Statement from William A. Brewer III on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision on Birthright Citizenship and Nationwide Preliminary Injunctions
June 27, 2025 — Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision may allow President Trump’s Executive Order limiting birthright citizenship to take effect. The Court restricts federal courts from issuing preliminary injunctions that protect others who may be similarly situated as the plaintiffs unless they are a party of the case. This ban on so-called “nationwide” preliminary injunctions will certainly require immediate shifts in constitutional law and litigation.
While the decision may appear to be a short-term procedural win for the administration, this is not a partisan issue; it is a constitutional one. Although full appreciation of the impact will take years, the ruling has surely invited an avalanche of litigation against government actors accused of unconstitutional actions.
By limiting preliminary injunctions to only the parties before the court, the ruling effectively guts a tool typically used to check alleged government overreach. Millions of Americans may now be forced to file individual suits or rely upon lengthy class certification processes, which typically take months or even years.
Our firm has seen firsthand how government power can be weaponized to silence dissent. In our successful representation of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) against the Cuomo Administration’s financial blacklisting campaign, we confronted — and defeated — a targeted effort to punish disfavored speech. That victory, a unanimous 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court (National Rifle Association v. Vullo), underscores the critical role of the courts in safeguarding individual rights.
The Court’s ruling today confirms how fragile those protections can be, and how urgently they must be defended. Make no mistake: this decision is a call to action.
With district courts now barred from providing “nationwide protection,” mass litigation seems likely. Lawyers and advocacy groups will mobilize — through representational lawsuits, coordinated individual suits, and expedited procedural strategies, federal dockets will now be quite crowded.
Read more here.
Statement by William A. Brewer III, Partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, on Supreme Court Hearing Regarding President Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
May 15, 2025 — The U.S. Supreme Court hearing today represented a pivotal moment, not for immigration law but also for the broader issue of judicial power and its proper scope. As counsel deeply involved in constitutional and immigration matters, we closely followed the arguments presented.
On the ultimate efficacy of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14160, the justices appeared skeptical over the order, which seeks to deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. The longstanding precedent set by the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark appeared front of mind for several justices, highlighting significant constitutional concerns with the executive order.
However, it was Justice Sonia Sotomayor's commentary regarding the challenges of eliminating nationwide injunctions that underscored the importance of today’s argument. She noted that the removal of such remedies could inundate courts with countless individual lawsuits. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson further emphasized the risks inherent in reducing nationwide injunctions, potentially undermining the consistency and reliability essential to our legal system.
Conversely, other justices expressed concerns about judicial overreach, specifically through nationwide injunctions issued by federal district courts. Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested class-action lawsuits as preferable alternatives, emphasizing procedural rigor and judicial precision.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised pointed questions regarding the Trump administration’s inconsistent positions on nationwide injunctions versus class-action litigation, highlighting the nuanced challenges in balancing judicial remedies.
The Court’s upcoming decision, expected by late June or early July, carries profound implications. While Trump's executive order seems likely to be invalidated, the broader question of limiting nationwide injunctions may significantly impact future judicial strategies for challenging federal policies.
We at Brewer, through our Storefront affiliate, remain committed to safeguarding constitutional principles, advocating for consistent application of the law, and closely monitoring developments that could reshape judicial authority and executive accountability.
William Brewer Writes Op-Ed for Dallas Morning News About Keller ISD Voting Rights Case
William Brewer writes in an op-ed for The Dallas Morning News about how the recent failed proposal to split Keller ISD highlights the failures of the at-large election system used to elect the school board — and the need for a new election system.
Brewer, with Kent Bhupathi contributing, writes that "Ultimately, at-large voting systems compound inequities in racially diverse communities. Imagine a board that nominally represents everyone but that in practice panders to the preferences of one dominant group. That is what happened in Keller ISD, with the all-white board effectively insulating wealthier communities (where most trustees live) from the financial responsibilities of supporting lower-income students and diverse cultural backgrounds."
Brewer Storefront, the firm's community service legal affiliate, recently filed a Voting Rights Act lawsuit on behalf of plaintiff Claudio Vallejo challenging the at large system. Brewer writes, "The case seeks to implement a cumulative voting system and move to on-cycle elections, reforms that have the potential to break the hold of entrenched majorities and open the door to a more diverse, representative school board."
