Determined the constitutionality of an affirmative action program targeted at economically and socially disadvantaged small business owners.

Determined whether disparate impact regulations adopted by federal agencies to effectuate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are enforceable by private litigants in actions for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Determined the constitutionality of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

Determined whether a court could reverse a ruling of discrimination on the grounds that the lower court findings were clearly erroneous.

This brief is in support of post-conviction relief for petitioner based on prosecutorial misconduct, due to prosecutor’s focus during trial on petitioner's sexual involvements with men other than her husband, causing prejudicial impact of gender stereotypes in the courtroom.

Determined whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibited employers from offering the option of receiving retirement benefits from companies that paid lower monthly retirement benefits to women than to men.

Determined the constitutionality of a law requiring parental notice for minor's abortion, where the law has no exception for medical emergencies.

Determined whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated Vermont's marriage statutes and/or Vermont's Common Benefits Clause.

Concerns sex discrimination and retaliation claims by a woman construction worker who was assaulted by a co-worker and fired by her employer.

Concerned the trial court's decision to exclude football from its consideration of a Title IX case regarding the amount of money spent on men's and women's sports.

Determined whether domestic violence can present a “grave risk” of harm to children within the meaning of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Determined whether a club is considered a business establishment, and would therefore be subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Determined whether Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment authorized Congress to enact Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), to the extent that it allows states to be sued for violating the ADA and allows Congress to enforce the ADA against the states.

Determined the constitutionality of state anti-sodomy laws.

Determined whether anti-abortion protesters who obstruct access to abortion clinics violate 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), a law which prohibits conspiracies to deprive "any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws."

Determined the right to sue schools for peer-to-peer sexual harassment under Title IX and § 1983.

Determined whether an employee who suffered sexual harassment by a supervisor can recover damages against her employer under Title VII.

Concerned the right of an abuse victim to tort remedies under the civil rights remedy provision of VAWA.

Concerning the hiring and retention of female employees as school custodians.

Whether Congress intended for Title IX, the law prohibiting sex discrimination in schools that receive federal funds, to be a private right of action.

When denying veterans' benefits to a service member with a same-sex spouse, should such classifications should be treated with heightened scrutiny.

Determined the statute of limitations in sexual abuse cases in Colorado.

Individuals and the EEOC are seeking justice for dozens of immigrant women and men subjected to abuse in their workplace, including sexual assault, extortion, felonious assault, and sexual harassment.  This specific appeal seeks to enforce the confidentiality protections available under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) for individuals who apply for U-visas and T-visas, which are available to crime victims who cooperate with authorities and for immigrant family violence victims who apply for immigration relief under VAWA.

The issue of confidentiality of VAWA self-petitions, U-visa, and T-visa applications has been litigated in the lower courts, but this appeal is the first time that a federal appeals court has heard the issue.  By submitting this brief, we hope to strengthen the Violence Against Women Act by ensuring that immigrant victims of sexual assault, harassment, and other crimes receive the full protections available to them under the law.

Determined whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits employers to require employees to arbitrate employment discrimination claims.

Determined whether welfare recipients who must work in public "workfare" jobs in order to receive welfare benefits are protected against sexual harassment and discrimination in those jobs by Title VII, the federal law against employment discrimination.

Determined whether a judge in a rape case should instruct the jury that the defendant made a reasonable mistake as to whether or not the victim had, in fact, consented to sexual contact.

Decided the constitutionality of a ban on same-sex marriage in Maryland.

Determined whether it is a violation of equal protection to apply a hundred-year-old Massachusetts law that denies marriage to persons who could not legally marry in their home state to same sex couples seeking to marry in Massachusetts.

Concerned a federal habeas petition filed by a woman serving a five-year prison sentence for using crack cocaine when she was pregnant.

Addressed the constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act civil rights remedy. The decision was overruled, in part, by the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Morrison.

Determined the right to sue schools for peer-to-peer sexual harassment under Title IX.

Determined whether the District of Columbia's gun control laws banning private possession of handguns violate the Second Amendment.

Addressed the constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act civil rights remedy. The decision was overruled, in part, by the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Morrison.

Determined whether it is proper for a a federal appeals court to overturn the jury verdict when a sexual harassment plaintiff has convinced a jury that she was subjected to a hostile environment in her workplace.

Determined the constitutionality under the First Amendment of a city ordinance restricting protester activity near health care facilities and houses of worship.

Determined whether an employer is liable under Title VII for the acts of an employee whose sexual harassment of subordinates has created a hostile work environment.

