One way Lawyers Club of San Diego fulfills its mission to advance the status of women in law and society is through its Amicus Briefs Committee. Lawyers Club is routinely asked to support amicus briefing, or “friend of the court” briefing, in important cases around the country. The Amicus Briefs Committee reviews and considers such requests and provides a recommendation to the Lawyers Club Board of Directors as to whether the opportunity to join as amicus furthers the mission of the organization, is likely impactful, and is worthy of Lawyers Club’s support.
In the past, Lawyers Club of San Diego has joined as amicus on briefs in cases addressing issues of gender equality, pro-choice, pay equity, and other forms of discrimination and fairness.
Lawyers Club recently signed onto an amicus brief in support of Jackson Women’s Health Organization in defense of an effort by the State of Mississippi to overturn Roe v. Wade. The State argues its law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks gestation should be upheld, while Jackson argues fifty years of precedential holdings establishes that it is unconstitutional to ban abortion before viability. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that states may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability, so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s rights; however, the law at issue is an outright ban on abortions and is therefore unconstitutional. The issue before the Supreme Court is of vital importance in advancing the status of women in society and defending reproductive freedoms. In addition, the brief joined by Lawyers Club addressed the crucial but often overlooked perspective of how abortion rights affect trans men, nonbinary individuals, and disparately impacted individuals of lower socio-economic status.
There are a number of other cases coming to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) which may provide amicus briefing opportunities for Lawyers Club to advance the principles of the organization. For example, the Court may decide whether compensatory damages available under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include compensation for emotional distress (Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller). Another case raises the question whether the Affordable Care Act provides a disparate-impact cause of action for plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination (CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe). Most recently, Lawyers Club was asked to consider providing amicus support in a case addressing whether transgender athletes should be permitted to participate in sports consistent with their gender identities (Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc.).
Lawyers Club’s participation and support is not limited to SCOTUS cases. The organization has previously weighed in at the level of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and may also join amicus briefing in state court cases that involve questions of inclusivity and diversity, promote gender equality, and protect against discrimination and bias.
As the Amicus Briefs Committee often must act on a very tight deadline of only a few days to review the proposed brief and provide a recommendation and comment to the Lawyers Club Board, it is not always possible for every Committee member to review the brief. Therefore, it is very helpful to have a large enough Committee to assure adequate participation and robust discussion to generate comments and a recommendation to forward to the Board.
If you have an interest helping Lawyers Club of San Diego participate in cases of interest, or would like additional information regarding the Amicus Briefs Committee, please contact co-chairs Rachel Moffitt Garrard (rgarrard@higgslaw.com) or Shelley Carder (Shelley@attorneycarder.com).
Shelley Carder is an attorney representing medical staffs and has been privileged to author appellate and amicus briefing in such matters.
Rachel Moffitt Garrard is an appellate attorney at Higgs Fletcher & Mack and an outdoor enthusiast.
