NAWL Joins NWLC Survivors' Rights Amicus Brief

April 4, 2022

April 4, 2022 -- NAWL joined the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), and their law firm partner Hutchinson, Black & Cook in an amicus brief supporting Mackenzie Brown, a former University of Arizona (UA) student, holding her school accountable for the egregious sex-based harassment she suffered at the hands of former student Orlando Bradford in Brown v. Arizona. The brief is written to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on behalf of NWLC and 31 additional advocacy organizations, in support of Brown’s petition for rehearing or rehearing. 


Brown filed a Title IX lawsuit against UA for its failure to act in the face of Bradford’s known, repeated assaults of two other UA women, which she said resulted in him abusing her at his off-campus apartment. The District Court held UA was not liable under Title IX, stating Brown failed to establish that UA had “control over the context” of the abuse she experienced at Bradford’s off-campus apartment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. 



NWLC’s brief outlines the dangers of allowing schools to ignore sexual assault just because it occurs in off-campus housing, even just steps from the campus. It explains that if schools are permitted to ignore off-campus assault, scores of students will be left without the support they need to preserve access to their education. This would undermine Title IX’s broad mandate to prevent sex discrimination in education. The brief explains why Title IX’s application to off-campus sex-based harassment should instead be a fact-specific inquiry. The brief also explains how an increasing number of students live off campus and so if this ruling is left on the books, it could disincentivize schools from protecting many students who are victimized by sexual violence, foreclosing them from receiving needed civil rights protections under Title IX. 


NWLC led this amicus brief in support of Mackenzie Brown and all student survivors. 


Learn more about the case in our blog here


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