capabilities

Amicus Counsel

Outten & Golden attorneys frequently provide research, drafting and filing assistance for amicus amicus curiae, or "friend of the court" briefs.

Working in coalition with nonprofits and fellow plaintiffs’ attorneys, our amicus curiae team has helped to successfully shape the law in the U.S. Supreme Court and countless federal and state appellate courts.

 

Notable Amicus Briefs

  • State of Washington v. Trump (9th Cir. 2025) We represented a group of 96 social science scholars in support of the State of Washington’s challenge to President Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. Drawing up a robust body of well-established social science research, we argued that, in addition to being unconstitutional, the executive order would dramatically expand the undocumented population and have serious negative impacts on American economic and social life.
  • Sanchez v. El Milagro Inc. (7th Cir. 2025) We represented a women’s rights and employment rights organization in arguing against the imposition of heightened standards for establishing workplace sexual harassment and further against the diminishment of plaintiffs’ jury trial rights under Title VII and Illinois law.
  • John Doe v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (D.C. Cir. 2024) We represented civil rights groups advocating for the fair treatment of formerly convicted and incarcerated individuals in arguing that plaintiffs with sealed or expunged criminal records should be permitted to proceed pseudonymously in litigation challenging unfair and unconstitutional practices that categorically exclude individuals with a criminal history.
  • United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. (S.Ct. 2023): We represented amicus curiae Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund (now The Anti-Fraud Coalition) before the U.S. Supreme Court in arguing that a defendant’s subjective belief that it is committing fraud is relevant to determining whether that defendant acted knowingly under the False Claims Act.
  • Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (S.Ct. 2020): We argued, on behalf of academic scholars, that the Trump Administration’s decision to rescind the DACA program was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and/or violated the equal protection guarantee of the Due Process Clause.
  • New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira (S. Ct. 2018) We argued, on behalf of statutory construction scholars, that the FAA’s reference to “contracts of employment” extends to a broad scope of work agreements.
  • Vidal v. Advanced Care Staffing, LLC (2d Cir. 2023): We represented human rights and labor rights organizations as amicus curiae in support of a nurse allegedly trafficked from the Philippines by a staffing agency using deceptive tactics that caused him to sign an exploitative and illegal employment contract.
  • Billie, et al. v. Coverall North America (2d Cir. 2023): We argued, on behalf of the National Employment Lawyers Association and the National Employment Law Project, that courts should allow litigation in court when an employer has defaulted in paying arbitration fees.
  • Restaurant Law Center v. City of New York (2d Cir. 2022, S.D.N.Y. 2021): We represented the National Employment Law Project and other workers’ rights organizations as amicus curiae in support of New York City’s “Just Cause Laws,” which require fast food restaurants to implement progressive discipline policies, and have valid reasons for discharging employees.
  • Canaday v. Anthem Companies, Inc. (6th Cir. 2021): We represented amicus curiae The Center for Litigation and Courts in arguing that the district court had personal jurisdiction over Anthem with respect to nonresident employees who filed written consents to join the Fair Labor Standards Act action brought by plaintiff-appellants.
  • Kassman v. KPMG (2d Cir. 2018): We represented a consortium of civil rights organizations in arguing that nationwide Title VII cases are not subject to heightened class certification standards under Rule 23.
  • HomeAway.com v. City of Santa Monica, No. 18-55367 (9th Cir. 2018) We represented law professors in arguing for limited scope of Communications Decency Act immunity in the context of a municipal ordinance regulating online rentals.
  • Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (9th Cir. 2016) We represented amici curiae NELA, NELP, Towards Justice, and National Association of Consumer Advocates in challenging unconscionability and unfairness in Uber’s arbitration agreement.
  • Meyer v. Kalanick (Uber) (2d Cir. 2016) We represented Public Justice, P.C. as amicus curiae in arguing that online and mobile contracts require conspicuous notice and unambiguous assent.
  • Sheila LaRose v. King County, Washington, No. 56455-6-II (Div. 2, 2023): We represented the National Women’s Law Center and the Washington Employment Lawyers Association, as amici curiae, in addressing Washington state law protections against work-related sexual harassment by third parties that occurs outside an employee’s physical place of employment, as well as to whom an employee must report harassment to impute knowledge and liability to an employer.
  • Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenance. Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) We represented the California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA) in arguing that courts should consider plaintiff-shopping and reverse auction markers in reviewing PAGA settlements in the context of overlapping PAGA litigation.

Related Capabilities

You may be interested

Amicus Counsel

22.10.2025

Class & Collective Actions

Amicus Counsel

22.10.2025

Appellate Representation

Co-Counsel

10.10.2025

Government Representation

Latest

Recent News

See all