This case involves the right of American citizens born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their place of birth on their passports, rather than just "Jerusalem." Despite a 2002 law directing the Secretary of State, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen's legal guardian, to record the place of birth as Israel, the State Department manual currently provides that the passports of American citizens born in Jerusalem must say "Jerusalem," reflecting official U.S. government policy regarding the…

This case challenges Wisconsin’s Marriage Ban, a state law that defines marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a coalition of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of marriage for themselves.

This case challenges Idaho's Marriage Ban, a state law that defines marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a coalition of 23 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of marriage for themselves.

At issue in this case is Alabama's redistricting plan after the 2010 census. When Alabama redrew its district lines the drafters created supermajorities in majority-minority districts, sometimes creating districts that were more than 75 percent black. The Alabama Democratic Conference and the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus filed lawsuits arguing that, in drawing the district lines the way it did, Alabama unconstitutionally engaged in racial gerrymandering and diluted minorities' political…

This case challenges Texas' Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a coalition of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of marriage for themselves.

This case challenges a judge's jury instructions pursuant to a prosecution under the Massachusetts Hate Crimes Penalties Act, where the judge instructed the jury to determine if the defendants acted intentionally and deliberately in assaulting the victim because of his race but didn't instruct that the defendants' bias motive also be a "predominant" or "substantial" reason for the assault. ADL's brief urges the Court to uphold the judge's jury instructions and not insert a "predominant" or …

At issue in this case is the standard for determining when a statement crosses the line from protected speech to a "true threat." The defendant in the case posted threatening statements on Facebook, including one about wanting to kill his estranged wife and dump her body in a creek to make it look like a rape. He later said that he did not mean the statements as a threat, but rather as a rant. ADL's brief argued that true threats should be unlawful, regardless of whether the State can prove…

This case challenges Florida’s Marriage Ban, a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a coalition of 25 organizations arguing that overturning the marriage ban would not only ensure that religious considerations do not improperly influence which marriages the state can recognize, but would also allow religious groups to decide the definition of marriage for themselves.

At issue in this case is whether or not employees must be the ones to broach the topic of religious accommodations in the workplace, even if it an obvious accommodation. The plaintiff in this case, a Muslim woman who wore a headscarf/hijab, applied for a sales position at Abercrombie & Fitch. During the interview, there was no discussion about if or how the applicant’s hijab would be acceptable under the store's "Look Policy." Although the plaintiff scored high enough to be hired,…

The case focused on Dallas, Texas, where the State of Texas approved the construction of affordable housing along racial lines. Over a period of years, a Texas housing agency reinforced residential segregation by consistently approving affordable housing in African American neighborhoods instead of fairly distributing that housing across all communities to promote integration. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a key provision of the Fair Housing Act. Enacted in the wake of Rev. Martin Luther…

In 2010 Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA’s contraception mandate requires that health insurance provided by employers covered by the ACA must afford the full range of reproductive services, including birth control coverage, to female employees. In these cases private, non-religious corporations filed suit alleging that the contraception mandate violated their right to free exercise of religion. ADL submitted briefs urging the court to uphold…

This case is a second challenge to the constitutionality of Congress’ 2006 decision to extend Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for an additional 25 years. In 2009, in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder, the United States Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the VRA extension, finding instead that Northwest Austin was entitled to “bail out” of the requirements of Section 5. This case places squarely before the Court the question of…

Proposition 8, the California ballot measure restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, was held unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because it violates our nation’s fundamental concepts of liberty and equality.  ADL submitted a brief urging the Court to affirm the lower court’s decision and reject arguments that religious or moral disapproval is a legitimate basis for a law that strips Californians of their state right to a civil marriage.

Edith Windsor married her spouse, Thea Spyer, in Canada in 2007.  Spyer died in 2009 following a long illness.  Because Section 3 of DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples, Windsor was unable to claim the estate tax deduction available to the spouses of straight married couples and was required to pay more than $360,000 in taxes. Windsor sued the federal government for failing to recognize her marriage. ADL submitted a brief urging…

At issue in this case is whether the "ecclesiastical matter" bar or the ministerial exception defense would act to bar a Jewish professor's breach-of-contract claim against the Christian theological seminary at which he had tenure for terminating his employment because of a financial emergency. ADL argued that neither the "ecclesiastical matter" bar nor the ministerial exception defense would bar a breach-of-contract claim. Religious organizations, like their secular counterparts, are always…

This case addresses whether the retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other similarly worded statutes require a plaintiff to prove but-for causation (i.e., that an employer would not have taken an adverse employment action but for an improper motive), or instead require only proof that the employer had a mixed motive (i.e., that an improper motive was one of multiple reasons for the employment action). ADL joined a distinguished group of organizations urging the Court…

In this case cheerleaders at Kountze High School, a public high school in Texas, displayed large run-through banners with biblical quotes on them at school football games. After a spectator complained about the religious messages, the high school principal temporarily barred the cheerleaders from displaying the banners, and the cheerleaders filed a lawsuit. ADL filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that the banners violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, constituting an…

This case involves a ballot initiative in Michigan that barred state colleges and universities from “discriminat[ing] against, or granting[ing] preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” Lower courts interpreted this constitutional amendment to bar the use of any and all affirmative action programs. ADL filed a brief arguing that there is a difference between affirmative action programs that consider race as…

This case is about allowing loving, committed same-sex couples in New Mexico to receive a marriage license and the State respecting those marriages on equal footing as all others. The question at issue in this case concerns whether or not the New Mexico constitution allows same-sex couples to marry. ADL, a longtime supporter of marriage equality, joined a group of civil rights organizations on a coalition brief in support of the freedom to marry.

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…