Research & Analysis

At issue in this case is the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania House of Representatives policy barring nontheists from serving as guest chaplains to offer the Chamber’s daily invocation. ADL’s brief asserts that the policy is unconstitutional for two reasons. First, it violates longstanding Establishment Clause precedent prohibiting government from preferring one religion over others. Second, the House’s justification that historically nontheists have not given invocations…

At issue in this case is the Administration’s termination of temporary protected status (TPS) for individuals from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua and Sudan. TPS is a form of humanitarian immigration relief that allows individuals from designated countries to live and work legally in the U.S. if they cannot return safely to their country of origin due to armed conflict, natural disaster or other extraordinary circumstances. Most TPS recipients came to the U.S. at a young age, lived here…

This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) in a case in which an Amazon shipping warehouse employee was violently assaulted by a co-worker due to his perceived sexual orientation. The District Court vacated a unanimous jury conviction under the HCPA, on the grounds that the HCPA was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power as applied in this case. On appeal, ADL joined an…

At stake in this case are two interim final rules (IFRs) promulgated by the Trump Administration in October 2017 that significantly broadened the religious exemption to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraception mandate. Prior mandate regulations accommodated houses of worship and religiously affiliated organizations. The new exemption, however, effectively repeals the contraception mandate, broadly allowing employers and universities to invoke religion or morality to block their…

Citing religious objections, a business owner refused to sell custom t-shirts bearing “Lexington Pride Festival 2012” and rainbow colored circles to a non-profit LGBTQ organization. The local human rights commission found that the vendor’s actions violated a human rights ordinance, which prohibits businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. A lower court reversed the commission’s determination, finding that it infringed on the vendor’s First…

Updated: April 02, 2019 At the U.S. Supreme Court, ADL joined with over 170 organizations on an amicus brief that refutes defendants' argument that including a citizenship question is necessary to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, explains how the VRA can be enforced without the citizenship question, and explains how the inclusion of a citizenship question will lead to an undercount of historically under-represented communities, including immigrants. June 18, 2018 At…

At stake in this case are two interim final rules (IFRs) promulgated by the Trump administration in October 2017 that significantly broadened the religious exemption to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraception mandate. Prior mandate regulations accommodated houses of worship and religiously affiliated organizations. The new exemption, however, effectively repeals the contraception mandate, broadly allowing employers and universities to invoke religion or morality to block their…

At issue in this case is the constitutionality of the U.S. House of Representatives’ guest chaplain policy. Because the policy requires guest chaplains to offer a prayer that addresses a “higher power,” as well as to be ordained clergy, it bars non-theists from the invocation opportunity. A Humanist leader challenged the policy under the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. ADL joined a coalition brief asserting that policy is unconstitutional for four reasons. First,…

At issue in this case is the constitutionality of a county commission policy prohibiting non-theists from offering the opening prayer at commission meetings. A lower ruled that the policy violated the Establishment Clause to the First Amendment. ADL filed a brief on behalf of a diverse group of religious and civil rights organizations. The brief asserts that policy is unconstitutional for four reasons. First, it plainly violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s non-discrimination requirement for…

At issue in this case is President Trump’s third attempt at prohibiting travel to the United States from six majority-Muslim nations.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed an injunction put in place by the district court, which protects foreign nationals with a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.  ADL’s brief, which was joined by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Women of…

The case involves a videography company in Minnesota that refuses to provide services for weddings of same-sex couples. The owners filed a lawsuit challenging a Minnesota anti-discrimination statute that would have prevented them from discriminating against same-sex couples. Among other things, Telescope Media Group argued that application of the Minnesota law to the situation would compel speech in violation of the First Amendment, and violate their religious freedom rights under the Free…

This case involves an employer that withdrew an offer of employment when its owners learned that the applicant is a gay man and that his religious beliefs about sexual orientation and marriage of same-sex couples didn’t conform to the employers’. In response, he filed a lawsuit for claims of sex and religious discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Horton claims that the withdrawal of the offer based on his sexual orientation constitutes sex discrimination…

Based on religious objections to same-sex marriage, the owner of a bakery refused to design and sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple for their upcoming wedding. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that the bakery violated the State’s anti-discrimination law, which prohibits sexual orientation discrimination in the sale of goods and services by public accommodations. In response to this violation, the petitioners, the bakery and its owner, raised multiple constitutional claims,…

This amicus brief case asks the Supreme Court to grant a petition for certiorari and resolve the question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation through its prohibition of discrimination “because of . . . sex.” In April 2015, petitioner Jameka Evans filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Georgia alleging that her former employer, Georgia Regional Hospital, fired her because she is gay, does not act …

This case involves a state law prohibiting government workers from receiving spousal benefits if they are married to someone of the same sex. At issue is whether Obergefell, the U.S. Supreme Court case finding prohibitions against same-sex marriage unconstitutional, compels states only to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, or compels states to afford same-sex couples equal treatment under the law, including access to public benefits. The Texas Supreme Court interpreted Obergefell…

This case poses the question to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals of whether someone can legally be fired just because of their sexual orientation. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination “because of. . . sex,” but, so far, only the Seventh Circuit has held that this prohibition extends to sexual orientation. ADL joined a coalition of diverse bar associations and LGBT groups on an amicus brief arguing that that the Second Circuit should overturn its…

Gavin Grimm, a 17-year-old transgender boy who attends a public high school in Virginia, sued the school board after it passed a resolution banning him and transgender students generally from using the restrooms that match their gender identity. At issue in the case is whether the school board’s policy is unlawful sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments. ADL joined an amicus brief filed by eight religious and civil rights groups. The record in the case and numerous…

At issue in this case is President Trump’s second executive order on refugees which, among other things, temporarily banned travel from six majority-Muslim countries and suspended refugee resettlement in the United States for a period of 120 days. ADL had filed an amicus brief in the district court in Hawaii urging it to block enforcement of the executive order, which the court did on March 14, 2017. This brief, which was signed by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Union for…

At issue in this case is a for-profit employer’s assertion of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) as legal defense to a violation of a federal workplace anti-discrimination law – Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts. A trial court found that a for-profit funeral home violated Title VII by firing a transgender female employee based on sex-stereotyping. The court, however, in an unprecedented ruling found that RFRA exempted the employer from the…

At issue in this case is President Trump’s second executive order on refugees and immigration, which among other things temporarily barred travel for people from six majority-Muslim countries. ADL, joined by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, and Women of Reform Judaism, filed an amicus brief in support of the challenge to the executive order. The brief urges the Court to uphold the District Court’s…