Arizona SB 1070This action challenges Arizona Senate Bill 1070, as amended (“SB 1070”), a comprehensive set of state immigration laws expressly intended to “discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” SB 1070 proclaims and implements an immigration policy of “attrition through enforcement” for the State of Arizona. The legislation creates an array of new state-law criminal offenses relating to immigration and imposes sweeping requirements on state and local law enforcement officers to investigate alleged immigration violations and to arrest and detain persons suspected of immigration violations. The law was signed by Governor Janice Brewer on April 23, 2010, and is scheduled to go into effect on July 28, 2010.
The Asian American Justice Center, along with affiliates the Asian American Institute, the Asian Law Caucus, and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, filed an amicus curiae brief in the Fifth Circuit in support of Texas. The case considers whether the race-conscious admissions procedures at the University of Texas at Austin are constitutional. AAJC’s brief argues that the University’s admissions procedures serve a compelling interest in securing the educational benefits of a diverse student body and are narrowly-tailored to that interest.
Lewis v. Chicago (08-974)
The National Partnership For Women & Families, National Women’s Law Center, Asian American Justice Center et al. filed a friend of the court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Petitioner Lewis in the matter of Stolt-Nielsen v. Animalfeeds International Corp. The question presented is Under Title VII, a plaintiff seeking to bring suit for employment discrimination must first file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days after the unlawful employment practice occurred. Where an employer adopts an employment practice that discriminates against African-Americans in violation of Title VII’s disparate impact provision, must a plaintiff file an EEOC charge within 300 days after the announcement of the practice, or may a plaintiff file a charge within 300 days after the employer’s use of the discriminatory practice?
Stolt-Nielsen v. Animalfeeds International Corp (08-1198).The Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, Alliance For Justice, Asian American Justice Center, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Partnership For Women & Families, And National Women’s Law Center filed a friend of the court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Respondent Animalfeeds in the matter of Stolt-Nielsen v. Animalfeeds International Corp. The question presented is whether an arbitration panel's decision interpreting the parties' silence in its arbitration agreement asallowing class arbitration is entitled to great deference, given that the class-action device servesimportant public policy objectives.
The Asian American Justice Center filed an amicus curiae with the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s petition for the Supreme Court’s review of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling which upheld the validity of the Legal Arizona Workers Act. The Arizona statute mandates the use of E-Verify, the electronic employment verification system, by all of the state’s employers. AAJC’s brief argues that federal immigration law preempts the Arizona statute and specifically highlights how the state law undermines Congress’ intent to minimize discrimination—particularly against those perceived to be foreign—by making E-Verify voluntary and temporary.
Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (08-651)
The Asian American Justice Center and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) filed a friend of the court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Jose Padilla in the matter of Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. The Court in this case will determine the extent to which non-citizen criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to competent legal advice regarding the immigration consequences, such as mandatory deportation or detention, of accepting a guilty plea.
The Asian American Justice Center filed an amicus curiae with the Supreme Court of the United States in support respondent Flores. This case involves an injunction against Arizona for failing to provide sufficient funding for non-English speaking school children. Working closely with some of the leading language access advocates in the country, the AAJC brief supports the enforcement Equal Educational Opportunities Act and it advocates that equal access to a public education is a fundamental civil right. Specifically, the brief highlights ways in which appropriate language instruction addresses the needs of the millions of limited English proficient students in U.S. public school. The brief also directly attacks and refutes claims made by opposing amici that advocated English-only type positions.
The Asian American Justice Center filed an amicus curiae with the Supreme Court of the United States in support respondent Holder. In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One, The Court will consider the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In 2006, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was renewed by Congress. Immediately, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One filed suit in federal court arguing that it was entitled to bail out from coverage under Section 5 of the VRA or in the alternative that Section 5, which had been extended for an additional twenty-five years, was now unconstitutional. Section 5 requires jurisdictions with egregious histories of discrimination in voting to get federal approval, or preclearance, of their new voting practices or procedures before they can be implemented. Sixteen states, or parts of states, are covered by Section 5. Preclearance may be obtained by making an administrative submission to the Department of Justice or by filing a suit for declaratory judgment. The submitting jurisdiction has the burden of showing that the proposed change will not have a discriminatory purpose or effect.
The Asian American Justice Center filed an amicus curiae with the Supreme Court of the United States in support respondent DeStefano. In Ricci the Court will address the issue whether municipalities may decline to certify results of an exam that would make disproportionately more white applicants eligible for promotion than minority applicants, due to fears that certifying the results would lead to charges of racial discrimination. The AAJC brief argues that Asian Americans are woefully underrepresented in firefighting and other protective service positions, in part due to a history of exclusion from public sector positions, and that Asian Americans benefit when local governments utilize promotion and advancement methodologies that do not have a disparate impact on minorities.
En banc hearing before the Ninth Circuit to review class certification of a nationwide sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart that was filed on behalf of over 1.5 million women that charges that Wal-Mart has discriminated against female employees in regard to promotions, job assignments and pay, and that the store retaliates against women who complain about these practices. This is a follow up to our brief filed in 2005 infra.
The Asian American Justice Center filed an amicus curiae with the Supreme Court of the United States in support petitioner Nijhawan. In this case study brief
AAJC illustrates why the 3rd Circuit incorrectly affirmed a decision in which an immigration judge used a highly nontraditional categorical standard for determining whether the petitioner committed an aggravated felony for the purposes of determining removability. In this case the immigration judge made a determination of removability that was not based on the plain language of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and not based on the criminal charge of which the petitioner was convicted, but based on sentencing stipulations. Petitioner Nijhawan came here twenty years ago, and has two citizen children. This case has large implications for future removal proceedings and for due process advocates.
State of Hawaii et al. v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs (07-1372)The Asian American Justice Center filed an amicus curiae, friend of the court brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the January 2008 decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court, which held that Congress had forbidden State of Hawaii from selling or exchanging any of the state’s approximately 1.2 million acres of ceded lands unless and until a political settlement was reached with native Hawaiians.
The Asian American Justice Center filed a joint amicus curiae brief with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and three other leading legal civil rights organization on the issue of whether a plaintiff present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction in a non-Title VII case?
The Asian American Justice Center filed a joint brief with the ACLU and National Women’s Law Center at the Supreme Court in support of parent’s right to sue under Section 1983 for gender discrimination in schools.
Bartlett v. Strickland (07-689)
The Asian American Justice Center filed a joint amicus curiae brief with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. The question presented is "Whether a racial minority group that constitutes less than 50 percent of a proposed district's population can state a vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act." The joint amicus brief argues that the answer should be yes.
Herring v. United States (07-513)
Challenge to an arrest based on inaccurate information in a government database. Amici argue that inaccurate government databases will have implications for voter registration databases, employment verification databases, immigration databases, as well as criminal records databases.
Amicus brief in support of marriage equality pending before the Iowa Supreme Court.
May the sole shareholder of a corporation who is the target of intentional racial discrimination in the performance and enforcement of a contract, and who suffers separate and distinct injury as a result thereof, maintain a cause of action for personal injuries under section 1981.
Whether an employer may be held liable for retaliatory discrimination under Title VII for any “materially adverse change in the terms of employment.
Opportunity to clarify in case law what Congress has made clear in Title VII: an employer can be held liable for the bias of a supervisor if the bias was a motivating factor for an employment practice.
Coral Construction, Inc. and Schram Construction, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco and John L. Martin
The Asian American Justice Center (AAJC), a national human and civil rights organization, and its affiliate –the Asian Law Caucus (ALC) – along with four other advocacy groups, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the state of California in support of defendents and appellants City & County of San Francisco, et al. to increase participation by Asian American businesses in public and private sectors.
William Crawford et al. v. Marion County Election Board, et alThe Asian American Justice Center (AAJC), a national human and civil rights organization, and its affiliates – Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC), Asian Law Caucus (ALC) and Asian American Institute (AAI) – along with 22 other national and local Asian American advocacy groups, filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court against Indiana’s restrictive voter ID law in the case of
William Crawford et al. v. Marion County Election Board, et al, arguing that the voter ID disproportionately deprives Asian Americans of the right to vote and provides an invitation to discriminate against Asian American voters.
Parents v. Seattle School DistrictThe civil rights groups Asian American Justice Center (AAJC) and Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), with educational and advocacy groups nationwide, filed amicus briefs in the United States Supreme Court in support of voluntary racial integration in the cases of
Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, et al., and
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. Colwell v. H.H.S.Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals amicus curiae brief addressing competent language services available to limited English proficient patients is first and foremost an issue of providing high quality care.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams
Dukes v. Wal-MartA nationwide sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart that was filed on behalf of over 1.5 million women that charges that Wal-Mart has discriminated against female employees in regard to promotions, job assignments and pay, and that the store retaliates against women who complain about these practices.
IRS v. Banks/BanaitisAmicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The issue presented concerns the taxability of contingent legal fees.
Pennsylvania State Police v. SudersAmicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The issue presented is whether an employer is liable for a hostile work environment created by a supervisor that culminates in the constructive discharge of the victim of harassment.
Clackamus v. Wells
Amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Defining employees and employers under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Rosenthal v. Quigley
Amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. This case presents profoundly important questions concerning the constitutionality of a large punitive damages award against a public interest organization. In New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), this Court recognized that civil judgments, like criminal prosecutions, can chill and prevent speech.
Martinez v. Potter
Amicus curiae brief in support of petition of rehearing en banc in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Application of Morgan standard in post-charge employment retaliation claims.
Tennessee v. Lane
Amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Whether Congress validly abrogated states' Eleventh Amendment immunity to enable private individuals to enforce their equal protection and due process rights by bringing damages suits under Title II of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Arguello v. Conoco
Amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Does 42 U.S.C. § 1981's protection against race discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts prohibit racial harassment against customers in the consumer context? And Is a victim of race discrimination in a place of public accommodation required to prove that future discrimination is likely in order to establish standing for injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, et seq., when § 2000a-3(a) indicates that an injunction may be sought based on a previous incident of discrimination?
Gratz v. Bollinger
Amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action case.
Grutter v. Bollinger
Amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. University of Michigan law school affirmative action case.
Demore v. Kim
Amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Whether Title 8, Section 1226(c) of the United States Code violates the due process rights of lawful permanent residents and other aliens by requiring their mandatory detention without the benefit of a bond hearing and without a prescribed time limitation pending a hearing to determine whether the individual shall be removed from the country?
Adarand v. Mineta
Amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Department of Transportation MBE public contracting case.
Grutter v. Bollinger
Amicus curiae brief submitted to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States of America. University of Michigan law school affirmative action case.
U.S. v. Wen Ho Lee