This case addresses whether the constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state was violated when a town council in upstate New York began each of its meetings with a sectarian prayer led by a member of the clergy or local citizen. This is the first time in 30 years that the Supreme Court will consider a case addressing the issue of legislative prayer. ADL, a longstanding advocate for church-state separation, joined with the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties…

The Nevada case, Sevcik v. Sandoval, was brought by four same-sex couples who sought marriage licenses in Nevada and four more couples who had been married in California and Canada and sought recognition of those marriages in Nevada. The Hawaii case, Jackson v. Abercrombie, contested the constitutionality of both the state's ban on same-sex marriage and its recognition of civil unions only. The two cases have been combined into a single appeal. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a coalition of 29…

In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court will review a key provision of the Fair Housing Act. Enacted in the wake of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s tragic assassination in 1968, the Fair Housing Act is our nation's key tool to eradicate housing discrimination and promote more inclusive neighborhoods. The Mount Holly case raises the question whether the Fair Housing Act prohibits not just intentional bigotry but also unjustified practices that disproportionately exclude or harm people based on race,…

At issue in this case is Arizona law HB 2281, which bars public schools from 1) promoting the overthrow of the government; 2) promoting resentment towards a race or class of people; 3) designing programs primarily for students of a particular ethnic group; and 4) advocating ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals. The legislative history of the bill makes clear that its intent was to dismantle the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican-American Studies…

In this case, the Supreme Court will be considering the constitutionality of a Massachusetts law creating a buffer zone around reproductive health clinics. ADL's brief urges the Supreme Court to recognize that other legislatures and courts have relied on the Supreme Court's previous rulings to adopt and approve a substantial body of law regarding buffer zones. If the Supreme Court decides that the Massachusetts buffer zone law is invalid, then the Court must also be willing to accept that…

At issue in this case is Arizona law HB 2281, which bars public schools from 1) promoting the overthrow of the government; 2) promoting resentment towards a race or class of people; 3) designing programs primarily for students of a particular ethnic group; and 4) advocating ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals. The legislative history of the bill makes clear that its intent was to dismantle the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican-American Studies…

This case addresses Proposition 200, an Arizona law requiring would-be voters to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote. ADL joined a brief written by the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund that urges the Supreme Court to strike down the law. The brief documents a pattern in United States history characterized by an expansion of the right to vote followed by attempts to disenfranchise minority voters. It argues that, in accord with this pattern, the National Voter Registration…

This case concerns the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The case asks that the court either declare the admissions policy of the University inconsistent with, or entirely overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that race could play a limited role in the admissions policies of universities. ADL urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the University of Texas' admissions policy, saying that the policy does not impose…

Kiobel involves a group of Nigerians filing a lawsuit in the U.S. against three oil companies, seeking to hold them liable for human rights abuses allegedly committed on their behalf by Nigerian soldiers. It invokes the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which allows foreigners to bring lawsuits in U.S. federal courts for serious violations of international human rights laws. The issue before the Court was whether the ATS permits actions against defendant organizations and corporations, or whether…

Kiobel involves a group of Nigerians filing a lawsuit in the U.S. against three oil companies, seeking to hold them liable for human rights abuses allegedly committed on their behalf by Nigerian soldiers. It invokes the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which allows foreigners to bring lawsuits in U.S. federal courts for serious violations of international human rights laws. The issue before the Court was whether the ATS permits actions against defendant organizations and corporations, or whether…

This case concerns the scope and procedural treatment of a constitutional exception to employment discrimination laws — called the “ministerial exception” — for houses of worship and other religious institutions. That exception, grounded in the First Amendment, allows religious institutions to discriminate in the hiring of clergy, religious school teachers, and others engaged in core religious functions. However, ADL has taken the position that it should not apply to…

This case addresses the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. ADL, together with other religious and religiously affiliated organizations, joined a brief authored by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. The brief argues that the Act unconstitutionally threatens the health and lives of women, and undermines their right to choose an abortion in accordance with their religious faiths. The brief also asserts that for many people of faith, freedom to make decisions of…

Supreme Court case involves the constitutionality of The New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act. The Act prohibits abortions for minors unless the parents have been notified, but provides exceptions for abortions necessary to prevent death and for minors who have obtained a judicial declaration that they are mature enough to make a decision concerning abortion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the Act was unconstitutional because it does not include a…

Grutter v. Bollinger concerns the constitutionality of racial preferences in undergraduate and law school admissions system of the University of Michigan. While recognizing the fundamental value of diversity in higher education, ADL stated its opposition to the University of Michigan's admissions programs to achieve that goal.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law that criminalized the midterm dilation and extraction procedure referred to as "partial birth abortion" unless such procedure is necessary to save the mother's life. The Court struck down the statute because it placed an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion and did not allow for exception in cases of threatened health. ADL argued, along with 53 other organizations, that the Nebraska law unconstitutionally interfered…

The Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that singled out gay, lesbian and bisexual people and denied them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination. ADL, together with six other civil rights organizations, successfully argued that this amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In a splintered decision, the Court refused to overturn Roe v. Wade, but upheld many provisions of Pennsylvania law restricting rights recognized , including a parental consent requirement for minors, counseling by doctor about alternatives, a 24-hour waiting period, and reporting on patients and procedures by health clinics. ADL, together with a coalition of organizations, argued that Roe should be reaffirmed.

This is the landmark civil rights case that resulted in the desegregation of public schools across the entire United States. As amicus curiae, ADL successfully argued that the "separate but equal" doctrine, which had historically been used to justify the establishment of separate school systems for black and white children, was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment.