Amicus Briefs
For 45 years, Legal Momentum has made historic and enduring contributions to the rights and opportunities available to women through its litigation initiatives. Legal Momentum takes a select number of cases that raise significant issues affecting the rights of women and girls across the nation. If you think your case meets our criteria, please contact us at 212.925.6635 or at caseinquiries@legalmomentum.org.
-
Concerned the custody of the infant child after a domestic violence dispute between the parents.
-
-
Argue that UMW violated Title IX by taking no action to investigate cyber harassment on campus.
-
G.G., a transgender highschool student, sued the Gloucester County School Board for a Title IX violation, after the board instituted a policy designed to prevent him from using boys' restrooms.
-
Determined whether the treatment from the employer to a pregnant employee violates the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
-
Concerned child custody given the father despite his proven violent behaviors.
-
Determined if the First Amendment justifies a commercial business’s refusal to serve a customer in a protected group.
-
Defended the policy of prohibiting employers from using applicants’ prior pay to determine compensation, in hopes of reducing the wage gap.
-
Challenged President Trump’s Executive Order 13780, an executive order that placed limits on travel to the U.S. from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.
-
Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) for the primary purpose of preventing children from viewing indecent or otherwise harmful material online. The legislators emphasized that its goal was “to help encourage the private sector to protect our children from being exposed to obscene and indecent material on the Internet” by removing liability for Internet companies that “make a good faith effort to edit the smut from their systems.” The First Circuit Court of Appeals—like several other courts—interpreted the law as providing complete immunity to websites that solicit and profit from illegal content so long as the legal claims against them bear some relationship to online content provided by a third party. Because Backpage’s “adult” services section contains advertisements written by paid users, the First Circuit held that the site was protected from liability for aiding the Petitioners’ sexual exploitation as minors, even though the Petitioners persuasively alleged that Backpage took an active role in shaping the content of the ads and deliberately tailored its website to “make sex trafficking easier.” This sweeping interpretation is not what Congress intended when it enacted legislation seeking to encourage website operators to behave responsibly.