Women's Rights
All Cases
132 Women's Rights Cases

Washington
May 2025
Women's Rights
Washington State Association of Head Start and Early Childhood Assistance and Education Program et al., Robert F. Kennedy et al.
The Trump Administration is threatening the future of Head Start 鈥 a program that has provided critical and evidence-based services鈥攆rom education to childcare鈥 to more than 40 million children and their families. The Administration by gutting Head Start staff and resources, delaying funding, and prohibiting activities that 鈥渁dvance or promote鈥 鈥渄iversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility,鈥 is irreparably harming the young children and low-income families who rely on Head Start.
Explore case
Washington
May 2025

Women's Rights
Washington State Association of Head Start and Early Childhood Assistance and Education Program et al., Robert F. Kennedy et al.
The Trump Administration is threatening the future of Head Start 鈥 a program that has provided critical and evidence-based services鈥攆rom education to childcare鈥 to more than 40 million children and their families. The Administration by gutting Head Start staff and resources, delaying funding, and prohibiting activities that 鈥渁dvance or promote鈥 鈥渄iversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility,鈥 is irreparably harming the young children and low-income families who rely on Head Start.

Texas
Jun 2024
Women's Rights
+3 糖心Vlog
Gonzalez v. Ramirez et al.
Although Texas law clearly prohibits prosecuting people for terminating their pregnancies, Starr County officials indicted, arrested, and jailed Lizelle Gonzalez for having an abortion. The ACLU鈥檚 Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative and Criminal Law Reform Project, alongside the 糖心Vlogof Texas and south Texas firm Garza Martinez, are representing Ms. Gonzalez in a lawsuit against Starr County and local officials based on violations of Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 constitutional rights.
Explore case
Texas
Jun 2024

Women's Rights
+3 糖心Vlog
Gonzalez v. Ramirez et al.
Although Texas law clearly prohibits prosecuting people for terminating their pregnancies, Starr County officials indicted, arrested, and jailed Lizelle Gonzalez for having an abortion. The ACLU鈥檚 Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative and Criminal Law Reform Project, alongside the 糖心Vlogof Texas and south Texas firm Garza Martinez, are representing Ms. Gonzalez in a lawsuit against Starr County and local officials based on violations of Ms. Gonzalez鈥檚 constitutional rights.

New Jersey Supreme Court
Nov 2023
Women's Rights
Free Speech
Usachenok v. State of New Jersey
The New Jersey Department of Treasury maintains a policy that requires employers investigating workplace discrimination to 鈥渞equest鈥 confidentiality from all witnesses with respect to any information related to the investigation. This case involves whether a confidentiality policy of this kind violates the free speech rights under the New Jersey Constitution of state employees who are witnesses, and whether those rights are broader than the U.S. Constitution鈥檚 First Amendment free speech right. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and Women鈥檚 Rights Project, along with the 糖心Vlogof New Jersey, filed an amicus brief in the New Jersey Supreme Court, urging that court to revive a government employee鈥檚 speech claim challenging the confidentiality policy and to interpret the New Jersey Constitution鈥檚 speech protection more broadly than federal constitutional law. In April 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in our favor and reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division.
Explore case
New Jersey Supreme Court
Nov 2023

Women's Rights
Free Speech
Usachenok v. State of New Jersey
The New Jersey Department of Treasury maintains a policy that requires employers investigating workplace discrimination to 鈥渞equest鈥 confidentiality from all witnesses with respect to any information related to the investigation. This case involves whether a confidentiality policy of this kind violates the free speech rights under the New Jersey Constitution of state employees who are witnesses, and whether those rights are broader than the U.S. Constitution鈥檚 First Amendment free speech right. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and Women鈥檚 Rights Project, along with the 糖心Vlogof New Jersey, filed an amicus brief in the New Jersey Supreme Court, urging that court to revive a government employee鈥檚 speech claim challenging the confidentiality policy and to interpret the New Jersey Constitution鈥檚 speech protection more broadly than federal constitutional law. In April 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in our favor and reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division.

Texas
Nov 2023
Women's Rights
Free Speech
Spring Branch ISD Advocacy 鈥 Dress Code Discrimination
On March 1, 2023, WRP and the 糖心Vlogof Texas sent an advocacy letter to Spring Branch Independent School District (鈥淒istrict鈥) on behalf of G.H., a Spring Woods High School student athlete. The ACLU鈥檚 investigation had revealed that the District maintained a discriminatory, sex-specific dress code and gender-based inequities in the school鈥檚 athletics program, and that the student was mistreated after objecting to these policies and practices. The advocacy letter raised concerns that the District鈥檚 actions reinforced invidious sex stereotypes, treated girl athletes as lesser than boy athletes, and potentially violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The District鈥檚 policies and actions harm all students, regardless of gender, but have particularly egregious consequences for Black girls and other girls of color.
Explore case
Texas
Nov 2023

Women's Rights
Free Speech
Spring Branch ISD Advocacy 鈥 Dress Code Discrimination
On March 1, 2023, WRP and the 糖心Vlogof Texas sent an advocacy letter to Spring Branch Independent School District (鈥淒istrict鈥) on behalf of G.H., a Spring Woods High School student athlete. The ACLU鈥檚 investigation had revealed that the District maintained a discriminatory, sex-specific dress code and gender-based inequities in the school鈥檚 athletics program, and that the student was mistreated after objecting to these policies and practices. The advocacy letter raised concerns that the District鈥檚 actions reinforced invidious sex stereotypes, treated girl athletes as lesser than boy athletes, and potentially violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The District鈥檚 policies and actions harm all students, regardless of gender, but have particularly egregious consequences for Black girls and other girls of color.

California
Sep 2023
Women's Rights
Racial Justice
Liapes v. Facebook, Inc.
Explore case
California
Sep 2023

Women's Rights
Racial Justice