Amicus Briefs
If you are being watched, leave now!
Through its litigation initiatives, Legal Momentum has made historic and enduring contributions to the rights and opportunities available to women. This is often accomplished through participation in cases as amicus curiae ("friend of the court"). Amici are groups or individuals who are not parties to the case but have particular expertise in the issues at its heart. They bring their expertise to the court in the form of an amicus brief to inform the court’s deliberations. Each year Legal Momentum writes and joins numerous amicus briefs in cases dealing with issues central to our mission.
-
Joined Amicus Brief: Brief: Over twenty years ago, the FDA approved mifepristone. The approval is based on substantial evidence of its safety and efficacy for use in early termination of pregnancy. The Fifth Circuit’s decision ignores the overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical community that medication abortion is one of the safest medication regimens in the United States and around the world. Restrictions on mifepristone would have widespread detrimental consequences. Even if individuals live in states where abortion remains legal and protected, they could find themselves unable to access mifepristone in a timely manner. This would jeopardize the health and autonomy of those denied care. Clinics and providers could also find themselves unable to effectively provide competent and much-needed medical care.
-
Joined Amicus Brief: Brief: Congress created the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure that Medicare-funded hospitals would, at the very least, provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” for “any” patient with an “emergency medical condition,” regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. Emergency departments are required to stabilize pregnant patients in labor, pregnant patients who have emergency conditions unrelated to labor, and patients who need emergency treatment to prevent pregnancy loss. Idaho raises the theory that it has the power to carve protections for pregnant people out of federal law. This would deepen the United State’s maternal health crisis, particularly for Black, Indigenous, immigrant, rural, and low-income communities.
-
Violence Against Women and GirlsAuthored Amicus Brief: Legal Momentum’s amicus brief, drafted in coordination with the National Crime Victim Law Institute, AEquitas, and the Complex Appellate Litigation Group, explains the real harm caused by such threats to victims of stalking and intimate partner violence and the dynamics of non-physical forms of gender-based violence, including technology-facilitated abuse, that make clear an objective test that takes into account the full context of such threats is necessary and supported by social science research.
-
Violence Against Women and GirlsAuthored Amicus Brief: Brief of Amici Curiae Legal Momentum and National Women's Law Center Case No. 2023-P-0706
-
Authored Amicus Brief: Legal Momentum, along with Equal Rights Advocates and the National Women's Law Center, was the lead in filing an amicus brief to assist the NY Court of Appeals with understanding the substantial negative effect of its decision to not allow the anti-SLAPP law to be applied retroactively on survivors of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and intimate partner abuse.
-
Fairness in the CourtsAuthored Amicus Brief: Legal Momentum, along with Equal Rights Advocates and the National Women's Law Center, was the lead in filing an amicus brief to assist the court with understanding the substantial negative effect of its decision on survivors of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and intimate partner abuse.
-
Equal Educational Opportunities | Violence Against Women and GirlsAuthored Amicus Brief: Authored amicus brief: Legal Momentum, with the Fierberg National Law Group, were joined by 13 other gender justice and anti-gender-based violence organizations is filing a brief before the Connecticut Supreme Court in support of Jane Doe in Khan v. Yale University, et al. Jane Doe made a complaint of sexual assault to Yale University against Plaintiff Khan. She participated in the school's Title IX process and Khan was later expelled. Among other claims against the university, Plaintiff Khan sued Jane Doe for defamation for her statements made during the campus proceedings. The Court will consider whether statements made during the course of Title IX sexual harassment proceedings are entitled to absolute immunity from defamation claims. The amicus brief highlights for the Court the myriad public policy reasons supporting interpretation of Connecticut's defamation law to grant immunity to statements made during the course of schools' Title IX sexual harassment proceedings.
-
Fairness in the Courts | Violence Against Women and Girls
-
Fairness in the Courts | Workplace Equality and Economic EmpowermentAuthored Amicus Brief: Legal Momentum, with the Purple Campaign, the National Women's Law Center, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, were joined by 42 organizations in filing an Amicus Brief in the Fourth Circuit in support of Appellant Jane Roe in Roe v United States of America, et al. The amicus brief details the pervasive sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, and retaliation to which Roe was subjected to from early 2018 through March 2019 when she was constructively discharged from her position. The brief urges the Court to reverse the lower court's decision and "affirm that its own employees are entitled to the Constitutional guarantee of the right to work in an environment free from sexual harassment and other workplace discrimination.
-
Human TraffickingRacial JusticeAuthored Amicus Brief: Considers the applicability of a statutory defense for victims of sex trafficking in a case where a Wisconsin minor shot and killed her abuser/trafficker.
