About Us HOME History Board Contact Membership Join! Chapters Committees Law Students! NLG Convention Speakers Bureau NLG Constitution Listservs News and Resources Guild Publications Press Releases Know Your Rights Brief Banks Links Merchandise DONATE! Chapters & Regions Los Angeles Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota New York City San Francisco Far West Mid Atlantic Mid East Mid West Northeast Northwest South Southwest Tex-Oma Committees and Projects Anti-Sexism Committee Ctr. for Democratic Comm. Cuba Subcommittee Environ. Justice Project International Committee Labor&Employment Cmte. Mass Defense Committee Mid East Subcommittee Miltary Law Task Force Nat. Police Accnt. Project Nat. Immigration Project NW Constitutional Rights Ctr Queer Caucus Sugar Law Project TUPOCC

NEWS & LEGAL RESOURCES Guild Publications Press Releases Know Your Rights Information NLG Brief Banks Amicus Brief Archive Immigration Project Links Merchandise

AMICUS CURIAE Committee of the National Lawyers Guild An amicus curiae (literally, “friend of the court”) brief is an important way for the NLG to contribute its analysis of important but undeveloped aspects of critical cases. The Guild does not seek to insert its name as amicus in a large number of cases merely for the sake of doing so; rather, we submit amicus briefs when doing so would contribute something to the judiciary’s and the public’s understanding of an issue that is important to the NLG and its members. NLG members, counsel, and others with recommendations for cases that you believe would benefit from an NLG amicus brief should please review our guidelines (PDF) and then complete our questionnaire (PDF). All briefs are in PDF format. Selected amicus curiae briefs: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 Oct. 10, 2006 U.S. Supreme Court, No. 05-908 2006 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1040 The case involves affirmative action programs designed to end de facto discrimination in public elementary and secondary schools. The NLG opposes efforts to misuse the 14th Amendment to prevent such programs. This brief also explains that international human rights law as an additional, compelling interest in upholding the programs. Abu-Jamal v. Horn July 26, 2006 3d Cir., Nos. 01-9014 & 02-9001 This appeal involves improper statements by the prosecutor during the 1982 trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal. The brief notes that “the judiciary is burdened with a racist history, a contemporary perception of racism, and countless experiences of racism, not the least of which in the death penalty context, as exemplified in [this case].” The NLG brief also gives special consideration to the prosecutor’s attempts to guide the jurors to distance themselves from the significance of their decision – whether or not to send a person to death. The prosecutor told the jury that Mr. Abu-Jamal would have “appeal after appeal,” so their decision would not really be final. The NLG brief cites sociological and psychological studies to demonstrate why such a statement is a significant violation of Mr. Abu-Jamal’s rights. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. September 21, 2005 U.S. Supreme Court, No. 04-1152 2005 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 618 This case was a challenge to the Solomon Amendment, which required schools to allow the military to recruit on campus, notwithstanding its non-compliance with the schools’ non-discrimination policy. The brief argues that “law schools are involved in an historic effort to improve the profession’s understanding of equality and what it means to conduct oneself in an ethical and responsible manner. Most have concluded that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is an unacceptable form of bigotry, and that the school should not associate with anyone who discriminates on that basis. The government must not be permitted to aggressively insert itself into that important debate by forcing law schools either to regress their understanding of the meaning of non-discrimination or to fail to live up to those principles.” Related article Alexander v. Oklahoma April 7, 2005 U.S. Supreme Court, No. 04-1198 The brief argued that equitable tolling should apply to the 1921 Tulsa Race Riots, given the “pervasive racism that dominated American Society [and that] erased from historical memory the plaintiffs’ cause of action. In conjunction with the recognized traumatic effects of human rights abuses on the victims, the false narrative concealed the cause of action from plaintiffs until the issuance of the Tulsa Race Riot Commission Report in 2001.” In appropriate cases, the NLG also joins briefs drafted by other organizations: Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (September 20, 2006) (Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act) Goodridge II (January 12, 2004) (Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts)