Listing of the amicus briefs in alphabetical order. Each of the titles below links to a one-page summary. Selected full-text briefs are linked below. Please note that the PDF files may take time to download, as they are very large files.
Ake v. Oklahoma (1985)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 6/84] — Whether an indigent defendant has the constitutional right to the appointment of a mental health professional at the state's expense to help the defendant prepare an insanity defense and rebut evidence of future dangerousness.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 602KB)opens in new window
Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health Inc. (1983)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 8/82] — Whether the City of Akron's adoption of an informed consent requirement for abortions, which mandated that the individual providing pre-abortion counseling must be the woman's attending physician (as opposed to other qualified professionals) and specified the kind and substance of the information to be presented, was constitutional.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 334KB)opens in new window
Alaska v. R.H. Wetherhorn (1984)
[Alaska Court of Appeals/brief filed 10/83] — Whether admissions of child abuse made during either voluntarily-obtained or court-ordered therapy are admissible in a criminal trial or protected by the state's privileged communication statutes and the right against self-incrimination under the state and/or federal constitution.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 609KB)opens in new window
Andersen v. King County (2006)
[Supreme Court of the State of Washington/brief filed 2/05] — Addresses a challenge to the constitutionality of Washington’s statutes limiting the right to marry to opposite-sex couples.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 496KB)opens in new window
Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
[U.S. Supreme Court/motion filed 11/19/01 to have McCarver v. North Carolina brief considered in this case] — Addresses the question, “whether the execution of mentally retarded individuals convicted of capital crimes violates the Eighth Amendment.”
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 767KB)opens in new window
Baskin v. Zoeller and Wolf v. Walker (2014)
[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit/brief filed 8/14] — Involves a challenge to laws against same-sex marriage in Indiana ( Baskin, Fujii and Lee ) and Wisconsin ( Wolf ).
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 116KB)opens in new window
BenShalom v. Marsh (1989)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit/brief filed 3/89] — Whether the U.S. Army may constitutionally deny reenlistment to any serviceperson who declares him/herself to have a homosexual orientation.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 646KB)opens in new window
Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready (1982)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 1/82] — Whether an insured patient receiving psychotherapy has standing to sue for treble damages under antitrust laws (i.e., the Clayton Act) when third party payors refuse to reimburse psychologists for mental health services unless those services are billed by physicians.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 541KB)opens in new window
Bodell v. Superior Court (2007)
[Court of Appeal of the State of California, 2nd Appellate District/letter in support of cert filed 1/07] — Whether the Superior court may compel the production of psychiatric and medical records upon a mere showing of “relevance” and with no stated compelling public interest.
Letter of petition for review (PDF, 365KB)opens in new window
Boseman v. Jarrell (2010)
[North Carolina Supreme Court/brief filed 3/10] — Addresses a case in which a conservative advocacy group seeks to invalidate an adoption order by which a biological mother and her lesbian partner documented their family relationship.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1.2MB)opens in new window
Bostic v. Shaefer (2014)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit/brief filed 4/14] — At issue the constitutional challenge to Virginia’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 154KB)opens in new window
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia; Altitude Express v. Zarda; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC (2020)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief file 7/19] — Whether pursuant to Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (PDF, 493KB)opens in new window, 490 U. S. 228 (1989), Title VII prohibitions arising out of sexual stereotyping extend to LGBT employees.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 199KB)opens in new window
Boswell v. Boswell (1998)
[Maryland Court of Appeals/brief filed 7/98] — Whether a gay father may be denied overnight visitation with his children and visitations in the presence of his male partner.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 356KB)opens in new window
Bottoms v. Bottoms (1995)
[Virginia Court of Appeals/brief filed 11/93 & Virginia Supreme Court/brief filed 12/94] — Whether a lesbian biological mother could be denied custody of her child on the grounds that her sexual orientation rendered her unfit as a parent.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 357KB)opens in new window
Bowen v. Kendrick (1988)
[U.S. Supreme Court/APA joined a brief filed 2/88] — Whether the 1981 Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) was constitutional, including whether it violated the constitutional rights of individuals to make informed reproductive decisions free of government coercion.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 242KB)opens in new window
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 1/86] — Whether Georgia's sodomy law which outlawed private sexual conduct between consenting adults was constitutional.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 681KB)opens in new window
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 3/29/2000] — Whether the Boy Scouts' claim that the recent New Jersey Supreme Court's decision, that the Boy Scouts of America is subject to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and violated the law in expelling an assistant scoutmaster because he stated publicly that he is gay, infringes upon its First Amendment right to freedom of association.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 556KB)opens in new window
Boy Scouts of America, National Capital Area Council v. Pool (2002)
[D.C. Court of Appeals/APA brief filed 2/26/02] — Addresses the Boy Scout's claim that the decision of the District of Columbia's Commission on Human Rights that the BSA is subject to D.C. law against discrimination and violated the law in terminating all relationships with two gay former Eagle Scouts, is contrary to the Supreme Court precedent in Dalev. Boy Scouts of America and infringes on its First Amendment right to freedom of association.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 171KB) opens in new window
Brenner v. Armstrong (2015)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit/brief filed 12/14] — At issue is a federal challenge to the Florida statute and state constitutional provision, banning same-sex marriage and recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 130KB)opens in new window
Bucy v. Bucy (1990)
[Connecticut Court of Appeals/brief filed 2/90] — Whether expenses incurred in psychotherapy for the treatment of eating disorders are “medical expenses” within the meaning of a separation and support decree.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 199KB)opens in new window
California Association of Psychology Providers v. Rank (1990)
[California Supreme Court/brief filed 6/88] — Whether certain California regulations were inconsistent with legislation defining the scope of psychologists' practice in hospitals and permitting psychologists to provide services as independent practitioners “without discrimination.”
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 728KB)opens in new window
Campbell v. Sundquist (1996)
[Tennessee Court of Appeals/brief filed 10/95] — Whether a Tennessee “Homosexual Acts” statute prohibiting private sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex violates the Tennessee Constitution's right to privacy.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 748KB)opens in new window
Case v. Montana (Pending)
[US Supreme Court/brief filed 08/25] — Whether specialized responses to individuals with mental illness can improve response outcomes, promote safety, and facilitate efficient spending as police officers, the “de facto mental health crisis responders’’ lack adequate mental health training.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 233KB)opens in new window
Catholic Charities of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale Counties v. Whitmer (Pending)
[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit /brief filed 6/25] — Whether Michigan's ban on conversion therapy for minors (H.B. 4616), which prohibits licensed.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 291KB)opens in new window
Chandler Exterminators v. Morris (1992)
[Georgia Court of Appeals/brief filed 12/90 & Georgia Supreme Court/brief in support of petition for reconsideration filed 6/92] — Whether the lower court erred in rejecting the testimony of a neuropsychologist concerning the causes of brain damage as a result of exposure to the neurotoxic substance Aldrin and ruling that psychologists are not competent to testify as to the organic causes of psychological dysfunction by stating “medical causation is not a subject within the scope of psychological expertise.”
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1.2MB)opens in new window
Charles, v. Orange County, New York (2019)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit] — Whether the government owes a duty, under the U.S. Constitution, to provide discharge planning — including an interim supply of needed medications and assistance in gaining access to mental health resources after release from confinement — to an individual with serious mental illness held in government custody.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 270KB)opens in new window
Chiles v. Salazar, et al (SCOTUS) (2026)
[Supreme Court of the United States /brief filed 8/26/2025] — Whether Colorado's regulation of specific therapeutic practices through its enactment of the Minor Therapy Conversion Law (prohibiting mental health professionals from engaging in “conversion therapies” for minors), unlawfully abridges a therapist's right to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 199KB)opens in new window
Chiles v. Salazar, et al. (2024)
[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit /brief filed 5/5/2023] — Whether Colorado’s regulation of specific therapeutic practices through its enactment of the Minor Therapy Conversion Law (prohibiting mental health professionals from engaging in “conversion therapies” for minors), unlawfully abridges a therapist’s right to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 242kB)opens in new window
Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning (2006)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit/brief filed 11/05] — Involves a federal challenge to a section of the Nebraska constitution that bans any legal recognition of same-sex couples.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 2.2MB)opens in new window
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center Inc. (1985)
[U.S. Supreme Court/APA signed onto brief filed 1984] — Whether zoning restrictions limiting the right of mentally retarded persons to establish group homes was unconstitutional.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 608KB)opens in new window
Clark v. Arizona (2006)
[U.S. Supreme Court/APA signed onto brief filed 1/06] — At issue is the scope of the constitutional duty of states to allow evidence of sanity to be used as a defense in criminal cases relevant to the intent element of a charged crime.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 141KB)opens in new window
Coble v. Texas (Petition for certiorari not accepted)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 5/11] — Addresses the reliability of expert testimony (on risk of “future dangerousness”) in a death penalty case.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 104KB)opens in new window
Colorado v. Connelly (1986)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 3/86] — Whether an individual diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic acting in response to “command hallucinations” is competent to waive Miranda rights and his subsequent confession is voluntary and admissible.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 515KB)opens in new window
Comfort v. Lynn (2005)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit/brief filed 6/04] — Addresses a school voluntary desegregation plan in Lynn, Massachusetts that uses race as a factor in assigning children to K-12 schools in the event that they request a school transfer.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 2.3MB)opens in new window
Commonwealth v. Gomes and Commonwealth v. Johnson (2015)
[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court/brief filed 08/14] — Whether the judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendant, in essence that (a) a witness's prior viewing of a suspect in an identification procedure, without making a positive identification, reduces the reliability of the witness's later identification of the same suspect; (b) human memory is not like a video recording; and (c) witnesses who are highly confident of their identifications are not therefore necessarily reliable (Gomes). Also, where a victim of a crime has failed to identify the defendant in an identification procedure such as a police line-up, is the defendant entitled to a modified identification instruction that informs the jury that they may consider the fact that the victim failed to identify the defendant as the perpetrator (Johnson).
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 149KB)opens in new window
Commonwealth v. Walker (2014)
[Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Eastern District/brief filed 8/11] — Addresses the admissibility of expert testimony on research regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 84KB)opens in new window
Conaway v. Deane (2007)
[Maryland Court of Appeals/brief filed 10/06] — Addresses a constitutional challenge to Maryland’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 3.2MB)opens in new window
Currie v. United States (1987)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit/brief filed 1/87] — Whether a psychotherapist is liable under tort law for failure to institute involuntary commitment proceedings.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 337KB)opens in new window
Dassey v. Dittman (Petition for certiorari not accepted)
[United States Supreme Court/brief filed 3/18] — Whether a confession made by a juvenile with significant intellectual and social limitation was voluntary, and if so whether on de novo review the confession was involuntary.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 496KB)opens in new window
DeBoer v. Snyder; Tanco v. Haslem; Bourke v. Beshear (2014)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit/brief filed 6/14] — At issue is a federal challenge to laws against same-sex marriage in Ohio.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 497KB)opens in new window
DeLeon v. Perry (2015)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit/brief filed 9/14] — Involves a federal challenge to the laws against same-sex marriage in Texas.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 128KB)opens in new window
Delong v. Delong (1998)
[Missouri Supreme Court/brief filed 6/98] — Whether a lesbian mother may be denied custody solely on the basis of her sexual orientation rather than on the basis of what is in the best interests of the child.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 218KB)opens in new window
Dept. of Human Services v. Howard (2006)
[Supreme Court of Arkansas/brief filed 12/05] — At issue is a challenge to an administrative regulation promulgated by the Arkansas Child Welfare Agency Review Board that prohibits anyone who has a “homosexual” adult household member from providing foster care for children.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 109KB)opens in new window
Dept. of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms v. Galioto (1986)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 2/86] — Whether provisions of a federal crime statute which permanently prohibited any individual adjudicated as suffering from a mental defective or committed to any mental institution from receiving, transporting, or shipping a firearm or ammunition in interstate commerce or being sold a firearm was unconstitutional.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1.42MB)opens in new window
Detroit Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (1979)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit/brief filed 1976 & U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 1977] — Whether an order of the National Labor Relations Board that required Detroit Edison to provide to a union with copies of an actual test battery and employees' raw scores and test papers without their consent should be enforced in light of confidentiality and test security concerns.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 305KB)opens in new window
Donaldson v. Montana (2012)
[Montana Supreme Court/brief filed 11/11] — Because there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring marriage for same-sex couples, this lawsuit is not seeking marriage. The couples in the suit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships (i.e., a finding under the state constitution’s other provisions, such as its guarantees of equal protection and privacy, that denial to same-sex couples of the rights and benefits that accrue to married different-sex couples is unconstitutional).
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 93KB)opens in new window
Doyle v. Hogan (2021)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit/brief filed 12/19] — Involves a legal challenge to Maryland’s ban on conversion therapy for minors.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 183KB)opens in new window
Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development Inc . (1998)
[Pennsylvania Supreme Court/brief filed 10/96] — Whether a mental health professional has a duty to warn a third party of a patient's threats to harm the third party and the scope of any such duty.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 356KB)opens in new window
Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati Inc. v. City of Cincinnati (1995)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit/brief filed 12/94] — Whether an anti-gay rights ballot initiative was constitutional.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 629KB)opens in new window
Estate of Davis v. Yong-Oh Lhim (1986)
[Michigan Supreme Court/brief filed 7/86] — Whether a psychotherapist is liable under tort law for the standard of care concerning the discharge of patients from mental hospitals and not a therapist's duty to warn of potential danger.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 957KB)opens in new window
Ewing v. Goldstein (2004)
[California Supreme Court/letter in support of petition for review filed 9/04] — Addresses review of a decision that extends California’s duty to warn statute from communications from the patient to the therapist to include communications about the patient from a third party.
Letter of petition for reviewopens in new window
Faulkner v. National Geographic Enterprises (2005)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit/brief filed 6/04] — Addresses the rights of scholarly publishers to digitize their present and past works.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 4.3MB)opens in new window
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2013)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 8/13/12] — At issue is whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 306 (2003), permit the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 257KB)opens in new window
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016)
[United States Supreme Court] — Involves the question of whether the Fifth Circuit’s re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin .
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 196KB)opens in new window
Flores v. Texas (2026)
[Supreme Court of the United States/brief filed 3/26] — Whether psychological research on eyewitness memory demonstrates that initial non-identifications are highly probative of innocence and that subsequent in-court identifications, made after repeated exposure to a suspect, suggestive procedures, and the passage of time, are inherently unreliable.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 151KB)opens in new window
Floyd v. Cain (2011)
[Supreme Court of Louisiana/brief filed 5/10] — At issue before the Court is the reliability of a legally voluntary confession in light of new evidence of innocence.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1.3MB)opens in new window
Ford v. Norton, 107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 776 (2001)
[Court of Appeal of the State of California/brief filed 1/6/00] — The case raises the issue of the scope of psychologists' practice (i.e., whether a clinical psychologist is authorized to order the early release of a patient who is hospitalized involuntarily).
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 136KB)opens in new window
Ford v. Wainwright (1986)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 1/86] — Whether (1) it is unconstitutional to execute an incompetent person, and (2) the procedural issue of whether Florida's statutory scheme for evaluating the competency of a condemned prisoner meets the requirements of due process.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 559KB)opens in new window
Forrest v. Ambach (1983)
[N.Y. Supreme Court/briefs filed 9/80, 7/81 & N.Y. Supreme Court, Appellate Division/brief filed 12/82] — Whether the New York Commissioner of Education acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in not permitting a school psychologist to challenge her employment termination for due disagreeing with the State Commissioner regarding the statutory requirements for services to handicapped children.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 277KB)opens in new window
Fulton v. Philadelphia (2021)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 8/20]—Whether the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Employment Division v. Smith , holding that an individual’s religious beliefs do not “excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate,” should be overruled.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 362KB)opens in new window
Garner v. Colorado (2019)
[Colorado Supreme Court/brief filed 5/2017] — Whether the state court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s admission of the in-court identifications of the defendant.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 172KB)opens in new window
Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (2012)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit/brief filed 11/11] — At challenge is the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the terms 'marriage' as “a legal union between one man and one woman.”
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 115KB)opens in new window
Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management (2013)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit/brief filed 7/12] — At challenge is the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the term 'marriage', for all federal purposes, as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and thus requires the federal government to disregard marriages of same-sex couples.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 164KB)opens in new window
Goodman v. Georgia (2006)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 7/05] — Addresses whether the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to conditions under which the disabled are held in state prisons.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 240KB)opens in new window
Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida (2010)
[Supreme Court of the United States/brief filed 7/09] — Whether the fundamental principles in the U.S. Supreme Court 2005 decision in Roper v. Simmons that declared the death penalty unconstitutional for juveniles should also be applied to sentences of life without the possibility of parole for those who committed crimes as juveniles.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 155KB)opens in new window
Gray v. Cummings (2019)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit/brief filed 9/2018] — Involves the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the extent to which the police should reasonably accommodate a mentally ill person they are attempting to take into custody.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 140KB)opens in new window
Greenberg v. National Geographic Enterprises (2008)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit/brief filed 10/07] — Addresses the rights of scholarly publishers to digitize their present and past works.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1.5MB)opens in new window
Griego v. Oliver (2013)
[New Mexico Supreme court/brief filed 9/13] — Whether the New Mexico Constitution compels the state to allow same-sex couples the freedom to marry.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 444KB)opens in new window
Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
[U.S. Supreme Court /brief filed 2/18/03] — This case addresses whether the University of Michigan's consideration of race in student admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, or 42 U.S.C. 1981.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 217KB)opens in new window
Haaland v. Brackeen (2023)
[U.S. Supreme Court Court/brief filed 8/22] — (1) Is the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978’s preference for placing an “Indian child” in a foster/adoptive home of an Indian (American Indian/Alaskan Native) family discriminate on the basis of race by disfavoring selection of non-Indian foster/adoptive families, in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and (2) Did the federal government (i.e., legislation from Congress and regulations by the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA]) authority by legislating in a domain traditionally under the jurisdiction of state law (i.e., family law matters), resulting in state courts and agencies being “commandeered” to carry out a federal child-placement program?
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 229KB)opens in new window
Hall v. Florida (2014)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 2/13] — Whether a statutory definition of mental retardation that has a bright-line cutoff requiring an IQ score of 70 or below adequately captures the constitutional imperative that the “mentally retarded” not be executed.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 132KB)opens in new window
Hamm v. Smith (2026)
[Supreme Court of the United States brief filed 9/25] — Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 4/93] — Whether a sexual harassment plaintiff must prove not only that the conduct complained of would have offended a reasonable victim, and that the plaintiff was in fact offended, but also that the conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer serious psychological injury.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 343KB)opens in new window
Harris v. McRae (1980)
[U.S. Supreme Court/APA signed onto a brief filed 7/80] — Whether (1) a state participating in the Medicaid program were required to pay for medically necessary abortions and (2) Whether the Hyde Amendment denying federal reimbursement for such abortions was unconstitutional.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1.27MB)opens in new window
Hartigan v. Zbaraz (1987)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 2/87] — Whether the Illinois Parental Notice Abortion Act which required a physician to give 24-hour notice to both parents of a minor was unconstitutional.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 543KB)opens in new window
Hawthorne v. State of Florida (1985)
[Florida District Court of Appeals/brief filed 2/83] — Whether expert testimony on battered women's syndrome is admissible to help establish claims of self-defense in a murder case (Parallels the New Jersey v. Kelly case).
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 612KB)opens in new window
Hedlund v. Superior Court of Orange County (1983)
[California Supreme Court/brief filed 10/83] — Whether a “foreseeable” bystander in a close relationship to the victim of an assault by a patient can bring a cause of action against the patient's psychotherapist for emotional injury resulting from a failure to warn.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 112KB)opens in new window
Hernandez v. Robles (2005)
[New York, Appellate Division, First Department/Brief filed 8/05] — addresses a constitutional challenge to New York’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 4.2MB)opens in new window
Hertzler v. Hertzler (1995)
[Wyoming Supreme Court/brief filed 12/94] — Whether the “best interests of the child” is served by restricting visitation rights to a minimum level due to a mother's sexual orientation as a lesbian.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 317KB)opens in new window
Hodgson v. State of Minnesota (1988) & (1990)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit/brief filed 3/87 & U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 9/89] — Whether a Minnesota statute requiring physicians to notify the parents of all unemancipated minors under the age of 18 at least 48 hours before performing an abortion was unconstitutional (companion case to Ohio v. Akron ).
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 318KB)opens in new window
Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 2/28/13] — Addresses a challenge to Proposition 8 (or the California Marriage Protection Act), a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the 2008 state elections which provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 172KB)opens in new window
Horne v. Goodson Logging Co. (1986)
[North Carolina Court of Appeals/brief filed 8/86] — Whether a neuropsychologist is competent and credible to testify as an expert determining neurological disability for the purposes of awarding monetary compensation.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 345KB)opens in new window
Hudgins v. Moore (1999)
[Supreme Court of South Carolina/briefs filed 2/98 and 2/99] — Whether the prosecution could use raw MMPI-A test materials, administered to determine the defendant's competency to stand trial, to argue at trial that the defendant admitted to being a liar.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 195KB)opens in new window
Huntoon v. TCI Cablevision (1998)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit/brief filed 7/97 & Colorado Supreme Court/brief filed 2/98] — Whether a neuropsychologist is qualified to testify as to the causation of a head injury.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 323KB)opens in new window
Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 2/79] — Whether a research scientist is a “public figure” for the purposes of libel law if he is supported by public funds, thereby rendering it difficult for a scientist to sue for libel.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 475KB)opens in new window
In Marquez v. Estate of Garcia (2010)
[Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District, Division Seven/brief filed 3/10] — Addresses the confidentiality of patient records and the deposition of a psychologist who handled a patient’s case.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 3.1MB)opens in new window
In re Bryant (1988)
[District of Columbia Court of Appeals/brief filed 6/87] — Whether involuntarily committed mental patients have the right to refuse anti-psychotic medication.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 381KB)opens in new window
In Re Adoption of Luke (2002)
[Nebraska Supreme Court/APA brief filed 9/01] — This case involves an adoption proceeding commenced by the lesbian partner of a child's natural mother. The case challenges the issue that second-parent adoptions must be denied when the co-parents are gay or lesbian.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 127KB)opens in new window
In re Marriage Cases (2008)
[Supreme Court of California/brief filed 9/07] — Whether prohibiting same-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, rather than just imposing disparate burdens on gay people.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 360KB)opens in new window
In re Matter of Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G. (2010)
[District Court of Appeal, Third District, State of Florida/brief filed 6/09] — Addresses a challenge to a Florida statute prohibiting adoption by gay or lesbian persons.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 64KB)opens in new window
In re R.A. & M.A. (2007)
[Maine Supreme Judicial Court/brief filed 10/06] — Addresses a challenge to the Maine state law barring same-sex couples from legally adopting foster children for whom they are caring.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 2MB)opens in new window
Insurance Board v. Muir (1987)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit/brief filed 8/86] — Whether employee benefit plans issued by private employers but administered by fiscal intermediaries are subject to ERISA or constitute the business of insurance, thus saving the state benefits laws from preemption (the main issue for psychology was whether ERISA exempts insurance carriers from complying with psychologists' freedom of choice laws and mandated mental-health benefit laws.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 570KB)opens in new window
International Primate Protection League v. Institute for Behavioral Research (1986)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit/APA joined 69 scientific organizations filing a joint amici curiae brief filed 1986] — Whether animal rights organizations have standing to sue for custody of a laboratory under state anti-cruelty to animals.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 288KB)opens in new window
Jaffee v. Redmond (1996)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 1/96] — Whether a psychotherapist-patient privilege was recognized under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a decision of the Seventh Circuit that recognized the existence of a psychotherapist-patient privilege and held that confidential communications of a police officer with a licensed social worker were protected from compelled disclosure.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1MB)opens in new window
Jegley v. Picado (2002)
[Arkansas Supreme Court/brief filed 10/01] — Addresses the constitutionality of an Arkansas law that makes sodomy between same-sex couples a crime.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 78KB)opens in new window
Jenkins v. United States (1962)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia/brief filed 2/62] — Whether a psychologist is competent to state professional opinions as an expert witness concerning the nature, and existence or non-existence, of mental disease and defect.
Kahler v. Kansas (2020)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 6/19] — Whether a state may execute a prisoner whose mental disability leaves him without memory of his commission of the capital offense, and whether the eighth Amendment bars execution of a prisoner whose medical condition prevents him from remembering the crime for which he was convicted or understanding the circumstances of his scheduled execution.
Kentucky v. Stincer (1987)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 1/87] — Whether a defendant accused of sexually abusing a child has the right to be present at a pretrial hearing at which a child is questioned to determine competence to testify at trial.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 433KB)opens in new window
Kentucky v. Wasson (1992)
[Kentucky Supreme Court/brief filed 8/91] — Whether Kentucky sodomy laws are constitutional under the Kentucky Constitution.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 434KB)opens in new window
Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (2008)
[Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut/brief filed 1/07] — Addresses a constitutional challenge to Connecticut’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 2.4MB)opens in new window
Kitchen v. Herbert and Bishop v. Smith (2014)
[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit] — Involves a federal challenge to Utah and Oklahoma's laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying and recognition of the legal marriage of same-sex couples who married in other states.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 106KB)opens in new window
Landers v. Chrysler Corp. (1997)
[Missouri Court of Appeals/brief filed 8/97] — Whether a neuropsychologist is qualified to testify as to the causation of a head injury.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 387MB)opens in new window
Latta v. Otter (2014)
[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit/brief filed 7/14] — Involves a federal challenge to Idaho's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and corresponding statutes, as well as state recognition of out-of-state marriages.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 106KB)opens in new window
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 1/16/03] — Addresses the constitutionality of a Texas law that makes sodomy between same-sex couples a crime.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 155MB)opens in new window
Levy v. Edelhofer (2001)
[Fourth District Court of Appeal, State of California/briefs filed 11/13/00 & 12/4/00] — The case presents the questions of: (1) whether the client/therapist privilege applies to the communications of therapist to the client, (2) whether a court should evaluate communications in therapy to decide whether they are “therapeutic” before deciding whether they are privileged, and (3) whether psychotherapists owe a general duty of care to third parties, or whether psychotherapists owe a general duty of care to their patients' former therapists with whom they have no contractual relationship.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 47KB)opens in new window
Lewis v. Harris (2005)
[Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division/brief filed 10/04] — Whether the New Jersey Constitution compels the State to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 249KB)opens in new window
Little v. Hecox (2026)
[Supreme Court of the United States/brief filed 11/25] — Whether exclusionary sports participation policies against transgender individuals violate constitutional protections
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 263KB)opens in new window
Liv. Oregon (2005)
[Supreme Court of the State of Oregon/brief filed 10/04] — Addresses a challenge to Oregon’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 521KB)opens in new window
Lockhart v. McCree (1986)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 12/85] — Whether the use of a death-qualified jury in a capital case is unconstitutional.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 415MB)opens in new window
Ex Parte Melissa Elizabeth Lucio (2022)
[Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas/brief filed 4/22] — Involves a legal challenge to death penalty.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 570KB)opens in new window
Madison v. Alabama (2019)
[United States Supreme Court/brief filed 5/18] — Whether a state may execute a prisoner whose mental disability leaves him without memory of his commission of the capital offense, and whether the Eighth Amendment bars execution of a prisoner whose medical condition prevents him from remembering the crime for which he was convicted or understanding the circumstances of his scheduled execution.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 170KB)opens in new window
Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025)
[US Supreme Court/brief filed 04/09/2025] — Whether all, but LGBTQ+ students in particular, benefit from an inclusive school environment.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 265KB)opens in new window
Martin v. Benson (1988)
[North Carolina Supreme Court/brief filed 4/97] — Whether a neuropsychologist is competent to testify as to whether the symptoms evidenced by a person are indications of a closed head injury.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 422KB)opens in new window
Maryland v. Craig (1990)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 3/90] — Whether certain procedural protections such as the use of one-way close circuit television may be afforded to the victims of child abuse when testifying against the accused individual.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 435KB)opens in new window
Massachusetts v. Oz (Pending)
[United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts /brief filed 9/26] – Whether a federal rule unlawfully narrows Medicaid’s categorical exemption from community-engagement requirements for individuals with substance use disorders and disabling mental disorders.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 244KB)opens in new window
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 10/30/17] — Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create an expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 157KB)opens in new window
McCarver v. North Carolina (2001)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 6/8/01] — This case addresses whether the Eighth Amendment's ban against cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the execution of individuals with mental disabilities.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 69KB)opens in new window
McWilliams v. Dunn (2017)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 3/6/2017] — Involves the scope of expert assistance that must be provided to an indigent criminal defendant whose mental condition is at issue in his defense.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 171KB)opens in new window
Menendez v. State of California (1992)
[California Supreme Court/brief filed 10/91] — Whether patient-therapist communications lose their privileged status once a patient threatens others in a manner such that the therapist's Tarasoff duties are triggered and when a therapist-patient relationship is terminated.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 735KB)opens in new window
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy (and United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. People Against Nuclear Energy ) (1983)
[U.S. Supreme Court/briefs filed 9/82 and 1/83] — Whether there are situations in which an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act must consider the effects of a proposed action on psychological health.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 496KB)opens in new window
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Massachusetts (and Travelers Insurance Co. v. State of Massachusetts ) (1985)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 1/85] — Whether a state law requiring mandatory minimal mental health benefits under which outpatient services could be provided by a licensed psychologist was preempted by the federal ERISA law.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 537KB)opens in new window
Michigan v. Kowalski (2012)
[Michigan Supreme Court/brief filed 9/11] — At issue before the court is the reliability and relevance of expert testimony on false confessions.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 126KB)opens in new window
Michigan v. Madison (2026)
[Supreme Court of Michigan/brief filed 3/25] — Whether scientific evidence of mental illness should be admissible to negate the specific intent element of a charged crime.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 244KB)opens in new window
Michigan v. Stewart (2023)
[Michigan Supreme Court Court/brief filed 10/22]— Whether the Michigan trial court erred in its “determination of the voluntariness of inculpatory statements” by not excluding from evidence a confession that was obtained using tactics known to increase the risk of a false confession.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 305KB)opens in new window
Michigan v. Tyson (2023)
[Michigan Supreme Court/brief filed 4/23] — Whether the Michigan Supreme Court reinstate the defense of diminished capacity and overrule its decision in Carpenter ?
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 301KB)opens in new window
Michigan v. Warner (2024)
Michigan Supreme Court Court/brief filed 2/23] — Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Mr. Warner’s motion to appoint an expert in false confessions.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 353KB)opens in new window
Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs (2012)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 1/12] —Addresses life-without-parole sentencing for juveniles in homicide cases.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 155KB)opens in new window
Miller v. City of Poughkeepsie (1991)
[New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division/brief filed 12/91] — Whether the State of New York and the federal government consider “medical treatment” to include services provided by a psychologist.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 600KB)opens in new window
Mills v. Rogers (1983)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 1/83 and Massachusetts Supreme Court/brief filed 9/81] — Whether a patient institutionalized in a state psychiatric facility has the right to refuse the administration of antipsychotic medication.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 9.20MB)opens in new window
MKB Management Corp. (2015)
[United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit/brief filed 8/14] — Involves a challenge to North Dakota’s law that would prohibit abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 151KB)opens in new window
Moore v. Texas (2017)
[United States Supreme Court] — This case involves the question of whether a state can only use a non-clinical judicially developed means of diagnosing intellectual disability or must be guided by consensus professional standards for diagnosis.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 111KB)opens in new window
Moore v. Texas - Remand (2018)
[Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas] — This case involves the question of whether a state can only use a non-clinical judicially developed means of diagnosing intellectual disability or must be guided by consensus professional standards for diagnosis.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 535KB)opens in new window
Moore v. Texas - II (2019)
[United States Supreme Court] — This case involves the question of whether a state can only use a non-clinical judicially developed means of diagnosing intellectual disability or must be guided by consensus professional standards for diagnosis.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 212KB)opens in new window
National Kidney Patient's Association v. Sullivan (1993)
[U.S. Supreme Court brief in support of a petition for certiorari/brief filed 12/92] — Whether health care providers and Medicare beneficiaries may seek judicial review of HCFA regulations without first completing lengthy administrative review process by HCFA.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 234KB)opens in new window
Netchoice, LLC v. Rob Bonta (Pending)
[United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit /brief filed 12/23] — This case involves a challenge the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act which requires social media platforms to comply with a specific set of rules with respect to online products, features, and services that are likely to be accessed by children – defined as any user under the age of 18. This includes obligations such as estimating the age of child users, configuring default privacy settings to the highest level, and completing a data protection impact assessment before any new products, services or features are made publicly available.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 328KB)opens in new window
New Jersey v. Kelly (1984)
[New Jersey Supreme Court/brief filed 4/83] — Whether expert testimony on battered women's syndrome is admissible to help establish claims of self-defense in a murder case (Parallels case of Hawthorne v. Florida).
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 660KB)opens in new window
New York v. Uplinger (1984)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 12/83] — Whether a New York Loitering law that prohibited loitering for the purpose of engaging in “deviate” sexual intercourse was unconstitutional.
Full-text of amicus brief (PDF, 1.4MB)opens in new window
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
[Supreme Court of the United States/brief filed 3/15] — At issue is a challenge to the laws against same-sex in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 167KB)opens in new window
Obergefell v. Hodges (2014)
[6th Circuit Court of Appeals/brief filed 5/14] — At issue is a federal challenge to the laws against same-sex marriage in Ohio.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 506KB)opens in new window
Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. (and Hodgson v. State of Minnesota ) (1990)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 9/89] — Whether an Ohio statute which prohibited a physician from performing an abortion upon a minor unless notice was provided to one of the minor's parents.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 746KB)opens in new window
Olmstead v. L.C. (1999)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 3/99] — Whether the Americans With Disabilities Act compels a state to provide treatment for mentally disabled patients in a community placement rather than a state mental institution when that is an appropriate treatment option.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1MB)opens in new window
Oregon v. Miller (1985)
[Oregon Supreme Court/brief filed 12/84] — Whether psychotherapist-patient privilege extended to a receptionist and to statements made to a psychiatrist that were not for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 539KB)opens in new window
Otto v. City of Boca Raton (2020)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit/brief filed 6/19] — Involves a challenge to laws in Boca Raton and Palm Beach, Florida, banning mental health providers from engaging in sexual orientation conversion therapy with minor patients.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 3.5MB)
Panetti v. Quarterman (2007)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 2/07] — At issue is the appropriate standard for determining the level of mental illness that should preclude execution, as well as the issue of how to define the factors that should be assessed in such a case.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 147KB)opens in new window
Parents v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson Co. Board of Education (2007)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 10/06] — The consolidated cases involve voluntary desegregation plans in Kentucky and Seattle K-12 public school systems that use race as a factor in some instances when assigning children to particular schools or programs within schools.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 457KB)opens in new window
Patrick v. Burget (1989)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 11/87] — Whether the conduct of hospital peer committees with the power to grant hospital privileges were absolutely immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1.78MB)opens in new window
Payne v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2016)
[Supreme Court of Virginia/brief filed 6/16] — At issue is the science supporting a jury instruction on a reliability of eyewitness testimony.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 208KB)
Penry v. Lynaugh (1988)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 9/88] — Whether mentally retarded individuals possess the moral culpability to be subjected to the death penalty.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1.03MB)opens in new window
People v. Boone (2017)
[State of New York Court of Appeals/brief filed 3/17] — Where the state introduces eyewitness-identification evidence and the witness is of a different race from the defendant, the court must give a jury instruction informing jurors that, as a matter of scientific consensus, cross-race witness identifications are less reliable than same-race identifications.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 320KB)opens in new window
People v. Gil (1998)
[New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division/brief filed 7/97] — Whether cognitive research evidence and expert testimony regarding laypersons' beliefs concerning physics was admissible in a murder trial.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 230KB)opens in new window
People v. Ogden (Pending)
[New York Court of Appeals/brief filed 08/03/2026] — Whether adolescent cognitive and psychosocial development affects a juvenile defendant’s ability to knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive appellate rights when entering a guilty plea.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 479KB)opens in new window
People v Samuels (2024)
[Supreme Court of Michigan/brief filed 12/23] — Whether a trial court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of a guilty plea that is induced in part by an offer of leniency to a relative, and if so, how a trial court is to determine whether an offer of leniency to a relative “rendered the defendant’s plea involuntary in fact.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 252KB)opens in new window
People v. Thomas (2014)
[State of New York Court of Appeals/brief filed 11/13] — Whether the State of New York should allow expert testimony on the body of research addressing risk factors for false confessions.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 218KB)opens in new window
