The NAACP is frequently asked to submit Amicus Briefs in civil rights cases, regarding a number of varied legal issues. Many of these issues go directly to the heart of the NAACP’s mission and work. Below is a partial list of significant Amicus Briefs the NAACP has filed over the last two years.
The NAACP is constantly filing Amicus Briefs and updating its Amicus Site. Visit this site frequently if you would like to know whether the NAACP has spoken to the Courts regarding an issue important to you.
Historical NAACP Amicus Briefs
LA County v. Mendez (2017)
The case stems from a police shooting in 2012, where LA County Sheriff’s Deputies entered the home of Mr. and Mrs. Mendez, without a proper “knock and announce”, and fired 15 rounds on the unsuspecting couple without reassessing the situation or giving them an opportunity to surrender. The District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals both agreed that the county should be held accountable for the severe injuries that the Mendezes face from the shooting. Download the brief (.pdf)
Obergefell v. Hodges case (2015)
The NAACP co-authored with the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. an amicus brief for this historic Supreme Court case on Marriage Equality. Download the brief (.pdf)
State of Wisconsin v. Harris (2009)
State of Wisconsin Supreme Court, Case No. 2008AP000810-CR
State of Wisconsin v. Landry M. Harris: The NAACP filed an amicus brief in this case. Of issue is whether the judge improperly introduced race and gender biases as factors in the court’s determination of Mr. Harris’ sentence. The judge referred to Mr. Harris’ daughter’s mother as “the Baby Mama”. Download the brief (.pdf)
Marvin Lee Wilson v. Rick Thaler (2009)
On October 15, 2009 the NAACP joined Lee Kovarsky, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP and David Dow, University of Houston Law Center in filing an amicus brief (Marvin Wilson v. Rick Thaler) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Wilson is a mentally retarded inmate on Texas’ Death Row convicted of a 1992 murder. Download the brief (.pdf)
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2007)
Arguing that an employer can be held liable under Title VII for the bias of a supervisor if the bias was a motivating factor for an employment practice. Download the brief (.pdf)
Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007)
Arguing that the district court correctly balanced employees’ right to work in an environment free of discrimination with the rights of employers to defend against these claims. Download the brief (.pdf)
Brendlin v. California (2007)
Arguing that a police traffic stop subjects a passenger, as well as the driver, to Fourth Amendment seizure. Download the brief (.pdf)
Cerqueira v. American Airlines
Arguing that the trial court appropriately harmonized the nation’s commitment to eradicating unlawful racial discrimination and the airline industry’s interest in insuring passenger security. Download the brief (.pdf)
Simpson v. Univ. of Colorado Boulder (2007)
Arguing that the appellant presented sufficient evidence to render the school liable for maintaining a sexually hostile environment and arguing that the district court’s decision, if affirmed, could insulate schools from liability for peer-on-peer harassment and assault in a wide range of cases, including under Title VI when harassment is based on race or national origin, given that Title IX and Tile VI are often interpreted analogously.
Alexander, et al. v. Underhill et al. (2007)
Arguing that the school district’s student suspension procedures violate
due process. Dowload the brief (.pdf)
Jordan v. Alternative Resources Corp. (2006)
Arguing that an African American employee engaged in activity protected from retaliation when he complained about a coworker making racist remarks.
ACLU v. National Security Agency (2006)
Alleging that the NSA spying program violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the principle of the separation of powers.
Griswald, et al. v. Driscoll
To support the efforts of Armenians, Jews and African Americans to have their respective genocide histories included in state utilized text books in Massachusetts
In the matter of Hon. Laura D. Blackburne (2006)
To protest the unduly harsh sanction imposed on an African American female judge.
Eddie Jackson, et. al v. Rick Perry (2004)
Regarding several questions dealing with Congressional redistricting in Texas.
Young v. Bryco; City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp (2004)
Contending that firearms manufacturers threaten public health, safety and welfare by refusing to exercise control and oversight over their distribution chains.
Clackamas Gastroenterology Assoc., P.C. v. Deborah Anne Wells (2003)
Supporting the respondent’s arguments that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit properly held that four physician shareholders, who actively perform medical services, are employees.
Medical Board of California v. Michael J. Hanson (2003)
Arguing that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act was validly enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Arguing that the compelling state interest in enrolling a diverse student body satisfies strict scrutiny review articulated in Regents of University of California v. Bakke and should be adhered to as a matter of stare decisis.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
Arguing that the inclusion of race as one factor among a number of factors, in determining admissions from among qualified applicants to the University’s undergraduate programs, is constitutionally justified.
Hansen v. Williams (2002)
In support of Gregory A. Williams and Virgil Hugh Reaves, two NAACP members and former City of Fayetteville, North Carolina police officers who were subjected to equal protection violations, retaliation and involuntary separations when they complained of race discrimination within the City of Fayetteville Police Department.