NAWL Joins FVAP Amicus in Support of Domestic Violence Survivor

May 8, 2023

NAWL joined the Family Violence Appellate Project (FVAP) in filing an amicus brief to the California Fourth District Court of Appeal in support of the case of Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, in which a domestic violence survivor was denied a restraining order.


Details

FVAP believes the decision here has broader implications for survivors of domestic violence to get a restraining order after long delays and many continuances. This includes courts asking survivors to agree to longer-term Temporary Restraining Orders instead of getting a DV Restraining Order After Hearing. FVAP believes the decision, in this case, will also be important to the issue of how courts misinterpret a survivor's actions in co-parenting to determine they do not need protection. In this case, the survivor had several continuances of her hearing due in part to a trailing criminal case. When the full hearing on the DVRO finally took place, the judge started by offering a multi-year Temporary Restraining Order instead of having a hearing because the judge thought it would be better for the abusive party and for the children. After the survivor declined to accept the offer, the judge went on to deny the survivor's restraining order request, applying the wrong legal standard and misinterpreting the survivor's co-parenting interactions with the abusive party. 


FVAP's brief provides context and guidance to the court on the issues of why repeatedly continuing and extending a TRO is not sufficient for survivor's seeking a DV Restraining Order After Hearing and contradicts the intent of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. The brief also discusses the ways in which survivors are forced to interact with abusive parties for co-parenting purposes, the protective actions they take, and why this should not be misinterpreted to deny protection.


April 30, 2026
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais , ruling 6–3 that Louisiana’s congressional map creating a second majority-Black district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In reaching that decision, the Court narrowed how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act may be used to remedy racial vote dilution, despite prior findings that Louisiana’s earlier maps likely infringed on the voting rights of Black residents. This decision marks a serious setback for voting rights and democratic participation. For nearly six decades, the Voting Rights Act has served as a cornerstone of our legal system’s effort to confront and remedy structural discrimination in the electoral process. By restricting the tools available to address unequal representation, the Court’s ruling makes it harder to correct long standing disparities in who has a voice in our elections. In a dissent read aloud from the bench, Justice Elena Kagan cautioned that the Court’s decision undermines one of the last effective tools for protecting fair representation. Describing the ruling’s impact on the Voting Rights Act, she wrote that Section 2 is now “all but a dead letter,” unable to fulfill its core purpose. She highlighted that a democracy cannot function as promised when the law prevents meaningful remedies for electoral systems that lock some communities out of political power. NAWL is committed to a democracy that works for everyone, supported by a legal system that recognizes discrimination and acts to correct it. As lawyers, judges, advocates, and scholars, we understand that voting rights are foundational to all other rights. NAWL will continue to engage its members on the implications of this decision through education and dialogue. We invite NAWL members to continue this important conversation by attending our session “ Louisiana v. Callais : Voting Rights and the Future of Our Democracy” at NAWL’s 2026 Annual Meeting in Chicago on July 22–23 . Hear from Jessica Ellsworth (Partner and Co-Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice at Hogan Lovells), Samuel Spital (Associate Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund), Franita Tolson (Dean of USC Gould School of Law), and Wendy Weiser (Vice President, Democracy at Brennan Center for Justice). Our expert panel will examine the implications of this decision and its future impact on voting rights and the rule of law.
March 30, 2026
Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
January 1, 2026
Doe v. Catholic Relief Services
December 17, 2025
Female Athletes United v. Ellison
Columns of a classical building with ornate carvings against a clear blue sky.
October 7, 2025
Perkins v. State of Montana
Stone steps leading up to a building with columns, in natural light.
September 10, 2025
Metropolitan School District of Martinsville v. A.C.
More Posts