Advocacy
We aim to create opportunities for education and engagement on issues that have a relevant and significant impact on NAWL members and advance equity within the legal profession and under the law.
Our advocacy work is guided by our advocacy priorities and carried out by four committees: the Advocacy Education & Programming Committee, the Amicus Committee, the Judicial Endorsement and Support Committee, and the Public Policy Committee.
Our Advocacy Priorities
Public Policy Committee
This Committee drives NAWL’s work to advance women in the legal profession and under the law by shaping clear policy positions, developing impactful resolutions, and building strategic partnerships.
Through collaboration with a broad network of aligned organizations, NAWL strengthens its expertise and efforts while educating members and the public to advance informed, meaningful change.
Recent Positions and Resolutions
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic , ruling 6–3 that individual Medicaid beneficiaries cannot sue state officials to enforce the “free-choice-of-provider” provision of the Medicaid Act. The Court’s decision could pave the way for states to exclude providers like Planned Parenthood from Medicaid programs, even when doing so limits access to essential reproductive and preventive health care -- and even when the sole basis for doing so is for ideological reasons. This ruling marks a significant setback for reproductive justice and health equity. By narrowing the ability of individuals to challenge state actions that restrict access to care, the Court has further eroded the legal tools available to protect the rights of patients who rely on Medicaid to access fundamental healthcare, including preventative and general care and access to contraception. Marginalized communities will likely be disparately affected. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a powerful dissent, emphasized the real-world consequences of the majority’s decision: “[T]oday’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people. At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians—and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country—of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.’” NAWL is proud to have joined with the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia in filing an amicus brief which underscored the importance of preserving legal avenues for patients to challenge discriminatory and harmful state policies. NAWL stands in solidarity with Planned Parenthood, reproductive rights advocates, and the millions of individuals whose access to care is now at greater risk. We urge our members and allies to continue advocating for a legal system that upholds the rights, health, and dignity of all people—regardless of income, identity, or geography. --- NAWL will continue the conversation at the 2025 Annual Meeting . Hear about this Supreme Court term’s major decisions affecting NAWL’s mission from Arabella Babb Mansfield Award Recipients and co-hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast: Leah Litman, Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School; Melissa Murray, Professor of Law at New York University School of Law; and Kate Shaw, Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Additionally, after a workshop screening of the film Zurawski v Texas , Cici Coquillette from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Cassie Ehrenberg from The Lawyering Project and Abortion Defense Network will specifically discuss the Medina decision.
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti , which upholds a Tennessee law (SB1) banning gender-affirming medical care —such as puberty blockers and hormones— for transgender minors. In the 6–3 decision, the Court held that SB1 does not warrant heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, despite its discriminatory targeting of transgender youth by explicitly permitting hormone treatments and gender-affirming care for youth who identify as cisgender, while denying the same care for youth who identify as trans. This ruling has the potential to reshape access to health care and marks a profound erosion of the Equal Protection clause as a tool for challenging laws that disproportionately affect women and other marginalized groups. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a searing dissent, laid bare the consequences of the Court’s refusal to confront the reality of this legislation: “[T]he majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it. The Court's willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.” As an organization committed to advancing gender equity under the law, NAWL stands with transgender individuals, families, advocates, and scholars who continue this long fight. The Court’s application of rational basis review to state laws targeting a specific “medical use” may also have far-reaching negative consequences on gender health equity more broadly, including access to reproductive care. NAWL calls on its members and allies to speak out, support impacted communities, and work toward a legal system rooted in dignity, equity, and justice for all. --- NAWL will continue the conversation at the 2025 Annual Meeting during the session, “ U.S. v. Skrmetti : The Future of Gender Equity in Healthcare,” featuring National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter and Executive Director of the Williams Institute Christy Mallory .
