Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has the final say on interpreting the Constitution and laws that affect the legal rights of women. We’re working to confirm Justices who understand the impact of the law on the lives of women and their families and whose experiences and perspectives will add diversity to the Court.

Highlights

Fact Sheet | Supreme Court Preview: 2013-2014 Term

October 2, 2013

During the 2013-2014 Term, the Supreme Court will review several cases that concern legal rights of importance to women—including access to abortion, equal opportunity in education, protection against housing discrimination, and the ability to use the Equal Protection Clause to challenge discrimination in public employment. In addition, the Court will review an important case involving the President’s ability to fill vacancies on a body that protects workers. Finally, the Court may decide whether for-profit businesses can refuse to provide employee insurance coverage for contraceptives based on asserted religious objections. The decisions in these cases may have a significant impact on women’s rights in all of these important arenas.

Fact Sheet | Supreme Court Review: 2012-2013 Term

July 10, 2013

The 2012-2013 Supreme Court Term witnessed a number of blockbuster cases affecting women’s rights, from affirmative action to workplace protections to voting rights to marriage equality. The results in those cases were decidedly mixed, with some historic victories, but also, unfortunately, heartbreaking setbacks. The National Women’s Law Center participated in most of these cases. This fact sheet explains key cases and the potential impacts of their decisions.

Fact Sheet | The Supreme Court's Decision in Fisher v. UT Austin will be Particularly Important for Women of Color

October 3, 2012

In October 2012, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin to decide whether UT Austin may consider race as a factor in admissions in addition to their race-neutral Top Ten Percent Plan. This fact sheet explains how the Court's decisions will potentially impact on women of color.

Fact Sheet | Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor: The Supreme Court Should Presume Laws Discriminating On the Basis of Sexual Orientation are Unconstitutional

March 25, 2013

This term, the Supreme Court will decide United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry. Windsor challenges Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which prohibits the federal government from recognizing marriages between same-sex couples, and Hollingsworth challenges the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that revoked same-sex couples’ right to marry in that state. This fact sheet explains why Section 3 of DOMA and Proposition 8 should be subjected to heightened scrutiny under the Constitution and struck down.

More Resources

Reports & Toolkits | The Record of Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Critical Legal Rights for Women: Federal Anti-Discrimination Protections: Title VII Disparate Treatment Cases

July 17, 2009

Judge Sotomayor's Legal Record: Federal Anti-Discrimination Protections

July 2009

Title VII Disparate Treatment Cases

Reports & Toolkits | The Record of Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Critical Legal Rights for Women: Other Issues That Have an Impact on Women's Rights

July 17, 2009

Judge Sotomayor's Legal Record: Other Issues That Have an Impact on Women's Rights

July 2009

With the limited exceptions discussed here, Judge Sotomayor was not asked about the following issues in her judicial record at her confirmation hearing.

Reports & Toolkits | The Record of Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Critical Legal Rights for Women: Background

July 17, 2009

Background

July 2009

Reports & Toolkits | The Record of Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Critical Legal Rights for Women: Conclusion

July 17, 2009

Conclusion

July 2009

Reports & Toolkits | The Record of Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Critical Legal Rights for Women: Equal Protection

July 17, 2009

Judge Sotomayor's Legal Record: Equal Protection

July 2009

Judge Sotomayor does not have an extensive record on the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law in any context,[1] and the Center did not find any cases in which she evaluated the merits of a sex discrimination claim brought under the Equal Protection Clause. In addition, Judge Sotomayor did not testify about this issue at her confirmation hearing.

Follow Us on the Web

Latest From Our Blog

This 50th Anniversary I’m Ready to Work

Women's Rights and the 2012-2013 Supreme Court Term

Corporate Interests Triumph Over Workers' Rights in Vance and Nassar Decisions

Women's Legal Organizations

Join the New Reproductive Health Campaign
Go to ThisIsPersonal.org to get the facts and tools you need to help protect women's reproductive health.

Find an Expert

Emily Martin

Emily Martin is Vice President and General Counsel at the National Women's Law Center, where she undertakes cross-cutting projects addressing women's health, economic security, and education and employment opportunities. She also provides in-house legal advice and representation to the Center. Prior to joining the Center, Ms. Martin served as Deputy Director of the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, where she spearheaded litigation, policy, and public education initiatives to advance the rights of women and girls, with a particular emphasis on the needs of low-income women and women of color.

Supreme Court

Highlights

More Resources

Judge Sotomayor's Legal Record: Federal Anti-Discrimination Protections

Judge Sotomayor's Legal Record: Other Issues That Have an Impact on Women's Rights

Background

Conclusion

Judge Sotomayor's Legal Record: Equal Protection

Sign Up for Email Updates

Follow Us on the Web

Latest From Our Blog

Women's Legal Organizations

Find an Expert