national-association-of-women-lawyers-nawl-8

NAWL Joins 4th Circuit Amicus Brief in Support of LGBTQ+ Equality

Thu, 01 Jan 2026 20:13:53 GMT

Doe v. Catholic Relief Services

January 1, 2026: NAWL has joined the National Women’s Law Center and pro bono partner Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP in filing an amicus brief in Doe v. Catholic Relief Services before the Fourth Circuit. The case involves CRS, a religious employer that initially provided health benefits to a gay employee's spouse, then revoked coverage for Mr. Doe’s husband based on a religious objection to marriage equality.

The brief explains that Title VII, the EPA, and Maryland’s MFEPA are religiously neutral, generally applicable laws that apply equally to all employers to combat workplace discrimination. It further warns that allowing religious exemptions would heighten the risk of discrimination against marginalized workers in the Fourth Circuit and nationwide.

NAWL Joins 8th Circuit Amicus Brief in Support of Transgender Athletes' Rights

Wed, 17 Dec 2025 20:34:11 GMT

Female Athletes United v. Ellison

December 17, 2025: NAWL has joined the National Women's Law Center in filing an amicus brief in Female Athletes United v. Ellison , a case before the Eighth Circuit, arguing in support of the Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL)’s inclusive policy that ensures transgender students can play on school sports teams that align with their gender identity.

The brief argues that both the legislative history of Title IX and its regulatory framework reflect a broad, inclusive mandate to ensure equitable athletic opportunities for all students. It further asserts that imposing exclusionary policies would exacerbate harms to women and girls, including heightened gender policing, increased reliance on sex verification practices, and expanded disparities in access to benefits and opportunities.

NAWL Supports LGBTQ+ Equality in Montana Supreme Court Filing

Tue, 07 Oct 2025 20:50:08 GMT

Perkins v. State of Montana

October 7, 2025: NAWL has joined the National Women's Law Center in filing an amicus brief in Perkins v. State of Montana before the Montana Supreme Court. The case challenges a law that blocks transgender and intersex individuals from accessing sex-segregated facilities that match their gender identity, including domestic violence shelters.

The brief argues the law worsens gender-based violence, especially for transgender people, and harms cisgender women who do not conform to traditional gender norms. It also warns that allowing individuals to sue shelters over bathroom access could severely restrict access to life-saving services.

NAWL Joins 7th Circuit Amicus Brief in Support of Transgender Students' Rights

Wed, 10 Sep 2025 20:51:15 GMT

Metropolitan School District of Martinsville v. A.C.

September 10, 2025: NAWL has joined the National Women's Law Center in filing an amicus brief in A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville, backing a 2023 Seventh Circuit decision that upheld transgender students’ rights under the Constitution and Title IX.

The case now seeks a permanent injunction against discriminatory bathroom policies. NWLC argues that the court’s earlier ruling stands firm despite a recent Supreme Court decision and highlights how such policies harm both transgender students and cisgender girls by reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes. The case challenges an Indiana school district’s policy barring transgender students from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity.

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

Mon, 30 Jun 2025 18:18:03 GMT

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.

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti

Tue, 24 Jun 2025 14:09:54 GMT

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 .

NAWL Joins Bar Associations' Amicus Brief in Support of Susman Godfrey LLP

Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:39:36 GMT

Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President

April 21, 2025: NAWL has joined other bar associations to endorse an amicus brief, drafted by Protect Democracy in collaboration with Harvard Law School, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This brief supports Susman Godfrey LLP in their challenge against the Executive Order signed on April 9, 2025, which targeted and retaliated against the firm for its efforts in defending the integrity of the 2020 election. The law firm alleged that the Executive Order violated the First Amendment, the Spending Power, the Fifth Amendment, and the Separation of Powers. The brief argues that the Executive Order targeting Susman Godfrey LLP is illegal and aims to intimidate the legal profession into submission to the executive branch.

NAWL Joins New York State Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Support of Survivor Justice

Wed, 02 Apr 2025 17:17:31 GMT

Ventura v. Todaro

MARCH 17, 2025: NAWL has joined the National Women’s Law Center in filing an amicus brief in the New York State Supreme Court in support of student Jessica Todaro, who reported Ventura to her university's Title IX office for rape and wrote publicly about her experience as a survivor on social media. Ventura sued Todaro for defamation and won in state trial court. The brief explains that New York’s anti-SLAPP law applies to any public statement about “an issue of public interest,” which both state and federal courts in New York have repeatedly held includes public allegations of sexual assault, including those made on social media.

NAWL Joins U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Support of Reproductive Justice

Wed, 02 Apr 2025 17:17:30 GMT

Medina v. Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic

MARCH 11, 2025: NAWL has joined the Women's Bar Association of D.C. and their law firm partner Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLP in filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the free-choice-of-provider provision to ensure women can access necessary healthcare. This case involves a federal statute allowing Medicaid enrollees, mainly women, to access any qualified provider, which is crucial as U.S. women face significant health challenges. Low-income women on Medicaid struggle to find providers and face barriers like transportation and language issues. Limiting provider choices would worsen these barriers, making Planned Parenthood, which accepts Medicaid, essential for many women.

NAWL Joins 1st Circuit Amicus Brief Against Educational Censorship

Wed, 02 Apr 2025 17:17:28 GMT

Local 8027 v. Edelblut

January 15, 2025: NAWL has joined the National Women’s Law Center, their law firm partner Hogan Lovells US LLP, and 24 other organizations, in filing an amicus brief in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in challenging New Hampshire’s school censorship law. The brief highlights the impact of school censorship on students and specifically, the hostile environment that censorship laws create for K-12 students, especially LGBTQI+ students and/or students of color.

NAWL Joins Publication Request for Opinion in Support of Phoebe Bridgers

Wed, 02 Apr 2025 17:17:25 GMT

Nelson v. Bridgers

November 15, 2024: NAWL has joined the Family Violence Appellate Project in filing a request for publication in the California Courts of Appeal in the Second Appellate District in support of Phoebe Bridgers, an acclaimed singer/songwriter who re-posted an Instagram post detailing domestic abuse allegations against Chris Nelson, a well-known music executive. This case involves the #metoo movement and whether social media posts regarding domestic abuse are constitutionally protected free speech. The opinion holds that allegations of grooming by a public figure is an “issue of public interest” and therefore protected free speech under the anti-SLAPP statute.

NAWL Joins Bar Organizations' Statement in Support of the Rule of Law

Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:47:11 GMT

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

NAWL Responds to President Biden’s Recognition of the ERA

Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:22:24 GMT

January 17, 2025

The National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) applauds President Biden's declaration recognizing the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as "the law of the land," which represents a victory for the countless advocates who have tirelessly championed gender equality.

NAWL has been a steadfast supporter of ratification of the ERA since it was first introduced and was one of the first national organizations to endorse it. NAWL was present for its first reading at the National Women’s Conference in 1923 and subsequently printed the proposed Amendment in the Women Lawyers Journal that same year. When Congress finally passed the amendment in 1972, the campaign for ratification by the states became NAWL’s major project for the following decade. In 2020, NAWL issued its Resolution in Support of the Ratification of the ERA to the United States Constitution, committing to continue its advocacy.

For over a century, the ERA has symbolized the fight for gender equality. As NAWL member Marguerite Rawalt poignantly noted in the Women Lawyers Journal in 1971, “Equal justice does not exist for women under the Constitution as interpreted to date. They are the one remaining ‘class’ and category not yet adjudged to come under the legal umbrella of the Constitution.”

We will continue to work to fulfill the promise of equal justice for all citizens, regardless of sex and gender status.

NAWL Joins Second Letter to President Biden to Take Action on ERA

Mon, 16 Dec 2024 15:21:56 GMT

December 16, 2024

The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Re: An Urgent Call for Your Legacy

Dear President Biden:

This month marks 101 years since the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was first introduced in the US Congress. The ERA would constitutionally protect equality of rights under the law regardless of sex. While it has met all ratification requirements, the ERA remains to be added to the US Constitution.

Publication of the ERA is essential for the restoration of reproductive rights and health care in our country, the enforcement of existing federal anti-discrimination laws, and the health of our democracy. On behalf of the League of Women Voters (the League), Shattering Glass, and the 141 undersigned organizations, we urge you to, in your last months serving as President of this nation, direct US Archivist Shogan to fulfill her statutory duty and certify and publish the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

Despite the significant legal and legislative advances made in recent decades, women and other Americans continue to face discrimination on the basis of sex, fundamentally undermining a central tenet of our democracy: equality. Under the US Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, sex discrimination claims are not subject to the same strict scrutiny standard as other protected classifications, such as race.

The ramifications of applying a lower standard of review, heightened scrutiny, to sex discrimination claims are clear, including limited access to comprehensive health care, domestic violence, unequal pay, workplace harassment, pregnancy discrimination, discrimination against LGBTQIA+ individuals, and more. And with United States v. Skrmetti currently before the US Supreme Court, there is real and substantial risk that protection based on gender and gender identity under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause may be severely weakened or eliminated altogether. 1

Two and a half years ago, supporters of women’s, civil, and human rights watched in horror as the US Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade , overturning the federal constitutional right to abortion and stripping women and people who may become pregnant of a fundamental right they’d held for nearly 50 years. Today, abortion is entirely banned in 13 states — home to an estimated 17.8 million women of reproductive age — and banned before viability in another 11 states. 2 Researchers estimate that a nationwide abortion ban could lead to a 24% increase in pregnancy-related deaths and a 39% increase in pregnancy-related deaths among Black women. 3

Across our country, women who've survived a delay in vital care due to abortion bans have gut-wrenchingly recounted their stories, and journalists have reported the stories of women who’ve lost their lives. This politically manufactured crisis is unacceptable.

Under your leadership, the Administration has worked to defend and increase the accessibility of FDA-approved medication abortion, defend emergency medical care and interstate travel, strengthen health data privacy, and share accurate reproductive rights information. Together with Vice President Harris, you made reproductive freedoms a cornerstone of the Presidential campaigns. In light of the incoming administration, each of these advances is under imminent threat. The publication of the ERA in the Constitution will provide a vital tool in the continued fight to protect, restore, and advance reproductive rights and justice- one that cannot just be rolled back with a change in government composition.

In 2024, we saw the prospective impact of the ERA on reproductive rights. In January of this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that, under Pennsylvania’s ERA, which uses the same language as the federal ERA, abortion providers could challenge the state’s ban on Medicaid coverage for abortion as sex discrimination. 4 In March, a Nevada trial court also ruled that this Medicaid coverage ban violated Nevada’s ERA and, in September, required the state’s Medicaid program to cover abortion care services. 5 The Equal Rights Amendment could help protect and restore the right to abortion.

Your legacy protecting women’s rights stretches back to your Senate days as a champion and author of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the decades you’ve spent implementing and strengthening this legislation, and your time as President taking actions to address gender-based violence (GBV). As you know well from your years of service, intimate partner violence and GBV continue to be endemic in the United States. More than 40% of women have experienced violence or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. 6

At the heart of VAWA was a provision for a civil remedy for victims of GBV to sue their attackers. When the US Supreme Court struck this down in 2000, it asserted that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to provide a civil remedy against perpetrators of gender-based violence under the Commerce Clause of Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 7 The Equal Rights Amendment would grant Congress the authority to pass laws addressing GBV.

You also know the vital role that equality plays in striving to build a more perfect democracy. In 2023, you co-hosted the historic second Summit for Democracy, culminating in a Declaration enumerating several international commitments, including equal protection of women’s rights under law. 8

The past four Women’s Equality Days, your White House proclamation has spoken to enshrining the principle of gender equality in our Constitution. Mr. President, you have the power to make that happen.

In August, the American Bar Association (ABA), the largest voluntary association of lawyers globally, with the mission of defending liberty and pursuing justice, held its annual meeting. There, the ABA adopted a resolution recognizing the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution and urged its implementation. In doing so, the ABA warned that, without the ERA, the US Supreme Court has indicated that Fourteenth Amendment sex-based equal protection is in “grave peril.” 9

In October, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in coordination with six medical societies, called on your Administration to do everything in your power to finalize the Equal Rights Amendment to help realize the right to reproductive health care. 10

In November, the Reproductive Health Coalition, a wide range of health professional associations and reproductive justice and other allied organizations, led by the American Medical Women’s Association and Doctors for America, issued a statement urging you to direct publication of the Equal Rights Amendment to address the worsening healthcare crisis. 11

Today, 78% of Americans favor adding the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. 12

We recognize the complexity of this issue. However, the continued punting of responsibility to formally recognize the only duly ratified constitutional amendment not to be added to the Constitution undermines the Constitution itself, the ratification rights of the states, the integrity of our democracy, and urgently, the liberties and lives of more than half of our population.

The undersigned organizations implore you to move beyond politics to take swift action on this urgent issue before our democracy is further eroded and more lives are lost. We deeply appreciate the leadership and consistent commitment you have shown for sex and gender equality throughout your lifetime of public service. As we carry that mantle at a pivotal time in our history, we fervently implore you to seize this historic opportunity and enshrine sex equality into our Constitution. This can be your legacy. The health, rights, and future of our democracy depend on it.

For questions, please reach out to Jessica Jones Capparell, director of government affairs at the League, (jjones@lwv.org), Rebecca Goldman, justice reform legislative and policy manager at the League (rgoldman@lwv.org), and Nicole Vorrasi Bates, executive director of Shattering Glass (nvbates@shatteringglass.org).

Sincerely,

National:

Advancement Project

All In Action Fund

American Association of University Women

American Constitution Society

American Humanist Association

American Medical Women’s Association

Bend the Arc: Jewish Action

By The Women For The Women Vote

Catholics for Choice

Center for American Progress

Center for Common Ground

The Christian Left

Clearinghouse on Women’s Issues

Combat Sexual Assault

DemCast USA

Democracy Labs

Democrats Abroad

Democrats for Change (DemocratsFor.US)

Doctors for America

Elizabeth Cady Stanton Trust

End Rape On Campus

EQUAL MEANS EQUAL

Equality Now

ERA Coalition

Faiths for Safe Water

Family Values @ Work Action

The Feminist Front

The Feminist Uprising

Feminists in Struggle

Few and Far Women

Free Speech For People

Funders’ Committee for Civic Participation (FCCP)

Generation Vote

Get Free

GLAAD

GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality

Green Alliance for Sex-Based Rights

Guttmacher Institute

Impact Fund

Indivisible

Jewish Council for Public Affairs

Jewish Women International

Justice and Joy National Collaborative

Labor Council for Latin American Advancement

Lawyers For Good Government

Legal Momentum, The Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund

Medical Students for Choice

Military & Veterans Women’s Coalition

Modern Military Association of America

Moms First

MomsRising

Moral Injury Support Network for Servicewomen, Inc.

MoveOn

Muslims for Progressive Values

National Association of Women Lawyers

National Black Justice Collective

National Center for Lesbian Rights

National Coalition on Black Civic Participation/ Black Women’s Roundtable

National Consumers League

National Council of Jewish Women

National Council of Negro Women

National Disability Rights Network (NDRN)

National Education Association

National Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs

National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund

National Network for Arab American Communities

National Organization for Women

National Women’s Political Caucus

Nurses for America

Patient Care Heroes

People Power United

ProgessiveChristianity.org

The Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United)

Sexual Violence Prevention Association (SVPA)

SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change

Strike for America

Survivor Justice Action

Take Back Christianity

Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare (TEACH)

Trans Empowerment Project

Trans Formations Project

UltraViolet Action

United Church of Christ

Vote For Your Daughter

VoteEquality

Voters of Tomorrow

Women in Medicine, Inc.

Women Lawyers On Guard Action Network, Inc.

The Workers Circle

The Young Feminist Party

Zetas in Action

Zonta USA Caucus

State/Local:

10000 Women Louisiana

Abortion Action Missouri

AccessMatters

Alice Paul Center for Gender Justice

American Medical Women’s Association Georgia Physicians

Appleton Area NOW (WI)

Arizona Center for Women’s Advancement

Between the Waters

Business and Professional Women Federation of North Carolina

The California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls

Cambridge Reproductive Health Consultants

Central Phoenix Inez Casiano NOW

ERA Minnesota

ERA Ohio

ERA Task Force Arizona

ERA-NC Alliance

Good Trouble WNC

Green Party of McKean County, PA

Indiana Women’s Action Movement

Indivisible Evanston

Indivisible Lincoln Square

Indivisible Marin

Indivisible Virginia

Medical Students for Choice – Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine Chapter

National Council of Jewish Women Arizona

National Organization For Women – New Jersey

Nevada NOW

Nevadans for the ERA

North Carolina National Organization for Women (NC NOW)

NOVA NCNW Section Social Justice Committee

NOW – Akron Ohio Chapter

Ohio Federation of Business and Professional Women

Ohio NOW

PA Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice

Pittsburgh Pride Group

Pro-Choice North Carolina

Proud Haven

Reproductive Justice Maryland

Reynolds Family Foundation

Saratoga Caucus for Reproductive Rights

TransYOUniting

Wild West Access Fund of Nevada

Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault

Women Employed

Women’s Forum of North Carolina

Women’s Fund of Western Massachusetts

Women’s Health Specialists

Women’s Law Project

Women4Change Indiana

[cc: Vice President Kamala Harris]

1 | https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-477.html

2 | https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/dashboard/abortion-in-the-u-s-dashboard/; https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/

3 | https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/7g29k

4 | https://www.pacourts.us/news-and-statistics/cases-of-public-interest/allegheny-reproductive-health-center-v-pa-department-of-human-services---26-map-2021

5 | https://statecourtreport.org/case-tracker/silver-state-hope-fund-v-nevada-department-health-and-human-services

6 | https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/index.html

7 | https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/99-5P.ZO

8 | https://www.state.gov/summit-for-democracy/; https://www.state.gov/declaration-of-the-summit-for-democracy-2023/

9 | https://www.americanbar.org/content/aba-cms-dotorg/en/news/reporter_resources/annual-meeting-2024/house-of-delegates-resolutions/601/

10 | https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2024/10/statement-on-the-equal-rights-amendment

11 | https://8fdaf192-a63f-4cc1-ba48-30c5727fb699.usrfiles.com/ugd/8fdaf1_1a647c98a98a4934b60ed7293f12f7ad.pdf

12 | https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/07/07/a-century-after-women-gained-the-right-to-vote-majority-of-americans-see-work-to-do-on-gender-equality/

NAWL Joins Letter to President Biden to Certify the ERA Now

Wed, 04 Dec 2024 14:42:55 GMT

December 4, 2024

President Joseph R. Biden

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Re: Certify the ERA Now!

Dear President Biden:

We are writing on behalf of Women Lawyers On Guard Action Network, Inc. and the National Association of Women Lawyers, two nationwide organizations that together represent the voice of hundreds of thousands of lawyers.

Women’s rights are under attack in ways we have not seen in generations. Pregnancy in states with abortion bans has become a death sentence for some women and, with the criminalization of women’s health care, more will die. Medical students and residents in states with abortion bans are not getting the training they need in order to give women the accepted standard of care, and “maternal health care deserts” are now a reality. Some in the GOP seek to erase more than 100 years of history. Some propose repealing the 19th Amendment, which enshrined women’s right to vote in the Constitution.

In this environment, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is more important than ever.

The operative language in the ERA simply states:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

The ERA has now been ratified by the requisite 3/4 of the States required by the Constitution. We call upon you to complete the Constitutional process and instruct the Archivist of the United States to certify and publish the ERA now.

Generations of women (and men who support them) have fought for laws to allow women to have a job outside the home, own a home, obtain a loan or credit card, and get the health care they need. However, these laws at best are a patchwork which can be narrowed or even repealed. The President or the Executive Branch at the federal level and other governments (state, local) can refuse to enforce them. Congress can tell DC and the Territories what their laws on these issues should be. Courts can narrow them — or as with Dobbs , erase decades of freedom.

First proposed by Alice Paul in December 1923, the ERA was introduced in every session of Congress from 1923 through 1970, but was bottled up in Committee for decades, with Committee Chairs refusing to bring it up for a vote. In 1970, Congresswoman Martha Griffiths (D., Mich.; 84th-93d Congresses; Chair, Ways & Means) filed a discharge petition which upon passage brought the ERA to the floor of the House of Representatives where it passed. Although the Senate failed to approve it that year, the next year bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress passed the Amendment overwhelmingly, far exceeding the 2/3 majority required in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Six states ratified the Amendment within six days of Congressional passage on March 22, 1972. By the end of 1973, 30 States had ratified it. By the end of 1977, 35 States had ratified the ERA, but then progress stalled. Decades later, with the momentum created by the Women’s Marches and the #MeToo movement, Nevada and Illinois ratified; and on January 27, 2020, Virginia became the 38th State to ratify the ERA, reaching the 3/4 of the States required by the Constitution. As set forth in the Constitution, the ERA became part of the Constitution when Virginia ratified it in 2020. The Executive Branch has no role in the amendment process, as shown by a plain reading of Article V. The only remaining requirement necessary now to add the ERA to the Constitution – where it belongs – is publication and certification by the Archivist of the United States, as has been done with the other 27 Amendments to the Constitution.

