Amicus

We put our mission into action by participating as an amicus curiae on legal cases. The NAWL Amicus Committee reviews opportunities to add amicus support in cases of interest to NAWL members. The Committee reviews amicus briefs drafted by other organizations and, occasionally, drafts its own. NAWL has provided amicus support on issues including enforcing Title IX, workplace harassment and employment discrimination, reproductive care, and gender-based violence. 

NAWL Amicus Priority Issues

Equal Rights Amendment

Gender-Based Violence

LGBTQ+ Rights

Pay Equity

Racial Equity & Justice

Reproductive Justice

Workplace Justice 

Voting Rights

Recent Briefs

By Isabell Retamoza 18 Mar, 2024
The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.
By Isabell Retamoza 18 Mar, 2024
The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.
By Isabell Retamoza 18 Mar, 2024
In December 2021, NAWL joined the Family Violence Appelate Project ("FVAP") in supporting a survivor of domestic violence in defending against an appeal brought by her abuser. In this case, both parties requested domestic violence restraining orders against each other. The trial court properly followed Family Code section 6305 in determining the survivor was not a primary aggressor and was acting in self-defense, while the abuser was not, and issued only one restraining order, protecting the survivor against the abuser. The abuser is not appealing the restraining order against him, but he is appealing the court's refusal to issue a restraining order on the survivor. Basically, the abuser is arguing the restraining orders should be mutual, which, if granted, would put the survivor at risk. FVAP, along with Katten Muchin Rosenmann LLP, are supporting the survivor's defense of this unwarranted appeal by filing an amicus brief.
By Isabell Retamoza 18 Mar, 2024
UPDATE: JUNE 2023 -- The Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in September 2022. OSU then asked the Supreme Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision. This morning, the Supreme Court declined to hear the cases, which locks in the survivors’ victory in the Sixth Circuit. We are so glad that the plaintiffs will be allowed to continue their Title IX lawsuits! UPDATE: September 2022 --The plaintiffs will be allowed to continue their Title IX lawsuits against OSU! As a reminder, the plaintiffs are 118 former OSU male students, including student-athletes, who filed suit against OSU regarding their sexual abuse by Dr. Richard Strauss during the 1970s-1990s. However, a district court in Ohio dismissed their Title IX claims as untimely, ruling they should have sued OSU within 2 years of the abuse or of their last day at OSU. Last week, the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that they did not know and could not reasonably have known that OSU had injured them until 2018, when OSU announced it was hiring a firm to investigate Dr. Richard Strauss for alleged sexual abuse. In support of its decision, the Sixth Circuit cited our amicus brief, which noted that “recognizing abuse—especially physician-patient abuse—can be even harder in the context of college athletics because of the insular nature of teams, the immense trust and authority placed in coaches, and the culture of college athletics, including the role of coaches and trainers in setting norms” (page 26). DETAILS -- In January 2022, NAWL joined the National Women's Law Center ("NWLC") in an amicus brief to the 6th Circuit in support of OSU male athletes sexual abuse survivors. DETAILS -- The National Women’s Law Center and our law firm partner Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP invite you to join an amicus brief to the Sixth Circuit in support of two groups of Ohio State University male athletes who were sexually abused by Dr. Richard Strauss in Moxley v. Ohio State University and Snyder-Hill v. Ohio State University. A district court in Ohio recently dismissed the athletes’ Title IX claims as untimely, ruling they should have brought this lawsuit within 2 years of when they were abused (1978-1998) or when they graduated from or dropped out of OSU. The court rejected the athletes’ arguments that they did not understand that they had been sexually abused and that OSU had been deliberately indifferent to their abuse until 2018-2019, when allegations of OSU’s coverup surfaced in the press and independent investigators determined that Strauss’s procedures were medically inappropriate and unnecessary. Our amicus brief explains that sexual assault is pervasive, especially on college campuses, and that failure to recognize sexual abuse is also a pervasive and insidious problem. College athletes are often especially vulnerable to being subjected to sexual abuse and failing to recognize it as such because of the intense love and trust they hold for their institutions; their dependence on their institutions for scholarships and other support; the power and authority wielded by team coaches and doctors; and the culture of “toughness” that encourages minimization and normalization of discomfort and harassment.
By Isabell Retamoza 18 Mar, 2024
The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.
By Isabell Retamoza 18 Mar, 2024
On November 4, 2022, NAWL joined the Family Violence Appellate Project (FVAP) in filing a publication request of the case , Weil v. Gallegoes from the 5th District Court of Appeal to help the court understand that this case will be important to help survivors. FVAP represented the survivor in the appeal, and she supports publication. DETAILS: Survivor lived with her boyfriend who was abusive. Survivor requested a DVRO with a move out order, which would have excluded her boyfriend from their shared rental unit. The trial court granted the DVRO but denied the move-out order stating it was up to the landlord, not the court, to decide who got to stay in the unit. Survivor appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment. The Court of Appeal reversed because a trial court has the power to order a restrained party to move out of a shared rental unit and a landlord does not have the authority to force just one tenant out of a shared rental unit.
Show More

Frequently Asked Questions

  • Does NAWL sign on to other organizations’ briefs?

    Yes, the Committee primarily reviews amicus briefs drafted and submitted by other organizations for consideration to join.  


  • How much time does NAWL need to review requests to join another organization’s brief?

    The Committee needs a minimum of two weeks to review a request to join a brief.


  • Does NAWL author its own briefs?

    Yes, NAWL authors briefs, often in partnership with another organization.


  • How do I join the Committee?

    Click here to fill out our Amicus Committee join form.


  • How can I get NAWL’s support?

    Email us to request that NAWL supports or authors a brief.


Committee Leadership



Chair

Joanne Simboli Hodge

Professor

The John Marshall Law School

Board Liaison

Lindsay Carlson

Information Governance Compliance Manager

Latham & Watkins

Share by: