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

Isabell Retamoza • March 18, 2024

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.


The mission of the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) is to provide leadership, a collective voice, and essential resources to advance women in the legal profession and advocate for the equality of women under the law.

Since 1899, NAWL has been empowering women in the legal profession, cultivating a diverse membership dedicated to equality, mutual support, and collective success.

June 24, 2026
Women Lawyers On Guard Inc .  and the National Association of Women Lawyers issue this joint statement on the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization . Before Dobbs , we co-led an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of women’s legal organizations, urgi ng the Court to preserve nearly 50 years of settled precedent. That brief explained that women and their families, including women attorneys, have relied on the constitutional guarantee of autonomy over decisions affecting their lives, health, families, and futures. We warned that overturning those precedents would inflict immediate and lasting harm on the health, dignity, equality, and futures of all people who can become pregnant. 1 Four years later, our warnings have proven correct. Dobbs stripped millions of people of a federal constitutional right, allowed states to intrude into the most intimate medical and family decisions, and created a perilous legal landscape in which basic rights depend on geography, income, and access to legal and medical resources. This is not abstract. It is a daily, preventable harm caused by laws designed to restrict and, in many cases, eliminate access to abortion care. Across the country, abortion bans and restrictions have forced patients into medical emergencies, delayed or denied essential care, and deepened long-standing inequities for those with the fewest resources, including people of color, rural communities, young people, immigrants, and those already facing barriers to health care. In Texas, for example, reporting has documented women who died after emergency pregnancy or miscarriage care was delayed because doctors and hospitals feared that treatment could be viewed as a violation of the state’s abortion ban. Dobbs has also created a two-tier system of rights in which access to essential health care depends on state lines: patients from Texas and other ban states must travel hundreds or thousands of miles, often at great personal cost, while protective states use shield laws and expanded services to preserve access in the face of escalating interstate conflict. Access to fundamental health care should not depend on a person’s ZIP code, income, age, race, or ability to navigate a hostile legal landscape. The fight for access has now moved beyond state bans to nationwide attacks on medication abortion. Mifepristone, part of the most common medication abortion regimen, has been approved by the FDA for more than two decades and is used in a majority of abortions in the United States. Yet current litigation over mifepristone seeks to reimpose medically unnecessary limits on telehealth prescribing, pharmacy dispensing, and mailing—restrictions that might function as a national ban on practical access to medication abortion, even where abortion remains legal. So much for leaving abortion to the states. The dissent by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan recognized what the majority rejected: “Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions.” On this anniversary, we renew our commitment to the work required to restore and protect reproductive freedom. We call on lawmakers, courts, bar leaders, and members of the legal profession to meet this moment with urgency, courage, and action. As women lawyers’ organizations, we will continue to use our voices, our expertise, and the power of the law to fight for reproductive health and justice. [1] Read our brief here: https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Organizations-of-Women-Lawyers-Amicus-Brief.pdf .
April 30, 2026
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais , ruling 6–3 that Louisiana’s congressional map creating a second majority-Black district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In reaching that decision, the Court narrowed how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act may be used to remedy racial vote dilution, despite prior findings that Louisiana’s earlier maps likely infringed on the voting rights of Black residents. This decision marks a serious setback for voting rights and democratic participation. For nearly six decades, the Voting Rights Act has served as a cornerstone of our legal system’s effort to confront and remedy structural discrimination in the electoral process. By restricting the tools available to address unequal representation, the Court’s ruling makes it harder to correct long standing disparities in who has a voice in our elections. In a dissent read aloud from the bench, Justice Elena Kagan cautioned that the Court’s decision undermines one of the last effective tools for protecting fair representation. Describing the ruling’s impact on the Voting Rights Act, she wrote that Section 2 is now “all but a dead letter,” unable to fulfill its core purpose. She highlighted that a democracy cannot function as promised when the law prevents meaningful remedies for electoral systems that lock some communities out of political power. NAWL is committed to a democracy that works for everyone, supported by a legal system that recognizes discrimination and acts to correct it. As lawyers, judges, advocates, and scholars, we understand that voting rights are foundational to all other rights. NAWL will continue to engage its members on the implications of this decision through education and dialogue. We invite NAWL members to continue this important conversation by attending our session “ Louisiana v. Callais : Voting Rights and the Future of Our Democracy” at NAWL’s 2026 Annual Meeting in Chicago on July 22–23 . Hear from Jessica Ellsworth (Partner and Co-Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice at Hogan Lovells), Samuel Spital (Associate Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund), Franita Tolson (Dean of USC Gould School of Law), and Wendy Weiser (Vice President, Democracy at Brennan Center for Justice). Our expert panel will examine the implications of this decision and its future impact on voting rights and the rule of law.
March 30, 2026
Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
January 1, 2026
Doe v. Catholic Relief Services
December 17, 2025
Female Athletes United v. Ellison
Columns of a classical building with ornate carvings against a clear blue sky.
October 7, 2025
Perkins v. State of Montana
More Posts