Litigation Tracking

Our litigation tracking initiative focuses on identifying significant legal cases that reflect broader social justice themes. By compiling data on these cases, we can analyze trends, outcomes, and the implications for vulnerable communities.  This initiative is meant to empower our community to engage with the legal system critically, advocate for equitable policies, and support efforts that dismantle systemic injustices.

Cases

  • U.S. v. Skrmetti

    • This case was filed on behalf of Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville and their 16-year-old transgender daughter, two other plaintiff families filing anonymously, and Memphis-based medical doctor Dr. Susan Lacy. The plaintiff families and Dr. Lacy argue that the Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care violates the equal protection rights of transgender adolescents.
    • Plaintiffs argue that Tennessee’s ban is a clear example of discrimination on the basis of sex and transgender status making it a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. States with bans like Tennessee’s have relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s opinion Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to ban abortion.
    • Skrmetti will test how far the court is willing to stretch Dobbs to allow states to ban other health care.
    • The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments December 4, 2024.

  • Inclusive Louisiana v. St. James Parish 

    • On October 7, 2024, The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on issues of discrimination and civil rights concerning the treatment of marginalized communities in St. James Parish, Louisiana. The case involves allegations that local government actions disproportionately impact minority residents, particularly in relation to environmental concerns and land use decisions. Inclusive Louisiana, an advocacy group, argues that the parish’s policies and practices violate federal laws protecting against discrimination, notably under the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act. The group seeks to hold the parish accountable for practices that they claim perpetuate systemic inequalities.
    • The Fifth Circuit's decision addresses key legal questions regarding standing, the applicability of civil rights laws in local governance, and the broader implications for community advocacy in environmental justice.
    • The outcome could set a precedent for how local governments handle issues of equity and discrimination in their policies.
    • Listen to oral arguments here. 

  • Texas v. United States

    • On October 10, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments that deal with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which offers temporary protection from deportation for certain undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children.
    • In this case, Texas and several other states challenged the legality of DACA, arguing that it was created unlawfully by the executive branch without congressional approval, thereby overstepping federal authority. The plaintiffs sought to have the program declared unconstitutional and to block its implementation, claiming it imposes unfair costs on the states.
    • The Fifth Circuit's ruling focused on the legal standing of the states to sue and the broader implications of DACA. The court assessed whether the program violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by not undergoing the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process.
    • The decision could have significant ramifications for the future of DACA and its recipients, as well as for executive power in immigration policy. The case reflects ongoing national debates about immigration, state rights, and the balance of power between state and federal governments.
    • Listen to oral arguments here