Determined the constitutionality of a South Carolina policy that allowed warrantless and nonconsensual drug testing of women seeking prenatal treatment at a Charleston public hospital.

Determined whether Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination by federally funded educational institutions, precludes claims of unconstitutional gender discrimination in the schools.

Considered whether the Fraternal Order of Eagles' scope of operations made it a "public accommodation" under state law, forbidding it to discriminate against female members.

Determined the constitutionality of Arizona's controversial immigration law, Senate Bill 1070 (S.B. 1070).

Determined whether a Suffolk County Park Police Department policy that penalizes pregnant women is discriminatory.

Description: Determined whether a defendant forfeits the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right where defendant’s wrongful act caused witness’s unavailability.

Challenging denial of spousal health benefits by employer on basis of same-sex marriage.

Considered whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the individual liberty and equality safeguards of the Massachusetts Constitution, protecting freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into protected areas of life and freedom to partake in state benefits.

Determined whether an entire university is subject to Title IX if only one particular university program receives federal funds.

Outlined the definition of a gender-discriminatory hostile work environment under Title VII.

The case concerns whether long-term home health care workers employed by third-party agencies are entitled to the federal minimum wage and overtime. The health care industry has challenged Congress’s and the Department of Labor’s efforts to provide overtime and sick leave to home health care workers, who are overwhelmingly women of color and live below the poverty line, even though they work full time. The industry should not be permitted to prevent these women from rising out of poverty.

Determined the definition of extreme cruelty under the VAWA provision that protects immigrant victims from deportation and return to their abuser.

Determined the constitutionality of a Colorado statute that protects women’s access to reproductive health services by making it unlawful for an individual to knowingly come closer than eight feet to a person within 100 feet of a health care facility, without first getting that person’s consent.

Determined the constitutionality of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances law, or FACE, which prohibits obstructing ingress and egress at reproductive health facilities.

Addressed the right of domestic violence victims to protection from employment discharge under North Carolina public policy.

In this case, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional right of immigrant parents to care for, have custody of, and control over their children. The Court ruled that Maria Luis, a Guatemalan woman, should not lose custody of her children because she was deported from the United States.

Concerned a wife's right to her husband's pension upon divorce even if he lost his job due to a restraining order she obtained to protect herself against his abuse.

Determined whether an employer violates federal anti-discrimination law (Title VII) by excluding contraceptives from a prescription drug plan that covers other prescriptions.

Determined whether domestic violence survivors who are discharged from work for reasons related to abuse are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

Determined the parental rights of a non-biological lesbian co-parent after she and the biological co-parent are no longer partners.

Determined whether Arizona State University is liable under Title IX for the rape of a student by another student who was known to be a serial sexual harasser.

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.

Determined whether the U.S. government violated international human rights treaties by failing to protect an individual from – and provide a remedy for – domestic violence, when local law enforcement failed to do so.

Determined the constitutionality of state “head and master” laws, which deem the husband “master” of all marital property and allows him to control marital property without his wife’s consent.

Determined whether a criminal statute against same-sex sexual relations violated constitutional rights of lesbians and gay men.

Determined the constitutionality of a restriction imposed by Congress and the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) on the professional activities of groups that receive LSC funding.

Considered the constitutionality of New Jersey's ban on same sex marriage.

Determined the right to sue a university for expulsion in retaliation for complaining of sexual harassment under Title IX.

Concerned the right of a domestic violence victim to take leave from work for proceedings and medical care under California's domestic violence leave law and the Family Rights act.

Concerned sex discrimination, retaliation, and Equal Pay Act claims by female elevator mechanic denied equal job opportunities and subjected to sexual harassment by co-workers and supervisors.

Determined whether Nebraska, in passing law denying welfare benefits to a child because the child's family was already receiving welfare when the child was born, intended the law to apply to children whose parents were unable to work because of disability.

Determined the Constitutionality under the First Amendment of state law that protected persons near reproductive health care facilities from unwanted approaches closer than six feet.

Determined whether it is constitutional, under the Equal Protection Clause, to enforce different requirements for citizenship on an out-of-wedlock child who is born abroad to a U.S. citizen, depending upon whether the U.S. citizen is the child's mother or father.

Amici Curiae Brief of Legal Voice, Legal Momentum, Montana NOW, Pennsylvania NOW, Women's Law Project, and Sexual Violence Law Center in the case of State of Montana v. Stacy Dean Rambold.

Determined the right of a homosexual student to sue for peer-to-peer sexual harassment under §1983 and the 14th Amendment.

