreting the law.

That fight culminated in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a landmark Supreme Court case in which Cato played a pivotal role. Cato’s 2023 amicus brief provided original data demonstrating how frequently appellate courts deferred to the government under Chevron. Those data proved so compelling that former solicitor general Paul Clement cited Cato’s work twice during oral arguments before the Court in 2024. The majority opinion ultimately aligned with all three of Cato’s arguments, delivering a decisive blow to unaccountable executive power.

With Chevron deference overturned, the courts—not bureaucrats—will once again determine the meaning of the law. This ruling marks a major victory for constitutional government, and it’s exactly the kind of long-term impact Cato works toward. By persistently challenging judicial doctrines that undermine liberty, Cato’s legal strategy is reshaping the future of limited government.

Cato was also part of a winning effort in SEC v. Jarkesy. Cato’s brief in this case asked the Supreme Court to deem the Security and Exchange Commission’s in-house legal proceedings a denial of the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees the right to a jury in common-law cases dealing with monetary penalties. The Supreme Court agreed with Cato’s argument that—when the SEC brings enforcement to bear—Americans have a right to a jury trial. This ruling was the culmination of Cato and others defending the Seventh Amendment in several other cases.

In Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a fundamental principle: private companies—just like private publishers—have the First Amendment right to decide what speech they host and how they moderate content. Cato’s position prevailed, with the Court making it clear that social media platforms, like newspapers, are entitled to editorial discretion. Whether in newsrooms or tech firms, real people make protected editorial judgments, and the government cannot over-ride those decisions simply because it dislikes the outcome.

As CCS director Thomas A. Berry wrote in the Cato Supreme Court Review, in Loper Bright, Jarkesy, and NetChoice: “The Supreme Court took just about the most libertarian position it could have. The result is less concentrated power, more procedural safeguards for the accused, and more rights for those in the business of publishing others’ speech.”

The fight for constitutional limits was also front and center at Cato’s Constitution Day conference, in which the Honorable Neomi Rao, US Court of Appeals judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, delivered the annual B. Kenneth Simon Lecture, offering her insights on major cases, including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

Adding a creative touch to legal analysis, CCS scholars unveiled a first-of-its-kind illustrated companion to the Cato Supreme Court Review—a 50-page graphic novel–style primer on key cases from the term, making complex legal battles more accessible than ever.