People v. Thomas ( 2017)
[Michigan Supreme Court/brief filed 9/17] — Whether the single photograph-identification procedure used by the officers created a substantial likelihood of misidentification, and thus violated the defendant’s right to due process.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 194KB)
People v. Wright (2025)
[Court of Appeals of the State of New York/brief filed 04/25/2025] — Whether an “independent source” for an eyewitness identification can be established when the witness was previously exposed to a suggestive procedure and did not identify the defendant in a lineup
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 417KB)opens in new window
Perry v. New Hampshire (2012)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 8/11] — Addresses the admissibility of expert testimony on research regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 123KB)opens in new window
Perry v. New Hampshire (2012)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 8/11] — Addresses the admissibility of expert testimony on research regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 123KB)opens in new window
Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2012)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit/brief filed 10/10] — Addresses a challenge to Proposition 8 (or the California Marriage Protection Act), a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the 2008 state elections which provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1.2MB)opens in new window
Phillipos v. United States (2017)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit/brief filed 5/17] — Admissibility of expert testimony on the body of research addressing risk factors for false confessions.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 581KB)opens in new window
Planned Parenthood v. Rounds
[United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit/brief submitted 4/10 but not accepted] — Addresses the constitutionality of a South Dakota statute that required physicians to warn women considering an abortion that suicide or suicidal ideation are known medical risks of abortion.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 106KB)opens in new window
Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 3/92] — Whether (1) the challenged provisions of Pennsylvania's abortion statute are constitutional, and (2) the standard of review established under Roe v. Wade for regulations restricting abortion remained the law of the land.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 512KB)opens in new window
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 6/88] — Whether social psychological research and expert testimony regarding sex-role stereotyping is sufficient to support a finding of sex-discrimination in a Title VII (mixed motivation) case.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 493KB)opens in new window
Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) v. University of Washington (1994)
[Washington Supreme Court/brief filed 7/93] — Whether unfunded grant proposals submitted to a federal agency are protected from disclosure by federal preemption and the researcher's First Amendment right of academic freedom.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 173KB)opens in new window
Riese v. St. Mary's Hospital & Medical Center (1988)
[California Supreme Court/brief filed 8/88] — Whether civilly committed mental patients could refuse the administration of antipsychotic medication absent a judicial determination of incompetence.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 566KB)opens in new window
Rivera v. Illinois (2011)
[Appellate Court of Illinois, Second Judicial District/brief filed 7/10] — At issue before the Court is the reliability of a legally voluntary confession in light of new evidence of innocence.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1.2MB)opens in new window
Rivers v. Katz (and Grassi v. Acrish) (1986)
[New York Court of Appeals/brief filed 2/86] — Whether involuntarily committed mental patients, who have not been formally adjudicated to be incompetent, can refuse antipsychotic medication.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 407KB)opens in new window
Robicheaux v. Caldwell (2015)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit/brief filed 10/14] — Involves a federal challenge to the laws against same-sex marriage in Louisiana.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 125KB)opens in new window
Romer v. Evans (1996)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 6/95] — Whether an enacted state constitutional amendment prohibiting the State and all local governmental entities from enacting, adopting or enforcing any law or policy protecting lesbians, gay men and bisexuals from discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it burdens the fundamental right of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals to seek such legal protections.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 550KB)opens in new window
Rone v. Fireman (1979)
[U.S. District Ct., Northern District, Eastern Div./brief filed 1//78] — Whether the State had an obligation to treat persons confined to state mental hospitals in the least restrictive setting.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 182KB)opens in new window
Roper v. Simmons (2005)
[U.S. Supreme Court/filed 7/04] — Whether the imposition of the death penalty on an individual who was 17 years old when he committed a murder constitutes “cruel and unusual” punishment, and is thus barred by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 222KB)opens in new window
Samuels v. New York State Department of Health (2006)
[New York Appellate Division: Third Department/Brief filed 5/05] — Addresses a constitutional challenge to New York’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 281KB)opens in new window
San Francisco v. Sheehan (2015)
[United States Supreme Court/brief filed 2/15] — Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act requires police officers to make reasonable accommodations when arresting an armed intellectually disabled individual.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 218KB)opens in new window
Schudel v. General Electric (1997)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit/brief filed 7/95] — Whether neuropsychologists are competent to testify on issues pertaining to causation of an “organic” mental condition.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 189KB)opens in new window
Schwarzenegger v. Plata and Coleman [Docket No. 09-1233]
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 11/10] — At issue is a lengthy class action case by California prisoners who are mentally ill challenging the conditions of their imprisonment due to overcrowding, including lack of adequate mental health services.
Full-Text amicus brief (PDF, 120KB)opens in new window
Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 12/19/02] — This case addresses whether a criminal defendant should be involuntary medicated for the purpose of restoring the defendant to competency so that he can stand trial.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 2.1MB)opens in new window
Sevcik v. Sandoval and Jackson v. Abercrombie (2014)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit/brief filed 10/13] — Challenges whether the Equal Protection clause of the states (Nevada and Hawaii) does not prohibit the state from limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 140KB)opens in new window
Shields v. Madigan (2006)
[New York Appellate Division: Second Department/Brief filed 7/05] — Addresses a constitutional challenge to New York’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 2.1MB)opens in new window
Smith v. Murray (1986)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 12/85 under Smith v. Sielaff ] — Whether information the defendant provides to a mental health professional for the purpose of diagnosis or assessment incident to preparing a defense to a charge of a capital offense can be used against him by the State to establish an aggravating circumstance during the death penalty phase.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 373KB)opens in new window
Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp. (1992)
[California Supreme Court/APA filed 1/92 letter in support of cert. petition. Although review was granted, the case was settled in 7/93 without an APA brief filed] — Whether certain portions of the MMPI and the California Psychological Inventory administered to job applicants (i.e., questions that facially and in isolation suggest they are related to religious and sexual matters) violate the privacy provisions of the California Constitution and certain antidiscrimination laws.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 37KB)opens in new window
State of Connecticut v. Troy Artis (2014)
[Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut/brief filed 10/13] — Challenges whether the Appellate Court majority properly determined that admission of the victim’s in-court and out-of-court identifications following a suggestive police display of the defendant’s photograph was a reversible due process violation.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 200KB)opens in new window
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003)
[U.S. Supreme Court /brief filed 2/18/03] — This case involves the validity of a California statute that retroactively expanded the statute of limitations for certain sex offenses (i.e., the rape and molestation of children).