We call on you in your remaining days in office to instruct the Archivist of the United States to certify and publish the ERA now . There is no reason that the Archivist has failed to take this ministerial step. Legislators in Congress have introduced resolutions recognizing that the ERA has been validly ratified, and it should be published and certified by the Archivist. In August 2024, the American Bar Association, the world’s largest voluntary association of lawyers, adopted a policy supporting certification and formal addition of the ERA to the Constitution.

Contrary to its opponents’ arguments, States cannot rescind their ratification of a Constitutional Amendment. The ratification process is silent on any right to rescind, and there is no such implied right in the text or case law. Even an “originalist” reading of the Constitution and its related history confirms this point. No less a commentator on the subject than James Madison himself, in a letter dated July 20, 1788 to Alexander Hamilton, declared that ratification is “in toto and forever.” 1 Indeed, some States attempted to rescind their ratifications of the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments, but neither Congress nor the Executive Branch recognized those attempts. Thus, assertions by States that they want to rescind their earlier ratifications of the ERA should not be allowed to hold up the addition of the ERA to the Constitution. As the text of the Constitution and legal scholars confirm, purported rescissions of votes ratifying the ERA are null and void.

In addition, the Constitution includes no provision requiring that ratifications be “contemporaneous” with each other, and any such provision purporting to impose such a time frame is superfluous. This is shown by the plain language of Article V which contains no such timing requirement. None is found in the text of the Amendment itself and so the 38 States that voted to ratify the ERA did not vote on any such timing requirement. Another Constitutional Amendment, which included no timing requirement, received its final ratification in 1992, more than 200 years after Congress first sent it to the States for ratification — in 1789. That Amendment, now the 27th Amendment, is nicknamed the “Madison Amendment,” after Founding Father James Madison who first proposed it. The Amendment, which precludes a sitting Congress from voting on its own compensation, was ratified by six States between 1789 and 1791, but then sat dormant for almost 200 years before States in the 1980s began once again to ratify it. The Archivist did not hesitate to publish and certify the Madison Amendment once it received ratification from the 38th State, thus confirming its rightful addition to the Constitution in 1992. The 48-year time period here for the ERA pales in comparison to the 203-year period between the first and last ratifications for the 27th Amendment.

Under the Constitution and relevant statute (1 U.S.C. § 106b), the Archivist should now publish and certify the ERA now. We ask that you call on the Archivist to complete that administrative task immediately, confirming the addition of the ERA to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment.

Respectfully,

K aren Richardson

Executive Director

National Association of Women Lawyers

Corrine P. Parver

President

Cory M. Amron

Vice President

Women Lawyers on Guard Action Network

1 | https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-alexander-hamilton-6

NAWL Joins Bar Association Presidents' Call on Leaders to Double Down on DEI

Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:39:13 GMT

August 15, 2024

Sixty Years Later, DEI Advances the Ongoing Work of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Bar Association Presidents from Across the Nation Call on Leaders to Double Down on DEI

As presidents of the nation’s largest diverse national bar associations, we invite general counsel, law firm managing partners, leaders of government and nonprofit legal services organizations, and law school deans to stand with us as we fight for justice and opportunity for all. Your support and partnership are even more critical now given the attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from some segments of our country. As lawyers, we are guardians of the rule of law and leaders in our communities and in local, state, and federal government. For these reasons and more, we ask that you continue to be strong advocates for DEI in our profession. Our work and efforts can also support the importance of DEI more broadly.

Honoring the Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This sweeping Act did more to bring us closer to our ideals, that we are all are created equal, than any other legislation in our history, and it set the groundwork for landmark legislation that followed it such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although many Americans today might take for granted the significance of passing this legislation, it was a hard- fought victory. Most of us recall Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s address at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. His reference to “the fierce urgency of now” was intended to push President Kennedy and Congress to move on the stalled legislation. When the legislation finally passed, close to thirty percent of the House of the Representatives and the Senate voted against it. It is not lost on us that many of the states now passing anti-DEI legislation also included the bulk of the Representatives and Senators who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Progress Through Partnership

As a nation, we have made significant progress in the past 60 years because of the blood, sweat, and tears of those who have come before us. In the past and continuing to this day, there have been Americans of goodwill who believe that we are a better nation when all Americans can aspire to their highest ambitions, including becoming President of the United States.

DEI is Consistent with the Spirit of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Essential in Today’s Workplace

Although some claim that DEI initiatives are illegal or unconstitutional, the vast majority of DEI initiatives are designed to increase access and opportunity, while minimizing bias and barriers. The work is fully consistent with the spirit and intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also brings greater meritocracy to our workplaces. How can there be meritocracy in workplaces if there are insufficient efforts to recruit exceptional talent from all communities, or when there is unintended bias in our processes related to hiring, work assignments, and promotions, or when some people have greater access to formal and informal networks that result in greater opportunities? These are just some examples of issues that DEI efforts are designed to address. Again, the overwhelming majority of DEI efforts are not only legal, but essential in today’s workplace. This is why it is critical to stand firm on the importance of DEI and be strong advocates in your corporations, law firms, and universities.

Progress, but Much Work to Be Done

Although we have made progress, there is still much work to do. According to the US Census Bureau and 2023 Gallup polling, communities of color presently represent about 41% and LGBTQ+ people represent about 7.6% of the US population. Individuals with disabilities currently represent more than one in five Americans. But recent studies from the American Bar Association, Minority Corporate Counsel Association, and the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) show that people of color only account for about 21% of lawyers in the US, 15% of Fortune 1000 general counsels, and 12% of law firm partners; likewise, LGBTQ+ people only account for 4.6% of lawyers in the US, and 2.6% of law firm partners. Individuals with disabilities account for only 1.4% of the legal profession and 1.1% of law firm partners. Further, according to studies from the American Bar Association and NALP, women comprised almost 50% of law school classes in 2000, yet today, women comprise less than 28% of law firm partners. Looking at these numbers, it’s impossible to conclude that we’ve achieved the type of success that would warrant pulling back on our efforts simply because there is opposition. Those who came before us faced even greater opposition and hostility. We owe it to them and those who are coming behind us to keep working to ensure a fairer workplace and more just nation.

Allying Together for Greater Equality, Access, and Opportunity for All.

Finally, there is an economic argument for supporting DEI. When all our communities do well, we have more people contributing to the economic growth and prosperity of our country. A rising tide lifts all boats. Whether our ancestors were this country’s indigenous people, or pilgrims on The Mayflower, or kidnapped Africans on slave ships, or freedom-searching immigrants arriving at Ellis Island or Angel Island, or any of the many others seeking refuge and a new life in a new land, we are all in the same boat now. We are all Americans. Our country is already one of the most diverse nations in the world, and it will continue to become even more diverse. And the exceptional achievements of our country, economically, militarily, and socially, are the result of people from all over the world who have come here and made this country home. As we move forward together, we can show the world what a pluralistic democracy can accomplish. Now is the time for leaders and people of goodwill to stand together for greater equality, access, and opportunity for all. Together we can ensure that America lives up to its ideals, where all people are created equal and have the opportunity to achieve the American dream.

Wiley S. Adams

President

National Bar Association

Matthew Archer-Beck

President

National Native American

Bar Association

Kristin L. Bauer

President

National Association of Women Lawyers

Anna Mercado Clark

President

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association

Bendita Cynthia Malakia

President

National LGBTQ+ Bar Association

Daniel Mateo

President

Hispanic National Bar Association

Ronza Othman

President

National Association of Blind Lawyers

Keerthi Sugumaran

President

South Asian Bar Association of North America

NAWL Joins 2nd Circuit Amicus Brief in Support of Survivor Justice

iretamoza@nawl.org (Isabell Retamoza) — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:29:29 GMT

MARCH 29, 2021: NAWL has joined the National Women’s Law Center, their law firm partner Linklaters LLP, and 30 other organizations including the Women’s Law Project, in filing an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Nicole Chase, a 27-year-old single mother and restaurant worker who was sexually assaulted by the restaurant’s owner. Our brief highlights the ways gender bias by law enforcement, including reliance on harmful sex-based stereotypes, not only leads to failures in sexual assault investigations but also compounds the trauma of sexual assault for survivors. The brief also discusses how gender bias in law enforcement’s response to sexual assault – as was clearly evidenced by the police in this case – may violate the Constitution’s protections against sex discrimination.

NAWL Joins 4th Circuit Amicus Brief in Support of Student Sexual Assault Survivor

iretamoza@nawl.org (Isabell Retamoza) — Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:11:12 GMT

On April 22, 2021, NAWL, along with the National Women's Law Center, our law firm partner Sidley Austin LLP and 50 other organizations, submitted an amicus brief to the Fourth Circuit in B.R. v. F.S.C.B. in support of a student sexual assault survivor.

B.R. was 12 years old when she was repeatedly raped, tortured, and threatened with death by her middle school classmates. Although B.R. begged school officials to help her, they ignored her and even blamed her for her own mistreatment.

Shortly before B.R. turned 20, she filed a lawsuit under the pseudonym “Jane Doe” against her school district and former classmates, alleging violations of Title IX and other laws. The school district responded that B.R. was required to file her Title IX lawsuit within two years of her eighteenth birthday. And even though B.R. did file her lawsuit within that period, the school district argued that her case must still be thrown out because she didn’t also get permission to use a pseudonym before she first filed her case.

A federal district court in Virginia sided with B.R., allowing her to continue her lawsuit against her school using her initials. The court agreed with the school district that B.R. didn’t follow the process for using a pseudonym but decided that her case shouldn’t be thrown out based on this procedural technicality. The school district is now appealing this decision to the Fourth Circuit.

Our brief points out that survivors—especially younger survivors—already face many barriers to reporting sexual abuse and that having the option to use a pseudonym is critical to their ability to seek justice through the courts.

Sexual harassment affects far too many students, but the vast majority do not come forward. In grades 7-12, 56% of girls and 40% of boys are sexually harassed in a given school year, but less than 10% of them tell a teacher, guidance counselor, or other adult at school about it. More than one in five girls ages 14-18 are kissed or touched without their consent, but only 2% of them tell their school.

There are so many reasons why most student survivors—especially those who were sexually assaulted as children—don’t come forward. In addition to feelings of shame, self-blame, and physical and mental trauma, many survivors are afraid of not being believed, facing retaliation by their abuser and peers, or getting in trouble with school administrators. And when they do come forward publicly, they often face further victimization and retaliation that can make the underlying trauma worse.

This is why being able to use a pseudonym is so essential for survivors. Pseudonyms allow survivors to challenge the abuse they endured in court while giving them greater privacy, safety, and ability to heal. This is especially important to student victims today, given the risk of information going viral on social media or having Google search results that follow them for the rest of their lives. Survivors should never have to choose between protecting their privacy or seeking justice. And courts should not let unwritten procedural technicalities bar civil rights cases.

Our brief also explains that B.R.’s school district is wrong about the law. First, even though B.R. didn’t ask for permission before using a pseudonym, the Supreme Court has ruled that these types of procedural technicalities should not result in lawsuits being dismissed. Second, Virginia’s timeframe for filing any kind of lawsuit about sexual assault against children is 20 years, not 2 years. So, either way, B.R.’s case must be allowed to continue.

Supporting B.R. through this brief is just one of the ways NWLC is fighting for survivors’ rights during Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Check out our Survivor Champion Stories, which centers Black, Indigenous, people of color, trans and nonbinary survivors and advocates who have traditionally been left out of the conversation on survivor justice.re. 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.

You can find the brief and updates here.

NAWL Joins CA Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Boermeester v. Carry

iretamoza@nawl.org (Isabell Retamoza) — Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:04:54 GMT

JULY 1, 2021 NAWL joined the California Women's Law Center, Equal Rights Advocates, our law firm partner Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and 20+ other organizations, in submitting an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the State of California in Boermeester v. Carry.

This case involves the latest in a troubling line of decisions from the California Courts of Appeal utilizing state fair procedure principles to create a right to unnecessary and harmful live cross-examination ONLY in proceedings on campus involving gender-based violence (while there is no right to the same in any other type of campus disciplinary hearing, even where similar sanctions are at stake). Our brief discusses the two-track system that the court has created, which feeds into harmful and false narratives that victims of gender-based violence are untrustworthy.

The amici are asking the court to hold that a school disciplinary proceeding can be fair without criminal trial procedures such as cross-examination and make clear that gender bias has no place in California law.

You ca n find more information on the case here.

NAWL Supports U.S. Women's Soccer Team's Fight for Equal Pay

iretamoza@nawl.org (Isabell Retamoza) — Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:00:49 GMT

August 2, 2021 - NAWL joined the National Women’s Law Center, the Women’s Sports Foundation, 60+ additional organizations, and our law firm partner Selendy & Gay PLLC, in an amicus brief in support of the professional soccer players on the United States Women’s National Team (“USWNT”) and their equal pay claims pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The USWNT is one of the greatest and most celebrated sports teams of all time. But for years, the U.S. Soccer Federation paid players on the USWNT less than the male soccer players on the U.S. Men’s National Team. The district court made several legal errors in analyzing plaintiffs’ claims under the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Principally, the court overlooked the disparate rates of pay offered to the women’s and men’s teams for international games. You can find the brief and updates here.

NAWL Joins NWLC 11th Circuit Amicus Brief Defending Trans Rights

iretamoza@nawl.org (Isabell Retamoza) — Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:57:56 GMT

On August 2, 2021, NAWL joined the National Women’s Law Center, along with our law firm partner Allen & Overy LLP, and 30+ organizations to file an amicus brief to the Eleventh Circuit in support of three transgender women who were denied accurate gender markers on their driver’s licenses by the state of Alabama. Alabama’s policy requires transgender people to undergo genital surgery and provide proof of such to the State before they are able to receive a driver’s license that accurately states their gender. As our amicus brief explains, such a restrictive policy unlawfully discriminates against transgender people in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Carrying a license with an inaccurate gender marker also puts transgender people—especially Black and brown trans women—at a heightened risk of discrimination, harassment, and attack. The district court correctly decided that Alabama’s policy violates equal protection because it discriminates against transgender people on the basis of sex, and amici urge the Eleventh Circuit to affirm the lower court’s decision The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF). You can find the brief and updates here.

NAWL Joins Amicus Brief Challenging Race-Based Discipline and Harassment: K.R. v. Duluth Public Schools Academy

iretamoza@nawl.org (Isabell Retamoza) — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:06:12 GMT

SEPTEMBER 10, 2021 -- NAWL joined the National Women’s Law Center, along with law firm partner Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, in filing an amicus brief to the U.S. District of Minnesota, on behalf of 30+ additional organizations, in support of three students represented by Nichols Kaster PLLP and Public Justice. The students include three Black and bi-racial children in Minnesota who claim they were frequently treated differently than white students, experienced ongoing race-based harassment, and were subject to a hostile learning environment at Duluth Edison Charter Schools (DECS), in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1963, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

You can find updates here.

NWLC Amicus in Adams v. School Board of St. John's County (11th Cir En Banc)

iretamoza@nawl.org (Isabell Retamoza) — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:02:17 GMT

Update: On December 30, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, issued a 7-4 decision reversing the trial court’s decision and upholding the school’s policy of excluding transgender students from restrooms that align with their gender. The majority opinion, in finding that the school could separate restrooms based on an unsupported definition of “biological sex,” contradicts every other circuit that has considered the question. As the four dissents make clear, the court’s opinion ignores both the facts in the record and relies on dangerous stereotypes that put transgender students in harm’s way.

On November 23, 2021, the National Women’s Law Center, along with their law firm partner Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and 50 additional organizations committed to gender justice and LGBTQ rights, submitted a motion to file an amicus brief to the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Adams v. School Board of St. John’s County . NWLC filed their proposed brief in support of Andrew Adams , a transgender boy who was prohibited from using the boys’ restroom at his high school in Florida. Their brief urges the 11th Circuit to affirm the lower court’s decision, which correctly held that the school’s bathroom policy discriminates against transgender students in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

The NWLC previously filed an amicus brief in this case in March 2019, resulting in a great decision from an 11th Circuit panel in Andrew’s favor. But the full 11th Circuit has decided to revisit the opinion, placing Andrew’s win in jeopardy. NWLC brief explains why the court got it right the first time and describes the harms that would flow from a bad decision, while debunking the myths and stereotypes that the school’s arguments rely on. While the school claims that allowing transgender students to use the restroom in line with their gender identity would pose a risk to cisgender girls, they explain that there is no evidence that this is true. In fact, hundreds of schools across the country have, for years, allowed students to use the restroom consistent with their gender identity, with no effect on the safety of cisgender students. On the other hand, their brief explains that exclusionary restroom policies cause real harm to transgender students, who face greater risks to their safety and well-being in restrooms that do not align with their gender identity or who may forgo using the school restroom at all, to the detriment of their health. Excluding transgender students from the correct restrooms, we argue, violates these students’ right to a safe educational environment free from sex discrimination as promised by federal law. For these reasons, their brief urges the 11th Circuit to reject the false narratives underlying discriminatory school restroom policies and affirm the lower court’s decision.

NAWL Joins FVAP in Lee v. Tan Supporting Survivors

iretamoza@nawl.org (Isabell Retamoza) — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:30:20 GMT

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.

NAWL joins NWLC Amicus in Ohio State University (6th Cir.)

iretamoza@nawl.org (Isabell Retamoza) — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:26:06 GMT

UPDATE: SEP 2022 -- 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!

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.

NAWL Joins Women’s Movement Amicus Brief in Support of the Equal Rights Amendment with 52 Women’s and Social Justice Groups

iretamoza@nawl.org (Isabell Retamoza) — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:16:52 GMT

On July 1, 2020, NAWL joined the Women’s Movement Amicus Brief in Support of the Equal Rights Amendment with 52 Women’s and Social Justice Groups including the ERA Coalition, the Feminist Majority, TIME’S UP, YWCA, NOW, Black Women’s Roundtable, Voto Latino, League of Women Voters, Legal Momentum, Hadassah, Union Theological Seminary, and others. Read the brief here.

NAWL Joins FVAP in Survivor Justice Amicus Brief

iretamoza@nawl.org (Isabell Retamoza) — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:05:51 GMT

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.

NAWL Joins NWLC Amicus Brief in Sabatini v. Knouse

iretamoza@nawl.org (Isabell Retamoza) — Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:47:29 GMT

UPDATE: On March 26, 2024, the Massachusetts Appeals Court accepted the NWLC's motion today and their final brief was accepted. Please find the stamped copy here.

UPDATE: On March 13, 2024, NAWL joined the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) in their brief in the case of Knouse v. Sabatini.

Case Description: Appellant Kristin Knouse is an early-career scientist. Appellee David Sabatini, who served on her thesis committee when she was in graduate school and as her advisor at the institute where she subsequently went to work, reportedly pressured Knouse for sex from the time when she was a graduate student through to after her joining the institute. In 2020, the institute conducted an anonymous diversity, equity and inclusion survey, in line with NIH requirements. The survey raised concerns about the work culture in Sabatini’s lab. A subsequent independent review interviewed Knouse, among others, and concluded that Sabatini created an inappropriate, sexist, and sexualized work culture, and had inappropriately used his status to facilitate a secret sexual relationship with Knouse. As a result, Sabatini resigned.

Sabatini then sued Knouse for defamation, among other things, based on statements she made during the investigation and to colleagues seeking support. Knouse filed a special motion to dismiss under M.G.L. c. 231, § 59H, the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP law, arguing that Sabatini’s lawsuit was based on her exercise of the right to petition protected by § 59H. The superior court rejected this argument, and Knouse now appeals the superior court’s denial of her anti-SLAPP motion.

Description of the Brief: We intend to file a brief that, first, educates the court on the ubiquity of sexual harassment; that it is dramatically underreported, in part due to concern about retaliation; and that harassers are increasingly weaponizing defamation lawsuits precisely to retaliate against and chill reporting. Second, we intend to discuss why statements made in the context of employers’ sexual-harassment investigations are—and need to be—protected under anti-SLAPP statutes.

NAWL Joined Challenge to "Skirts-Required" Dress Code Policy - Peltier et al v. Charter Day School, Inc. et al.

iretamoza@nawl.org (Isabell Retamoza) — Wed, 20 Sep 2023 14:39:17 GMT

June 14, 2022 UPDATE: the en banc Fourth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision that North Carolina charter schools are state actors, and that the discriminatory dress code violates the Equal Protection Clause because it was based on impermissible sex stereotypes. The court also held that Title IX applies to dress codes, reversing the district court’s dismissal of the students’ Title IX claim and remanding for further proceedings. Read more and find the brief here.

August 9, 2021 UPDATE: the 4th Circuit published its opinion in Peltier v. Charter Day School. The court sided with Peltier on the Title IX issue and concluded that dress codes are not categorically excluded from the scope of Title IX. In so doing, the court cited to our amicus brief on page 33 of the opinion. As for the bad news, the court also reversed Peltier's win on the equal protection issue, concluding that Charter Day School was not a state actor and thus cannot be subjected to an equal protection claim.

On July 13th, 2020, NAWL joined the National Women’s Law Center, along with their law firm partner Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, and 55 additional organizations, in support of three students represented by the ACLU Women’s Rights Project by filing an amicus brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The students are challenging whether the school dress code policy, which requires all girls to wear skirts, “skorts,” or “jumpers” to school, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the North Carolina state constitution, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and North Carolina state law.

NAWL Joins NWLC Amicus Brief in 5th Circuit Opposing Discriminatory Sex-Based Scheduling Policy

iretamoza@nawl.org (Isabell Retamoza) — Thu, 31 Aug 2023 17:55:20 GMT

AUGUST 18, 2023 -- UPDATE: On August 18, 2023, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, overruled the decision made by a three-judge panel in Hamilton v. Dallas County and eliminated the requirement that actionable claims of adverse employment decisions under Title VII must involve an “ultimate employment decision.” For decades, the Fifth Circuit limited liability for employers under Title VII disparate treatment claims to “ultimate employment decisions,” like hiring, firing, promotion, or pay. In this ruling, the court recognized that the text of Title VII contains no such limitation, and instead clearly allows for liability for other discriminatory decisions. The court further ruled that an employee’s work schedules—which in this case, were restricted so women could not take full weekends off—are “quintessential” terms and conditions of employment. The plaintiffs, nine female detention service officers, are now free to demonstrate that the scheduling policy put in place by Dallas County illegally discriminated against them based on sex.

MAY 21, 2021 -- NAWL is proud to join the National Women’s Law Center, along with the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, the ACLU of Texas, our pro bono partners at Katz, Marshall & Banks, and 40 organizations committed to women’s and civil rights, in filing an amicus brief in the 5th Circuit in support of nine Black women working at the Dallas County Jail. The Jail had instituted a policy wherein schedules were restricted by sex—women working at the Jail were not allowed to schedule off the full weekend, but men were allowed to take off both Saturday and Sunday. The County is arguing that the sex-based scheduling policy does not violate Title VII because it does not affect job duties, compensation, or benefits. Our amicus brief details why this policy is sex discrimination under Title VII and the harm to all women—particularly women of color and women with caregiving responsibilities—that occurs when employees are denied the ability to control their work schedules. Read the brief>>

NAWL Joins NWLC Amicus Brief on Ministerial Exception

Mon, 14 Aug 2023 17:45:25 GMT

August 14, 2023 Update -- The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a decision in Victoria Crisitello v. St. Theresa School . The Court held that the “religious tenets exception” to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination provides an affirmative defense for religious employers facing claims of employment discrimination. This means that religious employers can use the exception as a way to avoid liability under state antidiscrimination law. In this case, the school claimed Ms. Crisitello was fired because she violated their Code of Ethics, which follows Catholic teachings on premarital sex. Here, the Court ruled for St. Theresa, holding that Ms. Crisitello did not show a genuine dispute as to whether the school’s decision to fire her relied solely on religious tenets.

Because the Court decided the case based on the New Jersey antidiscrimination statute, they did not rule on the arguments regarding the ministerial exception.

August 4, 2021 - The National Association of Women Lawyers joined the National Women’s Law Center, along with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, our law firm partner Lowenstein Sandler LLP, and 25 additional organizations in filing an amicus brief in the New Jersey Supreme Court in support of Victoria Crisitello, an unmarried elementary school art teacher at a Catholic school who was fired after she told her employer she was pregnant. Ms. Crisitello’s employer is claiming that she is a “minister,” and therefore the ministerial exception allows the school to deny her workplace civil rights protections. This case represents continuing efforts by religiously affiliated employers to avoid complying with workplace civil rights. For more background on the case, please read the NWLC blog .

NAWL Joins NWLC SCOTUS Amicus Brief in 303 Creative

Fri, 30 Jun 2023 17:35:04 GMT

JUNE 30, 2023 UPDATE - Today the majority on the Supreme Court ruled that a website designer can refuse to provide custom wedding website services to LGBTQ+ couples. This decision, while legally narrow and focused on creative and expressive services, and focused on solely the wedding website service, may be used to embolden some businesses who wish to completely turn away LGBTQ+ or other individuals based on identity. NWLC will continue to fight for LGBTQ+ rights, and the rights of all of us to be free from discrimination, including in the context of public accommodations. We must also urge the U.S. Congress to pass the Equality Act to provide more explicit federal rights for LGBTQ+ people in many critical contexts.

August 19, 2022 -- NAWL joined the National Women’s Law Center, along with law firm partner Covington & Burling LLP, and 35 additional advocacy organizations, in filing an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in 303 Creative v. Elenis . We filed in support of Colorado and its state civil rights law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”), which prohibits businesses that serve the public from discriminating against customers based on protected characteristics, like race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability.

This lawsuit was brought by a website design company, 303 Creative LLC, and its owner, Lorie Smith. They want to begin offering wedding website design services to the public, but only if they can refuse to design the websites for LGBTQ couples and post an announcement that they plan to turn away LGBTQ couples. However, denying service to customers based on their sexual orientation, and advertising an intent to do so, is illegal under CADA. The company and its owner sued to challenge the law by claiming it violates their First Amendment rights. After the district court and appeals courts both rejected their arguments, they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will now decide whether they can turn customers away based on sexual orientation or other protected characteristics.

Our amicus brief explains why the Supreme Court must not allow businesses to violate public accommodations laws merely because they claim a “free speech” right to discriminate against customers. In practice, creating such a broad exemption from anti-discrimination laws would mean that any business could deny service to any customer based on their identity, unraveling vital legal protections and decades of progress. Our brief highlights the importance of public accommodations laws and the wide-ranging harms that would be caused by allowing these kinds of exceptions, particularly for LGBTQ people, women, and people of color.

To learn more, check out NWLC blog post .

NAWL Joins NWLC SCOTUS Amicus Brief in SFFA v. Harvard/UNC

Fri, 23 Jun 2023 20:34:06 GMT

JUNE 29, 2023 UPDATE - Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to strike down race-conscious admissions policies, sometimes called "affirmative action," in a pair of cases previously heard before the Court on October 31, 2022.

The decision impacts colleges and universities across the country and going forward, admissions decisions will more likely be made in ways that diminish opportunities for students of color in higher education. The Supreme Court's ruling effectively prohibits schools from considering race as part of their admissions decisions, making it more challenging for historically marginalized communities -- including Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students -- to access educational opportunities.

As Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, put it in her powerful dissent: this decision "overrules decades of precedent and imposes a superficial rule of race blindness on the Nation." But "society's progress toward equality cannot be permanently halted," and to that end, "universities can and should continue to use all available tools to meet society's needs for diversity in education."

AUGUST 1, 2022 - NAWL joined the National Women’s Law Center, along with our law firm partner, Linklaters LLP, and 35+ additional civil rights organizations, in filing an amicus brief in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina in support of the universities and their race-conscious admissions policies.

The two affirmative action cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) challenge the holistic admissions policies used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC), which consider race as one factor in order to create a diverse student body. The lawsuits claim that Harvard and UNC are discriminating against Asian American applicants by using race-conscious admissions policies, even though there is no evidence that this is true. SFFA asks the Supreme Court to overturn well-settled precedent in order to prohibit universities from considering race whatsoever in admissions processes, no matter the significant harms that would result for students of color.

Our amicus brief defends the universities’ interest in maintaining a diverse student body and ensuring that past discrimination does not perpetuate ongoing exclusion. The brief specifically highlights the ways that affirmative action policies are necessary for addressing race and sex discrimination based on stereotypes and the effects of historic and current discrimination that uniquely harm women of color, who continue to remain underrepresented in higher education and across various fields. Diversity in higher education benefits all students and society as a whole by breaking down harmful stereotypes, fostering the exchange of ideas on campus, and preparing students for a diverse workforce. By highlighting the important benefits of student body diversity created by affirmative action policies, we urge the Court not to overrule or otherwise narrow decades of precedent upholding such policies.

To learn more, check out NWLC blog post .

NAWL Joins FVAP Amicus in Support of Domestic Violence Survivor

Mon, 08 May 2023 17:00:29 GMT

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.

NAWL Joins FVAP Amicus Against Mutual Restraining Order

Thu, 30 Mar 2023 18:22:38 GMT

March 30, 2023 -- The California 2nd District Court of Appeal did not agree with our position and affirmed the trial court's decision to deny the Domestic Violence Restraining Order ("DVRO") - read the full opinion . Though we disagree with the outcome, we hope that the brief educated the Justices about the dynamics of domestic violence.

August 3, 2022 -- NAWL joined the Family Violence Appellate Project ("FVAP") amicus brief filed in California's 2nd District Court of Appeal in the case of Blake v. Langer .

Our amicus brief explains that mutual restraining order requests are often a litigation tactic engaged by abusers, and that it is important for trial courts to properly assess the totality of the circumstances to figure out who is abusive within a relationship because mutual abuse is exceedingly rare. We also explain that the location of abuse should not be an exception under California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act which provides broad protection. The brief also explains why a survivor's interpretation of what is threatening behavior should be credited by trial courts, since survivors are uniquely attuned to what is threatening (in this case, a second alleged act of abuse - picking up a knife during a home walk-through).

NAWL Joins Amicus Brief to Force Recognition of ERA

Tue, 28 Feb 2023 20:13:31 GMT

UPDATE February 28, 2023 -- The federal appeals court dismissed the case brought by Illinois and Nevada that sought to have the US archivist publish and certify the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution.

ERA Coalition released the following statement from the Legal Task Force chair and board member Linda Coberly, in response to the decision on Illinois v Ferriero :

"We’re disappointed in the court’s ruling. But we note that the ruling does not resolve the issue of the time limit. It simply notes that the dispute about the time limit stands in the way of finding a ‘clear and indisputable right,’ as would be necessary for the specific relief sought in the lawsuit. Ultimately, the decision leaves the issue squarely in the hands of Congress. And just this morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the issue. Congress has the power to act, and it should act now."

