NOTE: Out of concern for the privacy of our clients, please excuse the general nature of some of the following descriptions.

SLLR is involved in ongoing research projects that provide assistance to local and national litigators in areas that concern our members. In addition, several SLLR members have recently been involved with two high-profile litigation projects at the Supreme Court level:

A team of SLLR members drafted an amicus brief on behalf of John Hurley and the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640. The team worked under the supervision of attorneys from Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights. In this case the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the Boy Scouts may exclude a homosexual pride advocate from serving as a Scout leader. The student team working on this brief focused on the Boy Scouts’ freedoms of speech and expressive association. This amicus brief argues that the case at bar is analogous to the 1995 case of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, which held that private organizations have a right to determine the content of their speech, including the right to refrain from expressing views with which they disagree. The brief asserts that the Constitution does not require the Boy Scouts to accept as a Scout leader an individual who has openly expressed his intention to subvert the Scouts’ understanding of the moral teachings of the Scout Oath and Law. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 26, 2000. This amicus brief can be found on Westlaw at 2000 WL 228506. The court agreed with these arguments and found in favor of the Boy Scouts in its decision on June 28, 2000.

SLLR members engaged in the research and drafting of an amicus brief in the recent partial-birth abortion case Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, on behalf of Massachusetts Citizens for Live, Pro-Life Legal Defense Fund, Feminists for Life, and University Faculty for Life. The student team worked under the supervision of a practicing attorney and acted in coordination with other national pro-life organizations as part of a global litigation strategy. The brief argues issues of statutory construction and principles of federalism that the student team believed to be promising in attracting the attention of the swing Justices on the Court. Specifically, the brief argues first that the phrase “substantial portion” [of the fetus] as used in the Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban is not vague and in this context encompasses only the grisly partial-birth abortion procedure (known medically as “intact dilation and extraction, or D&X). Second, the brief argues that the lower courts erred by not deferring to the reasonable and authoritative interpretation of the statute offered by the Nebraska Attorney General. Third, the brief contends that the lower courts erred by not deferring to the Nebraska Legislature’s finding of fact inasmuch as that body determined that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to ensure the health of a mother. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument for this case on April 25, 2000 and reached decision on June 28, 2000. This amicus brief can be found on Westlaw at 2000 WL 207161.