How Women in Big Law Are Stepping Into the Court Fight Over the Equal Rights Amendment
Female attorneys are filing amicus briefs in a Democratic lawsuit seeking to force the addition of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. Hogan Lovells filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of constitutional law scholars, including Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who argue the fight should be resolved in Congress.
June 30, 2020 at 04:35 PM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A number of Big Law firms are stepping into a lawsuit seeking to force the Trump administration to implement the Equal Rights Amendment, with teams of majority-female attorneys filing amicus briefs on behalf of groups and others largely in support of formally entrenching equal rights in the Constitution.
Democratic state attorneys general for Virginia, Illinois and Nevada sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia earlier this year to try and force the addition of the amendment, after Virginia legislators voted to become the 38th state to ratify it. The lawsuit argues a long-past congressional deadline to ratify the amendment is trumped by the lack of deadlines included in the U.S. Constitution, and five states rescinding their support also doesn't change the total number of state legislatures that at one point ratified the amendment.
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled earlier this month to let the five states that rescinded their ratification—Alabama, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Dakota and Tennessee— intervene in the case to argue against the lawsuit. The states are represented by their respective attorneys general and boutique firm Consovoy McCarthy, which has also represented President Donald Trump in court.
The Democratic lawsuit targets David Ferriero, the archivist of the United States, who has the authority to formally publish the amendment in the Constitution. A recent opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel argues the timeline for adopting this iteration of the ERA has run out, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg earlier this year said she believes the process should start over.
Here's a snapshot of amicus briefs filed in the case Monday, and the Big Law women behind them.
>> Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison: Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and ex-Mueller prosecutor Jeannie Rhee are part of the Paul Weiss team behind an amicus brief on behalf of nearly 100 businesses and corporations in support of the ERA. Firm partners Liza Velazquez and Andrew Gordon are joined by firm associates Tamar Holoshitz and Benjamin Bergmann on the brief, and former firm partner Maria Vullo of Vullo Advisory Services and Rebecca LeGrand of LeGrand Law also signed.
What the brief says: "Proudly joining the overwhelming majority of Americans that support the ERA, amici recognize that eliminating systemic barriers that impede women's economic and social advancement will result in a more just, vibrant, and productive America. Ratification of the ERA sends a powerful message about the nation's commitment to sex equality—a message amici believe would be transformational for the American economy. Amici strongly urge this Court to order the Archivist to perform his statutory duty to publish and certify the ERA as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment."
>> Hogan Lovells: Firm partner Jessica Ellsworth, senior associate Kaitlyn Golden and associate Erin Chapman filed an amicus brief on behalf of constitutional law scholars who don't support any party in the lawsuit, but argue the fight invokes the political question doctrine and therefore should be resolved in Congress and not a federal court. The firm was filed for Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman, Reva Siegel of Yale Law and Julie C. Suk with the City University of New York.
What the brief says: "The separation of powers requires this court to refrain from adjudicating the ERA's validity in this litigation. Addressing the ratification issue on its merits would prematurely entangle the court in deciding abstract issues not necessary to resolve a concrete controversy. Congress—the democratically elected, federal-lawmaking branch of government—is best placed to resolve disagreements between states about the validity of a federal constitutional amendment."
>> Covington & Burling: Former DOJ official and firm partner Beth Brinkmann, alongside associates Lauren Moxley and Megan Keenan, joined with human rights attorney Kate Kelly to file an amicus brief for the organization Generation Ratify and other pro-gender equality youth groups in support of the ERA.
What the brief says: "In supporting the plaintiff states' effort to resolve the century-long movement to guarantee gender equality in the Constitution, we urge the court to not view the Equal Rights Amendment as only our grandmother's fight. Rather, we urge the court also to recognize its importance to young and diverse advocates of this generation that the Amendment be added to the Constitution. Young advocates have led the movement to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment since its inception. Supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment recognize the expressive function it serves and the important message it will send to young people: that gender equality is among our nation's highest values. The Equal Rights Amendment also will serve as a vehicle for substantive judicial protection of gender equality under the law, including in education and economic life, as well as a basis for legislative actions to enforce those protections. Both as an expression of our country's values and as a means for change, the Amendment has the potential to further young Americans' interests in a broader guarantee of gender equality in all aspects of American life."