January 10, 2022 -- NAWL and advocates representing 52 organizations for women's equality filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the case filed by the Attorneys General of the last three states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment –– Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia –– to force U.S. Archivist David S. Ferriero to publish the ERA to the U.S. Constitution. The Court previously dismissed the case for supposed lack of jurisdiction. Read the brief>>>

NAWL Joins NWLC Amicus About Sports, Equity, and Math

Fri, 13 Jan 2023 20:10:06 GMT

UPDATE - January 13, 2023 -- The parties reached a settlement agreement that prohibits Michigan State University ("MSU") from cutting any women’s team from now until the end of the 2029-30 school year. The agreement also requires MSU’s athletic program to come into full Title IX compliance by the end of the 2026-27 school year, including by requiring the appointment of an independent Gender Equity Review Director and the creation of a Gender Equity Plan.

NAWL Joins NWLC Equal Pay Amicus Brief

Fri, 30 Sep 2022 17:12:26 GMT

September 30, 2022 -- NAWL joined the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), alongside law firm partner the Federal Practice Group and 45 additional organizations, in filing an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Boyer v. U.S. in support of Dr. Leslie Boyer and her pay discrimination claim under the Equal Pay Act .

The Case
As a clinical pharmacist, Dr. Boyer had seven more years of experience than her male colleague. And yet their workplace—a medical center at the Department of Veterans Affairs (the “Agency”)—was somehow still paying her less. Even though the two pharmacists were hired only six months apart, the Agency appointed Dr. Boyer and her male colleague at significantly different “step” levels, which meant Dr. Boyer was paid $10,000 less than her less-experienced male colleague. The Agency admits that it did not provide Dr. Boyer equal pay for equal work, but claims this is okay because it based the workers’ pay on their previous salaries.

Dr. Boyer lives and works in Alabama and first filed her lawsuit against the Agency in federal district court there. The court initially ruled in favor of Dr. Boyer, determining that reliance on prior salary history was not a legitimate defense to discrimination under the Equal Pay Act. However, it then decided to transfer the case to the Court of Federal Claims, a separate court that hears some cases brought by federal workers, and vacated its previous decision. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Dr. Boyer’s lawsuit, finding that the Agency could rely on salary history to defend against sex-based pay inequality under the Equal Pay Act. Dr. Boyer then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asking the appeals court to revive her lawsuit and allow her equal pay claim to proceed.

Our Brief

NWLC’s amicus brief explains that reliance on salary history is not a legitimate justification for pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act. That’s because women—and particularly women of color—are systematically paid less than men across occupations and industries. Therefore, employers who rely on salary history to select job applicants and to set new hires’ pay will often perpetuate existing disparities, directly undermining the purpose of the Equal Pay Act.

As we explain in our brief, the gender wage gap continues to exist, at least in part, because of employers’ reliance on factors unrelated to job qualifications, like salary history, to set employee pay. In 2021, women working full time, year-round were paid just 84 cents for every dollar paid to men, and the disparities are even larger for women of color. For Black women working full time, the wage gap causes a staggering loss of $907,680 over a 40-year career. LGBTQ workers, disabled workers, older workers, and those at the intersection of these identities are also particularly harmed by the wage gap. These substantial losses threaten women’s economic security, impacting their ability to make ends meet, provide for their families, access education, or save for retirement.

The federal government employs millions of people… and should be a model employer. Right now, it claims to be one. However, it has yet to live up to that expectation, or set a higher standard—of greater equality—for our nation’s workforce. It is imperative that government agencies implement and follow existing policies that lead to greater pay equity, instead of setting pay based on factors that tend to perpetuate historical sex, race, and other forms of pay discrimination. Notably, several other federal appeals courts, numerous states and cities, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have all recognized the ways that reliance on salary history reflects and perpetuates women’s lower pay in the broader economy and cannot justify pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act.

For all these reasons, we ask the appeals court to rule in favor of Dr. Boyer and the millions of federal workers who are affected by the wage gap—so that more women finally get paid what they are owed .

NAWL Joins Diversity Bars' Amicus Brief

Tue, 06 Sep 2022 17:20:15 GMT

UPDATE: August 31, 2023 - The Third Circuit reinstated Pennsylvania’s Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g) - an anti-bias and harassment rule that would discipline lawyers who knowingly engage in racial and sexual discrimination in the practice of law - which the District Court previously enjoined when it held that it could potentially chill free speech for attorneys if enforced. The plaintiff attorney had argued that he could theoretically be subject to a bar complaint if he quotes or repeats racist, homophobic, or sexist comments in a CLE program because it could be interpreted as harassment or discrimination under the Rule. The Third Circuit's decision held that the plaintiff attorney lacked standing to bring his challenge because the Rule does not generally prohibit him from quoting offensive words or expressing controversial ideas, nor would the Disciplinary Board impose discipline for his planned speech. Judge Scirica stated that “any chill to his speech is not objectively reasonable or cannot be fairly traced to the Rule.”

September 6, 2022 - NAWL joined our friends at HNBA, NAPABA, APABA of Pennsylvania, NBA, NNABA, and National LGBTQ+ as amicus in the Greenberg Third Circuit appeal involving PA Rule of Professional Conduct prohibiting harassment and discrimination.

ABOUT THE CASE : In Zachary Greenberg v. Jerry M. Lehocky, et al. , a Philadelphia attorney continues to challenge a statewide anti-bias rule that would prohibit attorneys from engaging in harassment or discrimination due to protected categories. In an amicus brief filed in Zachary Greenberg v. Jerry M. Lehocky, et al. , NAWL joined other affinity bar groups to express strong support for Resolution 109. They explain equality and respect for all individuals lie at the heart of our legal system. Discrimination and harassment by lawyers, including conduct manifesting bias or prejudice towards others, undermine confidence in the legal profession and the legal system. In furtherance of these unassailable principles, in August 2016 the ABA House of Delegates approved Resolution 109 to amend Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 to include an anti-harassment and anti-discrimination provision. Preexisting rules focused on discrimination and harassment in the context of the administration of justice; the amendment to ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) expanded the scope to include all areas related to the practice of law. Amici’s highest priority in supporting the resolution was to assure an end to discrimination and harassment in the legal profession, promoting the equal representation of and opportunity for diverse attorneys. Citing “real life examples from our experiences,” Amici showed the direct link from discrimination and harassment to persistent under-representation of many minority groups in the legal profession.

The district court blocked this Rule because it apparently infringes speech protected under the First Amendment and it is too vague under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. We urge this Court to reverse the decision. The text and goals of Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g) are not only legal as Appellants’ opening brief explains in careful detail—but also, as explained below, important and necessary to our legal profession.

READ THE BREIF>>

NAWL Files SCOTUS Amicus Brief in Dobbs

Fri, 24 Jun 2022 19:51:00 GMT

UPDATE June 24, 2022 -- The United States Supreme Court issued its closely divided and lega lly unjustifiable opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In the opinion, five Justices overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Case y and declared that there is no federal constitutional right to abortion, a decision that affects millions of people nationwide.

NAWL and our partners at WLG and WBA are extraordinarily disappointed, but not surprised, in the ruling of the Court. We are, however, shocked by the reasoning used to support this decision. With the stroke of a pen, this tragic decision creates a generation of women that have less agency over their own bodies than their grandmothers, and abrogates constitutional rights that we have relied on for nearly 50 years. This decision will have monumental consequences for individuals and their families in this country. As we have seen in other scenarios, pregnant people will not stop seeking abortions, but they will now have to go to much greater lengths, with predictable dire consequences, to exercise their rights to choose when and whether to have a child. People of color and those struggling to make ends meet, who currently have inequitable access to abortion care, will be even more disproportionately affected as their options become more elusive. Additionally, we do not need a crystal ball to foresee other significant personal liberty rights – birth control, marriage equality, and even interracial marriage – that may be challenged on this basis. The public’s trust in and respect for the Court has now been severely damaged. People perceive that a handful of Justices’ personal, religious, or political beliefs have prevailed over precedent and stability of the law. Whether individuals will be forced to bear children will now devolve in a chaotic manner in each state, and more than half the states are expected to make abortion illegal immediately upon issuance of the Dobbs decision. We will never stop fighting for the right of every person to make this highly personal decision in private, without being subject to state control over their body.

“Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens.” - Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan, dissenting.

September 20, 2021 — More than 30 organizations of women lawyers and future legal professionals, led by three notable U.S. organizations of women lawyers, submitted an amicus brief in support of respondents in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which could overturn Roe v. Wade and the almost 50 years of constitutional jurisprudence guaranteeing reproductive freedom to women.

Led by Women Lawyers On Guard, National Association of Women Lawyers, and the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia, and submitted by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP as counsel for amici, the brief lays out what is at stake if the Supreme Court overturns or weakens Roe. Women and their families, including women attorneys, have relied heavily on the constitutional guarantee of the ability to decide whether to have an abortion when exercising autonomy over their lives, health, families, and futures. Loss of the rights guaranteed by Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey would decimate women lawyers’ ability to advance their careers and achieve gender parity in the legal field.

Co-leads of this brief issued this joint statement regarding the brief:

Women Lawyers On Guard Inc .: “Women Lawyers On Guard is proud to co-lead this amicus brief explaining why the Supreme Court should uphold Roe and Casey under the doctrine of stare decisis. A key factor of the stare decisis analysis is societal reliance. Women’s reliance on the reproductive rights guaranteed by Roe and Casey has forever changed society and enabled women to make great strides in the fight to achieve equality. But even with reproductive freedom, progress toward gender parity in the legal profession has been agonizingly slow. Women attorneys often pay a price for having children and many of them leave the legal profession altogether due to childcare responsibilities. This cost is largely borne by women, not men. If women lose the ability to plan their families, all of these gains will quickly be in serious jeopardy. Roe and Casey must be upheld because they were correctly decided and because we simply cannot go back to a time where women have no freedom to make intimate decisions about their own bodies and lives,” said Cory Amron, President, Women Lawyers On Guard; Elaine Metlin, Co-chair, Amicus Committee, Women Lawyers On Guard.

National Association of Women Lawyers : ”The National Association of Women Lawyers is proud to co-lead this amicus brief with more than 30 organizations of women lawyers and future legal professionals. Women’s reliance on the reproductive rights guaranteed by Roe and Casey has enabled women to make great strides in the fight to achieve equality. Without bodily autonomy, including the legal right to decide whether, when, and by what means to have the number of children they desire, women cannot be fully equal under the law or professionally. The negative consequences that would result from overturning well-established legal precedent implicate every facet of women’s lives and health,” said Karen Richardson, Executive Director of the National Association of Women Lawyers.

Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia : “The Women’s Bar Association of DC proudly joins this brief to support the well-established legal precedent that women have a constitutional and fundamental right to privacy, which long has included access to reproductive health care including abortions,” said Sadina Montani, Immediate Past President of the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia and partner at Crowell & Moring.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, counsel for amici : “We are proud to partner with these leading organizations supporting women in the legal profession and to bring the unique perspective of women lawyers and law students to the critical issues at stake in this case,” said Heather Schneider, partner at Willkie and lead counsel on the brief.

“This case raises serious issues that significantly affect women’s constitutional rights and the advancement of women attorneys. We hope our brief sheds light on the impact of this case on women in the legal profession,” said Mia Guizzetti Hayes, counsel at Willkie and counsel of record on the brief.

The brief specifically highlights the central role that Roe’s and Casey’s constitutional right to bodily autonomy has played in the advancement of women in the law, as well as the steep hurdles still faced by female lawyers generally—and especially female lawyers of color and those with children—that will only become harder to surmount if that right were revoked or weakened. While it is true that there are many more women lawyers and judges today than there were when Roe and Casey were decided, there is still discrimination against women—especially mothers and women of color—in the legal profession. For example:

Women represent less than ¼ of law firm equity partners, despite representing 40% of associate ranks.
Women of color in particular represent only 15% of law firm associates and fewer than 4% of law firm partners.
54% of women in the law are fully in charge of arranging childcare as compared to just 1% of men, and 32% of women in the law are responsible for leaving work early for childcare as compared to just 4% of men.
Women are also likely to be passed over for certain projects after returning from maternity leave because of assumptions about their need to participate in childcare.
Women, especially women of color, report being treated particularly badly after having had children, reporting being passed up for promotions and given low-quality assignments; being demoted, paid less, and treated unfairly for working part-time; and other disparate treatment stemming from the misperception that women lawyers who are parents have chosen the “mommy track.”
These transgressions are felt more deeply since COVID-19 began. Women are working more hours from home than men and are less likely to use third-party daycare services. About half of women with children under age 13 consider becoming part-time or leaving the legal profession altogether.
Even without factoring in children, 70% of women of color report have left or seriously considered leaving the legal profession.

The amicus brief is also signed by nearly 30 other organizations dedicated to supporting women lawyers and law students. Read the Brief here>>

NAWL Joins FVAP in Request for Publication re: DVRO

Mon, 06 Jun 2022 17:24:37 GMT

June 6, 2022 -- NAWL joined the Family Violence Appellate Project ("FVAP"), along with 31 other co-signers, request for publication of 1st District Court of Appeal Case A.C. v. M.N.

Case Summary

Wife and Husband each sought DVROs against the other. Wife’s request for a DVRO was granted based on the Court’s finding that Husband had engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation, including pressuring her to perform or agree to perform sexual activities and threatening to take the children away from her if she would not agree to his sexual demands. By contrast, Husband’s request was denied, based on findings that Wife’s actions, such as kneeing Husband in the groin and slapping him, did not constitute domestic violence because they were in response to Husband’s other threatening actions, which included trapping Wife in a room and taking her phone away. Husband appealed.

Reasons Supporting Publication

It provides a good example of how trial courts should evaluate dueling allegations of abuse. Specifically, it focuses on examining the allegations not in isolation (e.g., wife kneeing husband in the groin) but rather in context of the other allegations (e.g., husband’s threatening behavior and preventing her from leaving the room).

It would be the first case to explain that in some circumstances seeking a DVRO may itself be abusive. Here, the opinion explains that Husband only sought the DVRO after Wife made it clear that she would not agree to comply with Husband’s sexual demands. As such, it was filed with the purpose to harass wife.

It clarifies that an abuser’s use of an audio recording “as leverage” against a victim may constitute harassment. Husband had recorded Wife admitting that she kneed him in the groin. The appellate court held that this recording was made, at least in part, to exert his control over wife. In particular, Wife can be heard on the recording “expressing her belief that Husband would use the recording to try to gain custody of their children should she seek divorce.” The circumstances also suggest that Wife “felt pressured to agree to being recorded” because she wanted to go to sleep, and she felt that Husband was using a prior domestic incident, discussed on the recording, as leverage for custody purposes.

NAWL Joins NWLC Amicus Brief re Race-Based Discrimination

Wed, 01 Jun 2022 19:56:02 GMT

VICTORY UPDATE June 2022 -- the District Court of Minnesota unsealed an opinion it filed in March 2022, where it denied DECS’s request to effectively dismiss the case. This means the court is allowing the case to move forward to trial.

Although the attorneys on the case, Public Justice and Nichols Kaster, will still have to bring it to trial, the Court found that at this stage, a reasonable jury could conclude that DECS had a custom and practice of deliberate indifference to racial harassment and discriminatory discipline, engaged in disparate treatment of Black students, and perpetuated a racially hostile learning environment. The Court also acknowledged the ample evidence in the record demonstrating how DECS “did not treat racism with appropriate seriousness, and instead downplayed, minimized, and even ignored the serious nature of the racist comments by treating them ineffectively as ‘learning opportunities.’”

We are thrilled that the students bringing this case will have their day in court!

NWLC’s brief supports the students’ challenge by arguing that when educators discipline Black students more frequently and more harshly for behaviors they typically overlook with white students, such differential treatment leads to unequal educational opportunities for Black students. Additionally, we argue that schools commit race discrimination when they mistreat Black students in connection with how they wear their hair. We also outline the harms of dress codes, including uniform policies, which are steeped in race- and gender-based stereotypes and often lead schools to discriminatorily enforce them against Black girls. We conclude that these forms of race discrimination often result in a hostile learning environment for Black students, especially when left ignored by school administrators—as was the case at DECS.

Learn more about the case on the NWLC blog .

NAWL Joins Amicus Brief Against Sex Discrimination

Tue, 26 Apr 2022 18:31:59 GMT

April 26, 2022 Update -- An opinion was rendered today in Jane Roe v. United States et. al. (now Caryn Devins Strickland v. United States et. al , due to the plaintiff's recent decision to drop the pseudonym).

As an organization committed to gender equality and civil rights, we applaud the court's decision today in Caryn Devins Strickland v. United States et. al. This landmark ruling recognizes, for the first time, the Constitutional right of federal judiciary employees to work in an environment free from sexual harassment.

As we noted in the amicus brief led by the Purple Campaign, the National Women's Law Center, and Legal Momentum, and in partnership with our pro bono counsel at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, the fact that the more than 30,000 employees of the federal judiciary currently lack federal statutory protections against workplace harassment and discrimination highlights the need to recognize such rights under the Constitution. We are pleased that the Court agreed and recognized Strickland's Constitutional "right to redress injuries caused by workplace discrimination, a right that is fundamentally equivalent to a cause of action and one that is vitally important considering the lack of alternative means of seeking relief for employees of the federal judiciary."

As our brief also highlighted, the facts of Strickland's case -- which included quid-pro-quo sexual harassment and related retaliation -- underscored the importance of ensuring that equal protection claims survive in situations like this one. We applaud the court for agreeing with us and properly recognizing, for the first time, that "the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause secures a federal judiciary employee's right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace."

Despite the historic nature of this ruling, the Court's opinion highlights the continuing need for legislative and policy reform to protect federal judiciary employees. At the same time that it recognized Strickland's substantive Constitutional rights, the Court also held that certain defendants are immune from these claims and that specific remedies -- including back pay -- remain unavailable under existing law. We, therefore, urge Congress to enact the Judiciary Accountability Act of 2021 (the "JAA") to ensure that federal judiciary employees like Strickland have the same rights and remedies available to private sector employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to employees of the other two branches of the U.S. government.

For additional information about our amicus brief see here .

August 26, 2021 -- NAWL joined the Purple Campaign, Legal Momentum, National Women’s Law Center, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, and other interested organizations, in filing an Amicus Brief in the Fourth Circuit in support of Appellant J ane Roe in Roe v. United States of America et al . Both Roe’s brief and the Purple Campaign’s amicus brief detail the pervasive sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, and retaliation to which Roe was subjected from early 2018 through March 2019 when she was constructively discharged from her position.

NAWL Joins NWLC Survivors' Rights Amicus Brief

Mon, 04 Apr 2022 18:49:13 GMT

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 .

NAWL finds Judge Jackson to be "Well Qualified"

Sat, 19 Mar 2022 20:20:49 GMT

NAWL finds Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be "Well Qualified" for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Consistent with the stated mission of the Committee, our assessment focused on Judge Jackson’s personal integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament, “with a specific focus on laws and decisions that impact or relate to NAWL’s mission to advance women in the legal profession and advocate for the equality of women under the law.” Our review of Judge Jackson’s nearly 500 published and unpublished opinions as a federal judge led the Committee to conclude that Judge Jackson has outstanding legal ability, respect for the rule of law, and commitment to the judicial process, consistent with service on the United States Supreme Court. Likewise, our interviews of several dozen litigants, former law clerks, former and current colleagues, and others who have had meaningful interactions with Judge Jackson during her legal career and have knowledge of her treatment of litigants, attorneys, employees, and colleagues, persuaded the Committee that she has the highest reputation for integrity and consistently demonstrates a sound judicial temperament.

Read the full statement.>

NAWL Joins NWLC Amicus Brief in Support of Survivor

Mon, 04 Oct 2021 19:37:09 GMT

UPDATE - OCTOBER 4, 2021: The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the defendants’ appeal in this case on the premise that the appellate court was precluded from considering the officers’ assertion of qualified immunity on the claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983.

This decision allowed Ms. Chase’s remaining claims to move forward at the trial level, and for her to eventually settle the case. This decision also further highlights the important ways that sex discrimination by law enforcement, including reliance on harmful sex-based stereotypes, not only leads to bias in sexual assault investigations but also compounds the trauma of sexual assault survivors. NWLC was proud to be part of this survivor’s fight for justice and grateful that Ms. Chase found a pathway to resolve her case.

MARCH 23, 2021 : NAWL joined the National Women’s Law Center, their law firm partner Linklaters LLP, and 30 other organizations including the Women’s Law Project, in filing an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Nicole Chase, a 27-year-old single mother and restaurant worker who was sexually assaulted by the restaurant’s owner. Our brief highlights the ways gender bias by law enforcement, including reliance on harmful sex-based stereotypes, not only leads to failures in sexual assault investigations but also compounds the trauma of sexual assault for survivors. The brief also discusses how gender bias in law enforcement’s response to sexual assault – as was clearly evidenced by the police in this case – may violate the Constitution’s protections against sex discrimination.