Read more here.
William Brewer Writes About Embracing AI, Alternative Billing Models
April 3, 2025 — In a recently published Law360 article, William A. Brewer III argues the billable hour isn't just outdated – it's a liability threatening firms clinging to antiquated billing models.
In "Firms Must Embrace Alternative Billing Methods or Fall Behind," Brewer highlights the risk for firms reliant on antiquated billing models in a legal market reshaped by AI, enhanced competition, and growing demand for outcome-based fee arrangements. Brewer states, “Law firms face a choice: evolve or fade into irrelevance. To stay competitive, they must ditch the billable hour, embrace AI, and accelerate their digital transformation – before it’s too late.”
Brewer predicts that firms willing to adopt outcome-based fee arrangements will gain a decisive edge. Clients, he notes, are demanding results and will become increasingly unwilling to bankroll unproductive hours. Frustrated, they will seek alternatives.
“As more companies seek legal services that prioritize outcomes over hours, the firms that embrace this new paradigm will gain a decisive competitive advantage. Those who resist will lose ground to tech-savvy boutiques, Big Four firms and legal startups that aren't shackled by tradition.”
Brewer then addresses Big Law directly, stating, “Big Law must evolve now to stay ahead. The firms that embrace AI, ditch the billable hour and redefine their value proposition will thrive. This is the dawn of a golden age. Technology holds the promise of less drudgery, expanded access to justice, and firms empowered to deliver sharper, faster and more strategic legal services. Change isn't coming — it's here. And the firms that are embracing it won't just survive. They'll set the standard for the future.”
Dallas Morning News Publishes Brewer Storefront Op-Ed on Election Timing
August 31, 2023 — The Dallas Morning News published an op-ed in the Opinion section Thursday by partner William A. Brewer III and Marie Brewer calling for the elimination of off-cycle May local elections in Texas and moving elections on-cycle to November to improve voter participation. The article reflects the Brewer Storefront’s continued dedication to enforcing and promoting the Voting Rights Act in Texas communities. The Storefront is the firm’s community-service legal affiliate.
The commentary follows:
In Texas, discriminatory voting practices that depress minority voter participation remain the norm. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Allen vs. Milligan, upholding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, could spark legal challenges to our state’s local and state election systems going forward.
In our state, the Election Code mandates that general and special elections be held on one of the uniform election dates: the first Saturday in May, or the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Although the code allows for elections to be held “on-cycle” (when state and federal elections occur), many local school board and city council elections are still held in May rather than November.
The timing of elections significantly impacts voter turnout. Experts, like political scientist Sarah F. Anzia, argue that the date of an election is the single greatest factor impacting voter turnout and composition. Other states recognize this and have adjusted their local elections accordingly. New York recently joined California, Arizona and Nevada in moving off-cycle local elections to coincide with statewide and national elections. These states point to increasing voter turnout and opportunity, specifically minority turnout, as the reason for the shift.
Fewer than 25% of Americans vote in elections for their local mayor and city council members, and turnout in off-cycle local elections averages over 30% lower than local elections held during presidential elections. In Texas, the situation is even more alarming. This past May, several major counties could not even reach 10% voter turnout.
All voting systems should aim to increase voter participation, and off-cycle elections especially warrant particular attention due to their disproportionate impact on minority voters. When off-cycle elections are moved on-cycle, minority groups increase their share of the electorate by up to 10 percentage points. Moreover, when local elections coincide with presidential elections, a larger share of voters come from families earning under $30,000 annually, while the share of voters earning more than $100,000 decreases.
When local elections are synchronized with national or statewide elections, the election date garners greater attention and accessibility across all voter groups. Conversely, off-cycle elections result in lower participation by large portions of eligible voters, and minority groups are disproportionately affected.
The past decade of social science research establishes that off-cycle elections undeniably affect voter participation and the makeup of voters who turn up at the ballot box, producing a voter pool that is not representative of the entire community.