Determined the constitutionality of enforcing the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to the states, under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Determined whether it is constitutional, under the Equal Protection Clause, to enforce different requirements for citizenship on out-of-wedlock child who is born abroad to a U.S. citizen, depending upon whether the U.S. citizen is the child's mother or father.

Addressed the issue of contempt fines in the federal court order protecting women, doctors and clinic workers from anti-choice blockades and violence.

Determined whether it is constitutional to impose a requirement that an individual not procreate as a condition of probation, where violation of the condition would subject the person to imprisonment.

A class action lawsuit alleging that labor recruiters engage in sex discrimination against Mexican women who they are placing as non-immigrant guestworkers to work in the United States.

Determined the right to unemployment benefits when a woman is forced to quit job due to domestic violence.

Concerned whether rape and attempted rape by a spouse can be considered "extreme cruelty" under VAWA's immigrant protection provisions.

Determined whether the State of Washington can terminate state-funded food assistance to lawfully present immigrants who are ineligible for federally-funded food assistance due to their immigrant status.

Determined whether a state can impose restrictions on abortions, such as waiting periods and parental consent, without violating Roe v. Wade.

Determined whether money awarded for lost compensation during the period between judgment on an employment sexual harassment case and reinstatement of an employee constitute an element of compensatory damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, such that it is subject to the Act's statutory cap on such damages.

Determined whether an employee can bring a claim of gender stereotyping sex discrimination under Title VII even if there is coexisting evidence of sexual orientation discrimination.

Determined whether, if an employee can show that the employer’s stated reason for firing her was pretext, her case can go to a jury to decide whether the employer unlawfully discriminated.

Determined whether the Commerce Clause authorized Congress to enact the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which protects the private information kept by state driver's license bureaus against commercial use, and whether the statute violated the Tenth or Eleventh Amendment.

Determined the definition of a hostile work environment under Title VII.

Concerned an immigrant women's efforts to use laws passed for the benefit of immigrant victims of violence in order to stay in the United States.

Determined whether buffer zones prohibiting demonstrations and blockades around abortion clinics violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Determined the constitutionality of New Jersey's Child Exclusion law, which denies welfare benefits to children born to mothers already receiving welfare.

Determined whether a state athletic association acts “under color of” state law, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and is therefore subject to constitutional scrutiny.

The issue in Mt. Holly is whether the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which bans housing discrimination on the grounds (among others) of race or sex, authorizes “disparate impact” challenges to policies that do not explicitly discriminate on the ground of race or sex, but which have an unjustified disproportionate racial or gender impact.  Our brief argues that the FHA does authorize disparate impact claims.

Legal Momentum filed the brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Legal Momentum, Futures Without Violence, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the NOW Foundation, and the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. 

Ms. Tucker is appealing the Circuit Court of Cook County ruling, affirming the Chicago Housing Authority's decision to terminate her Housing Choice Section 8 Voucher, without consideration of the applicability of the Violence Against Women Act and Ms. Tucker's status as a victim of domestic violence.

Determined the constitutionality of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Morrison.

In October, 2013, Supreme Court heard arguments in U.S. vs. Castleman, for which Legal Momentum co-authored an amicus brief. The case centered on whether a gun trafficker who abused the mother of his child should be able to legally buy guns. The amicus brief urged the Supreme Court to uphold federal laws—and those state laws like Tennessee’s—that were enacted to ensure that domestic violence abusers are prohibited from possessing guns. In March, 2014, the Court decided to uphold the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act that prevent abusers from purchasing firearms. Justice Sotomayor cited information from Legal Momentum’s amicus brief in her majority opinion.

Determined whether a policy that prohibits potentially fertile and pregnant women from participating in occupations that could be detrimental to their reproductive capacities constitutes sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.

Determined whether a males-only admission policy at a state-run institution violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Determined the right to sue under Title VII for wrongful discharge when a woman is dismissed from employment because her batterer works in the same establishment and has threatened with violence if she is not fired.

Determined whether Wal-Mart's female employees should be treated as a nationwide class in a Title VII suit against their employer.

Determined whether a viable fetus is a child for purposes of South Carolina's child abuse and child endangerment statute.

Determined the constitutionality of an Ohio law that placed restrictions on abortion after fetal viability.

Whether the history and Congressional Intent of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employers to treat pregnant women the same as other temporarily disabled workers.

Whether the history and Congressional Intent of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employers to treat pregnant women the same as other temporarily disabled workers.