Bar Organizations’ Statement in Support of the Rule of Law CHICAGO, March 26, 2025 — We the undersigned bar organizations stand together with and in support of the American Bar Association to defend the rule of law and reject efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession. In particular, as outlined by the ABA: We endorse the sentiments expressed by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in his 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, “[w]ithin the past year we have also seen the need for state and federal bar associations to come to the defense of a federal district judge whose decisions in a high-profile case prompted an elected official to call for her impeachment. Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.” We support the right of people to advance their interests in courts of law when they have been wronged. We reject the notion that the U.S. government can punish lawyers and law firms who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule certain ways. We cannot accept government actions that seek to twist the scales of justice in this manner. We reject efforts to undermine the courts and the profession. We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not. Words and actions matter. And the intimidating words and actions we have heard and seen must end. They are designed to cow our country’s judges, our country’s courts and our legal profession. There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and the values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers in private practice from Main Street to Wall Street, as well as those in corporations and who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation. If lawyers do not speak, who will speak for our judges? Who will protect our bedrock of justice? If we do not speak now, when will we speak? Now is the time. That is why we stand together with the ABA in support of the rule of law. American Bar Association Alameda County (California) Bar Association Alexandria (Virginia) Bar Association Allegheny County Bar Association (Pennsylvania) Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers Bar Association of Erie County (New York) Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis Berks County (Pennsylvania) Bar Association Boston Bar Association Boulder County (Colorado) Bar Association Chicago Bar Association Chicago Council of Lawyers Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association Columbus (Ohio) Bar Association Connecticut Bar Association Contra Costa (California) County Bar Association Detroit Bar Association and Foundation Erie County (Pennsylvania) Bar Association First Judicial District Bar Association (Colorado) Hennepin County (Minnesota) Bar Association Hispanic National Bar Association Hudson County (New Jersey) Bar Association Illinois State Bar Association Kansas Bar Association Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Foundation Lawyers Club of San Diego Long Beach (California) Bar Association Louisville Bar Association Maine State Bar Association Middlesex County (New Jersey) Bar Association Milwaukee Bar Association Minnesota State Bar Association Monroe County (New York) Bar Association Nassau County (New York) Bar Association National Asian Pacific American Bar Association National Association of Women Lawyers National Conference of Bar Presidents National LGBTQ+ Bar Association National Native American Bar Association New Jersey Women Lawyers Association New Mexico Black Lawyers Association New York City Bar Association New York County Lawyers Association North County (California) Bar Association Board of Governors of the Oregon State Bar Passaic County (New Jersey) Bar Association Philadelphia Bar Association Queens County (New York) Bar Association Ramsey County (Minnesota) Bar Association San Diego County Bar Association San Fernando Valley (California) Bar Association Santa Clara County Bar Association (California) South Asian Bar Association of North America State Bar of New Mexico Virgin Islands Bar Association Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association Worcester County (Massachusetts) Bar Association
Advocacy Education & Programming Committee
This Committee leads NAWL’s work to inform, engage, and mobilize members around key advocacy issues aligned with NAWL’s mission. The committee develops and delivers educational programs—including webinars and panels—that deepen understanding of advocacy and inspire meaningful change to advance women in the legal profession and ensure equality for women under the law.
Recent Events
Louisiana v. Callais: Voting Rights and the Future of Our Democracy
Panel at the 2026 Annual Meeting
Register here for the Annual Meeting, on July 22-23, 2026, in Chicago.
Speakers:
- Jessica Ellsworth, Moderator (Partner and Co-Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, Hogan Lovells)
- Samuel Spital (Associate Director-Counsel, Legal Defense Fund)
- Franita Tolson (Dean, USC Gould School of Law)
- Wendy Weiser (Vice President, Democracy, Brennan Center for Justice)
Immigration, Advocacy, and Action in L.A.:
Insights from Hydee Feldstein Soto
Podcast
Listen here or wherever you get podcasts.
Speakers:
- Sari Long (Partner, Faegre Drinker, and Co-Chair, NAWL Advocacy Education & Programming Committee)
- Hydee Feldstein Soto (Los Angeles City Attorney)
Reproductive Rights, Real Impact: Flory Wilson on Leading Change Post‑Dobbs
Podcast
Listen here or wherever you get podcasts.
Speakers:
- Michelle Travis (Research Professor, University of San Francisco School of Law, and Co-Chair, NAWL Advocacy Education & Programming Committee)
- Flory Wilson (Founder and CEO, Reproductive & Maternal Health Compass)
The Rule of Law in Focus:
A Conversation with
Marc Elias
Webinar
Watch the member-exclusive recording.
(Become a member to watch and for access to more exclusive content.)
Speakers:
- Marc Elias (Firm Chair, Elias Law Group, and Founder, Democracy Docket)
- Tamela Merriweather, Moderator (Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel, The Northern Trust Company)
U.S. v Skrmetti: The Future of Gender Equity in Healthcare
Panel at the 2025 Annual Meeting
Speakers:
- Taylor Brown (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Bureau, NY)
- Christy Mallory (Executive Director, Williams Institute)
- Shannon Minter (Vice President of Legal (Legal Director), National Center for LGBTQ Rights)
- Carol Anderson, Moderator (Assistant General Counsel, Microsoft)
Democracy Begins Here: The Power of Participating in Local Politics
Webinar
Speakers:
- Rep. Dr. Anna V. Eskamani (Member, Florida House of Representatives)
- Betty Lieu (Governing School Board Member, Torrance Unified School District Board of Education)
- Denise Tepler (Maine State Senator)
- Hydee Feldstein Soto (Los Angeles City Attorney)
Amicus Committee
We put our mission into action by participating as an amicus curiae on legal cases. This Committee reviews opportunities to add amicus support in cases of interest to NAWL's mission.
Recent Briefs
Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
Doe v. Catholic Relief Services
Female Athletes United v. Ellison
Judicial Endorsement and Support Committee
This Committee aims to advance women in the judiciary by providing resources and support to NAWL members seeking judicial appointments and by conducting confidential, objective evaluations of federal judicial candidates based on established criteria.
Participation on the Judicial Endorsement and Support Committee is by invitation only.