As the courts have recognized, factors such as homeownership, education and income are strongly associated with voter turnout. Racial disparities in those factors can therefore contribute to racial disparities in political participation as well.
Although there may have been legitimate concerns in the 1800s and early 1900s that prompted off-cycle elections, such as the desire to separate local races from corrupt and partisan elections held at the federal and state level, there were also more problematic reasons aimed at discouraging voter participation from certain demographics.
Many local Texas communities, with a long history of racial discrimination, still experience disparities in wealth, education and homeownership. It is evident that under the totality of circumstances, off-cycle elections violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This was not a direct argument in Allen vs. Mulligan, but the case is instructive on many levels: It fosters the belief that voting rights should be protected and any barriers to equal opportunity should be eliminated. And with such a viable alternative of switching to on-cycle elections, there is no reason for this practice to persist where minority groups already struggle to make their voices heard.
Our institutions work best when they are welcoming and inclusive. Texas should embrace the learnings of the recent Supreme Court decision — and awaken to the many ways in which the Voting Rights Act can be used to foster political opportunity.
Law 360 Interviews Will Brewer on Impacts of ABA Opinion
June 20, 2023 -- Law360 quoted Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors Senior Associate Will Brewer in an article about recent American Bar Association guidance that outlines the role of non-attorneys in client intake.
The ethics opinion states that in regards to client intake, paralegals can collect basic information, handle conflict checks, identify if the matter is in an attorney’s specialty area, answer questions about fees and representation, and collect a client’s signature. Brewer said that he hopes the opinion encourages firms to keep lawyers involved in the client onboarding process.
"Our philosophy has always been to have our lawyers in the pivot — directing retention efforts, client activities and the pursuit of every positive outcome," Brewer said.
Brewer also commented, “Everything is custom-designed, depending on the needs of the client.” He added, "at our firm, attorneys are ultimately responsible. They provide oversight and direction — managing the process from the beginning. We view that commitment as an investment in our professionalism and client service.”
Brewer Partner Cecelia Fanelli Comments on Controversial LA Ordinance
August 11, 2022 – Law360 interviewed Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors Partner Cecelia Fanelli about the implications of a proposed Los Angeles ordinance that would require hotels to house homeless people in vacant rooms. The Los Angeles City Council recently voted to put the proposed ordinance on the ballot, leaving it up to voters to decide whether to approve the measure.
Fanelli said the proposed ordinance raises many concerns, including placing hospitality workers outside of their traditional role, charging them to provide “nightly social services” for homeless people in hotel rooms.
"The ordinance also raises the issue of an overreach into the affairs of private businesses by the government, and it also potentially places into jeopardy the insurance coverage of hotels and motels given the change in their risk profile. Those costs would likely be passed on to consumers," Fanelli said.
"If it begins in Los Angeles, there's nothing to say that similar initiatives wouldn't be instituted in other cities," she added.
To read more, click here.
Brewer Anti-SLAPP Expert Analysis Article Published by Law360
On January 12, 2022, Law360 published an expert analysis piece written by Brewer Partner William Brewer and Associate Will Brewer titled, “Ruling Confirms Causation is Key Under NY Anti-SLAPP Law.”
The article states, “Threats of litigation initiated for the purpose of censoring, intimidating, or punishing a person for exercising their First Amendment rights have prompted many jurisdictions to pass laws targeting strategic litigation against public participation, otherwise known as anti-SLAPP statutes.”
The article discusses how the Hon. Nancy Bannon of the New York Supreme Court recently considered and dismissed an anti-SLAPP counterclaim in a dispute between Howard M. Meyers and and LEG Q LLC (“LEG Q”) in RSR Corp. et al. v. LEG Q LLC et al., Index No. 650342/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).
The authors write, “If this ruling is any indication of how New York courts will interpret the anti-SLAPP claim in the future, counsel should take note that, at the motion to dismiss stage, an anti-SLAPP claim need not have in hand any judicial finding regarding the nature of a purportedly SLAPP lawsuit; allegations will suffice.”
The authors add, “Moreover, in light of this decision, the breadth of what constitutes a communication in connection with the ‘public interest’—reaching matters that are not purely private as between the parties—cannot be overstated.”
To read more, click here.