Sex-Based Classifications

  • Considered the constitutionality of a state ban on same-sex marriage.
  • Determined whether a criminal statute against same-sex sexual relations violated constitutional rights of lesbians and gay men.
  • This brief is in support of post-conviction relief for petitioner based on prosecutorial misconduct, due to prosecutor’s focus during trial on petitioner's sexual involvements with men other than her husband, causing prejudicial impact of gender stereotypes in the courtroom.
  • Considered the constitutionality of New Jersey's ban on same sex marriage.
  • Determines whether a school's policy that prohibits students from wearing certain breast cancer awareness bracelets is based on stereotypes concerning the men and women's roles.
  • Determined whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the Oregon Constitution.
  • Determined whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated Vermont's marriage statutes and/or Vermont's Common Benefits Clause.
  • Determined whether it is constitutional, in Maryland, for insurance companies to charge different rates based on gender.
  • Determined the constitutionality of state anti-sodomy laws.
  • The issue in Mt. Holly is whether the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which bans housing discrimination on the grounds (among others) of race or sex, authorizes “disparate impact” challenges to policies that do not explicitly discriminate on the ground of race or sex, but which have an unjustified disproportionate racial or gender impact.  Our brief argues that the FHA does authorize disparate impact claims.Legal Momentum filed the brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Legal Momentum, Futures Without Violence, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the NOW Foundation, and the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. 
  • Determined whether the Boy Scouts of America have a constitutional right to revoke the membership of a scout leader for being gay despite state law prohibiting such discrimination in places of public accommodation.
  • Determined if the First Amendment justifies a commercial business’s refusal to serve a customer in a protected group.