>> Davis Polk & Wardwell: Davis Polk counsel Stefani Johnson Myrick teamed up with fellow counsel Margarita Clarens, partner Amelia Starr, associates Alexa Lutchen and Amanda Rae Schwarzenbart as well as law clerk Ben Jernigan for a brief on behalf of several international equal rights groups, led by Equality Now. Equality Now attorneys Antonia Kirkland and Divya Srinivasan are also named on the brief.
What the brief says: "Like women and girls around the world, female citizens of the plaintiff states, and of the United States more broadly, suffer concrete injury from ongoing discrimination, lack of political and economic representation and inadequate protection from gender-based violence. Moreover, the failure of the United States to provide constitutional protection for equality on the basis of sex undermines any efforts by individual states, including plaintiff states, to address this systemic issue. Indeed, the international experience demonstrates that a patchwork of local efforts cannot remedy these harms—only constitutional action on a nationwide basis can ensure the universal right to equality for all women and girls."
>> Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz: Associate Elizabeth Cappiello joined other associates Jade Sipes, Sharonda Childs Fancher, Madeline Hughes, Xeris Gregory and attorney Jessica Spade to file an amicus brief on behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors and other pro-ERA groups. Southern Legal Counsel executive director Jodi Siegel and staff attorney Chelsea Dunn filled out the entirely female legal team for the brief.
What the brief says: "Adding the duly ratified ERA to the Constitution will guarantee the rights held by all citizens, men and women alike, by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex. This brief presents three arguments to provide context for the importance of a valid ERA. One, the United States will join the vast majority of nations that already include such protections in their constitutions. Two, governmental actions that treat men and women differently will be presumptively unconstitutional unless the government can show the law or policy is necessary to achieve a compelling interest. And three, the ERA will ensure that rights on the basis of sex will be stronger, consistently applied, and permanently held."
>> Boies Schiller Flexner: Firm partners Joshua Riley and Stuart Singer, alongside counsel Jon Mills and associates Vanessa Tussey and Ana Carolina Varela, filed the brief on behalf of groups that advocated for ERA ratification in the states behind the lawsuit. D. Patricia Wallace of the Wallace Law Firm is also on the brief.
What the brief says: "Not only the states but also their residents have an interest in securing observance of Article V of the Constitution. Amici's work in achieving their states' ratification of the Twenty-Eighth Amendment perfectly illustrates this point. Amici invested considerable time, energy, professional skills, or funds in the campaigns to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The archivist, by refusing to publish the Twenty-Eighth Amendment, has single-handedly destroyed the value of amici's labor and the campaign work of other residents of plaintiff states. Prospectively, the archivist's failure to perform his statutorily mandated ministerial duty effectively destroys the voice of citizens in the democratic process. If he is allowed to pick and choose which amendments to publish, as he has done with the Twenty-Eighth Amendment, he eliminates the decision-making authority Article V assigns to the state legislatures and, consequently, renders nugatory the voices of the people who elect legislators."
>> New York Attorney General Letitia James: James' office led an amicus brief filed on behalf of New York and 17 other states, as well as the Democratic governor of Kansas and mayor of D.C., in support of the publication of the ERA.
What the brief says: "By refusing to perform his ministerial duty to certify the ERA as a valid amendment, the archivist undermines the states' role in the constitutional amendment process. Amici states have a strong interest in vindicating that role and maintaining the effectiveness of their ratifications. Indeed, that strong interest, combined with the fact that plaintiffs cast the last three votes needed to ratify the ERA, is precisely what gives plaintiffs standing here."
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Never-Ending Nightmare': Apple Sued for Alleged Failure to Protect Child Sexual Abuse Survivors
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 13 Incidents Lead to Charges Against the Alexander Brothers; Cousin Remains at Large
- 2Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Combined Class of Partners and Counsel in Firm History
- 3High Court Drops Case Over Nvidia's Effort to Ditch Fraud Suit
- 4Commentary: Law, Literature and Revenge
- 5Attorneys, Professors Share Support for Chancellor Following Musk's Online Attacks
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250