Read NWLC's blog post for more background about the case. Read the brief .

NAWL finds Judge Barrett to be "Not Qualified"

Sat, 10 Oct 2020 20:33:18 GMT

NAWL finds Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be "Not Qualified" for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

October 10, 2020 -- An extensive review of almost 120 opinions, concurrences, and dissents written or joined by Judge Barrett, as well as articles and books she authored or coauthored, interviews of over 40 litigants, former law clerks, former and current colleagues, and others who have interacted with Judge Barrett persuaded the Committee that Judge Barrett is “Not Qualified” because she has failed to demonstrate the requisite “commitment to women’s rights or issues that have a special impact on women.” Specifically, the Committee concluded from this research that (i) Judge Barrett’s judicial philosophy of originalism is fundamentally at odds with a commitment to women’s rights and (ii) Judge Barrett’s personal views on reproductive rights will lead her to support further restrictions on, if not the elimination of, women’s autonomy in their reproductive rights decisions.

Read the full statement>

September 29, 2020 -- NAWL objects to the timeframe established for the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Hon. Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Since 2005, NAWL’s Supreme Court Committee has conducted a comprehensive review and evaluation of the qualifications of each nominee to the United States Supreme Court, with a specific focus on laws and decisions regarding women's rights or that have a special impact on women. At the conclusion of this process, the Committee publicly issues a summary evaluation, which includes a conclusion as to whether the nominee is Well Qualified, Qualified or Not Qualified. The opportunity to ensure that every nominee is accorded fair consideration is of the utmost importance. Following the nomination of Judge Barrett, NAWL’s Committee immediately commenced its non-partisan evaluation process, which will proceed as expeditiously as possible, consistent with a thorough and fair review.

As we commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment establishing women’s right to vote, we remain ever mindful of a history in which women’s voices were not heard and their concerns were ignored. The Senate advice and consent process must allow sufficient time for thorough, unhurried, and unbiased consideration, and for a diverse variety of voices to be heard. This process is vital to the public’s perception of the federal judiciary as a fair and independent arbiter of justice, and must not be rushed by political expediency, particularly where a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court is at stake. We urge the members of the Senate to establish a timeframe consistent with prior nominations for the United States Supreme Court, which necessarily must be sufficient to allow for a complete evaluation of the nominee’s background and credentials. Without doing so, the Senate cannot be properly and completely informed when fulfilling its critical responsibility to provide advice and consent.

Read the full statement>

NAWL finds Judge Kavanaugh to be "Not Qualified"

Tue, 02 Oct 2018 20:45:33 GMT

NAWL finds Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to be "Not Qualified" for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

AUGUST 2018 -- With respect to personal integrity, our interviews of several dozen litigants who had appeared before Judge Kavanaugh, former law clerks, former and current colleagues, and others who have interacted with him during the last three decades persuaded the Committee that Judge Kavanaugh has the highest reputation for integrity and generally demonstrates a sound judicial temperament. Further, the Committee finds Judge Kavanaugh to be supportive of women professionally, including hiring a diverse pool of law clerks. As to professional competence, our review of Judge Kavanaugh’s writings, which entailed a review of over 300 opinions, concurrences, and dissents written by Judge Kavanaugh, as well as articles and books he authored or coauthored, led the Committee to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh’s professional competence is consistent with that required for service on the Supreme Court.

Following this extensive review, the Committee ultimately concludes, however, that Judge Kavanaugh is “not qualified” because he has failed to demonstrate the requisite “commitment to women’s rights or issues that have a special impact on women.” Specifically, the Committee is troubled by key decisions and other statements by Judge Kavanaugh, which the Committee believes reflects a propensity to deviate from established law as it relates to the protection of women’s rights, particularly their reproductive rights.

Read the full statement>

OCTOBER 2, 2018 -- NAWL amends the letter previously filed with the Senate Judiciary Committee in August 2018.

After examining his writings, interviewing individuals who have interacted with Judge Kavanaugh over the last three decades, NAWL found him “not qualified” under its standards because he failed to demonstrate the requisite “commitment to women’s rights or issues that have a special impact on women.” After considering the testimony provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 27, 2018, the Committee also has serious concerns regarding Judge Kavanaugh’s integrity, judicial temperament, and overall fitness for the position of Supreme Court Justice.

Read the full amendment statement>

NAWL finds Judge Gorsuch to be "Not Qualified"

Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:58:15 GMT

NAWL finds Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to be "Not Qualified" for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

March 16, 2017 -- Consistent with the stated mission of the Committee, our assessment focused on Judge Gorsuch’s personal integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament, with “an emphasis on laws and decisions regarding women's rights or that have a special impact on women.” Our review of over 500 opinions, concurrences, and dissents written by Judge Gorsuch and articles and books he authored or coauthored led the Committee to conclude that Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal ability consistent with service on the Supreme Court. Similarly, our interviews of several dozen litigants, former law clerks, former and current colleagues, and others who have interacted with Judge Gorsuch during the last three decades persuaded the Committee that he has the highest reputation for integrity and generally demonstrates a sound judicial temperament. However, the Committee’s standards require review of each nominee under several separate evaluation criteria, and the prospective nominee is found “not qualified” when “the Committee has determined that the prospective nominee does not meet the Committee's standards with respect to one or more of its evaluation criteria - integrity, professional competence, judicial temperament or he or she does not demonstrate a commitment to women’s rights or issues that have a special impact on women.”

Judge Gorsuch’s writings in or about several cases that implicate women’s rights or interests caused the Committee significant concern. Based on those writings, in light of the quoted language contained in the Committee’s standards, the Committee finds that Judge Gorsuch, to date, does not have a “demonstrated commitment to women’s rights or issues that have a special impact on women.” Because such a demonstrated commitment is a pre-requisite for a nominee to receive a “qualified” or “well qualified” ranking from NAWL, the Committee ranks Judge Gorsuch “not qualified.”

Read the full statement>

NAWL finds Solicitor General Kagan to be "Well Qualified"

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:07:18 GMT

NAWL finds Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be "Well Qualified" for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

August 12, 2010 -- NAWL provides commentary on the appointment of Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan.

Read the full commentary>

August 5, 2010 -- NAWL issues a statement regarding the appointment of Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan.

Read the full statement>

July 6, 2010 -- Patricia Lee Refo testifies on the Nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Read the full testimony>

June 23, 2010 -- Based on an extensive review, the Committee is confident that General Kagan possesses the requisite intellectual and analytic talent, judicial temperament, and professional demeanor to serve on the highest court in the land. The NAWL Committee is equally confident that she will approach cases and controversies with a mind that is open to all perspectives and with an appreciation of the professional and societal difficulties encountered by women and minorities. For these reasons, the NAWL Committee concludes that General Kagan is "well-qualified" to serve as Associate Justice, which is the highest recommendation that the Committee is authorized to confer upon a nominee.

Read the full statement>

May 11, 2010 -- NAWL evaluates Nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to Supreme Court.

Read the full evaluation>

NAWL finds Judge Sotomayor "Highly Qualified"

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:15:10 GMT

NAWL finds Judge Sonia Sotomayor "Highly Qualified" for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

July 16, 2009 -- JoAnne A. Epps, NAWL Supreme Court Committee Co-Chair and Dean of Temple University Beasley School of Law, testified on behalf of NAWL at Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing. Dean Epps was identified as a majority witness.

Read Dean Epps’ testimony>

Read NAWL's Letter to Senator Leahy Regarding Judge Sotomayor>

July 7, 2009 -- NAWL finds Judge Sonia Sotomayor "Highly Qualified" for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

The conclusion, based upon Judge Sotomayor’s intellectual capacity, her appropriate judicial temperament and her respect for established law and process, has been reported today to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Read the full statement>

May 5, 2009 - NAWL urges appointment of woman to Supreme Court.

Read the full statement>

NAWL find Judge Alito "Not Qualified"

Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:19:14 GMT

NAWL finds Judge Samuel A. Alito "Not Qualified" for the Position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

NAWL’s rating of not qualified from a women’s rights perspective is the result of its evaluation of Judge Alito's writings, including his judicial record. On those women’s rights issues that he has addressed, Judge Alito has shown a disinclination to protect or advance women’s rights. Our concern also recognizes that Judge Alito will be replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has been a decisive vote in a number of cases involving the rights of women and laws that have a special impact on women. Judge Alito’s jurisprudence in the area of women’s rights has not been restrained, as some have characterized his general judicial approach; rather, he has too often engaged in strained legal reasoning to effect a narrowing of women’s rights beyond the intent of statutes and precedent.

Read the full statement>

NAWL finds Judge Roberts, Jr. "Qualified"

Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:27:50 GMT

NAWL finds Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. "Qualified" for the Position of Chief Justice of the United States.

The Committee has a continuing concern, however, based on gaps in information, regarding Judge Roberts's approaches to the full range of legal principles that are essential for the protection and advancement of women's rights. Although the Committee recognizes that it is unlikely to be fully apprised of a nominee's view on all issues of interest, there were opportunities to be more informative about his positions on women's rights, which Judge Roberts declined to take.

The Committee also was troubled by Judge Roberts's unwillingness to comment on the role of the judiciary in reviewing national legislation designed to protect the safety and other rights of women (e.g., such as the federal Violence Against Women Act), despite being given a direct opportunity to speak to the issue.

The hearings did provide additional information in several key areas. The NAWL Committee was encouraged by Judge Roberts's express statements that he has "no agenda, no platform," "will approach every case with an open mind," and that, as part of his judicial philosophy on equal protection, "distinctions on the basis of gender are subject to a heightened scrutiny." The Committee's view is that any other approach would have a significant negative impact on advances made over the last several decades in reversing gender discrimination.

The Committee also relies on Judge Roberts's reaffirmation to the Senate Judiciary Committee, regarding Planned Parenthood v. Casey and principles of stare decisis, that Casey is the "settled law of the land," and there is nothing in his personal views that would prevent him from "fully and faithfully applying the precedent of Casey" or "from applying the precedents of the court faithfully under principles of stare decisis.” In the same vein, the Committee underscored the importance of Judge Roberts's statements in the Senate hearings that the Constitution's right to liberty includes the right of privacy, which is protected substantively and grounded in the liberty interests arising under the due process clause.

Read the full statement>