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 307KB)opens in new window
Stover v. State of Georgia (1986)
[Georgia Supreme Court/brief filed 11/86] — Whether a state anti-sodomy law criminally prohibiting oral sex was constitutional.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 348KB)opens in new window
Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard College (2023)
[U.S. Supreme Court Court/brief filed 8/22] — (1) Should the Supreme Court decide that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions, thus overruling its previous decision in Grutter v. Bollinger ? (2) Does the University’s race-conscious admissions process violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Asian American applicants and favoring White applicants?
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 222KB)opens in new window
Texas v. Morales (1994)
[Texas Court of Appeals/brief filed 1/92 and Texas Supreme Court/brief filed 12/92] — Whether the equal protection and due process components of the Texas Constitution prohibit criminalization of consensual homosexual sodomy among adults in private.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 329KB)opens in new window
Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1986)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 8/85] — Whether a Pennsylvania state law that required physicians to inform women contemplating an abortion of the detrimental physical and psychological effects was constitutional.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 371KB)opens in new window
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)
[U.S. Supreme Court Court/brief filed 8/22] — Involves a challenge to Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA” or Act”) which prohibits “public accommodations” (e.g., retail stores, rental establishments, service establishments, educational institutions, recreation facilities) from discriminating against members of the public based on their sexual orientation, among other protected characteristics.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 229KB)opens in new window
Tingley v. Ferguson (2022)
[U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit/brief filed 1/22] — Involves a legal challenge to Washington state’s ban on conversion therapy, either seeking to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, on minors.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 447KB)opens in new window
U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. (2024)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 1/24] — Involves a challenge to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s approval of mifepristone used for medication abortion based in part on allegations by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) that medication abortion causes women physical and mental health harms.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 277KB)opens in new window
United States v. Brawner (1972)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia/brief filed 5/71] — Whether in insanity defense cases (1) the medical model should be abandoned, and (2) the results of psychological tests like the Rorschach should be admissible.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 649KB)opens in new window
United States v. Byers (1982)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia/brief filed 10/81] — Whether a prosecution-requested, court-ordered clinical interview conducted in custodial confinement of a criminal defendant who was offering an insanity defense endangered the privilege against self-incrimination protected by the Fifth Amendment and the right to assistance of counsel protected by the Sixth Amendment.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 608KB)opens in new window
United States v. Charters (1988)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit/brief filed 6/88] — Whether a hospitalized patient has a federal constitutional right to refuse antipsychotic drugs unless the patient has been found incompetent to make treatment decisions or is imminently dangerous to self or others.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 510KB)opens in new window
United States v. Fields (2007)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit/brief filed 4/05] — Addresses the reliability of expert testimony in a death penalty case.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 2MB)opens in new window
United States v. Gomes (2002)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit/brief filed 9/01] — Addresses whether a criminal defendant can be involuntarily medicated in order to restore the defendant to competency.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 119KB)opens in new window
United States v. Leatherman (1984)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia/brief filed 11/83] (case dismissed when Leatherman escaped from hospital in 2/84) — Addresses Whether a prisoner found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed for treatment can refuse antipsychotic medications.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 485KB)opens in new window
United States v. Lyons (1984)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District/brief filed 11/83] — Whether evidence of drug addiction should be admitted when the defendant raises an insanity defense.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 892KB)opens in new window
United States v. Skrmetti (2025)
[Supreme Court of the United States filed 9/24] — the Supreme Court accepted a case for consideration at its upcoming term which would require the Court to consider the legality of bans on gender-affirming care for minors imposed by state legislative regimes.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 600KB)opens in new window
United States v. Windsor (2013)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 3/13] — At challenge is the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the term “marriage,” for all federal purposes, as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,” and thus requires the federal government to disregard marriages of same-sex couples
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 182KB)opens in new window
Varnum v. Brien (2009)
[Iowa Supreme Court/brief filed 5/08] — Addresses a constitutional challenge to Iowa’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 843KB)opens in new window
Virginia Academy of Clinical Psychologists v. Blue Shield of Virginia (1980)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit/brief filed 7/79] — Whether a health insurance company's refusal to provide direct payments to clinical psychologists for outpatient psychological services rendered to the company's subscribers unless those services were ordered, supervised, and billed by a physician violated the Sherman Act and “Virginia's “freedom of choice” legislation.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 767KB)opens in new window
Warney v. New York (2011)
[New York State Court of Appeals, Appellate Division, Fourth Department/brief filed 7/10] — At issue before the Court is the reliability of a legally voluntary confession in light of new evidence of innocence.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 138KB)opens in new window
Washington v. Baker (Pending)
[Supreme Court of Washington/brief filed 9/26] – Whether first-time in-court eyewitness identifications, particularly those following initial non-identifications, are sufficiently reliable to satisfy due-process principles.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 306KB)opens in new window
Washington v. Harper (1990)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 6/89] — Whether a prisoner in a correctional facility has the right to refuse the administration of psychotropic drugs.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 449KB)opens in new window
Watkins v. United States Army (1989)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit/brief filed 8/88] — Whether U.S. Army regulations requiring the discharge of lesbians and gay men and barring them from reenlisting were unconstitutional.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1.5MB)opens in new window
Watson v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2019)
[Virginia Supreme Court/brief file 6/19] — At issue is the exclusion of jury instruction regarding the psychological science related to the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the appropriateness of allowing psychologist expert testimony regarding research related to eyewitness confidence.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 640KB)opens in new window
Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust (1988)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 9/87] — Whether the use of non-validated employment assessment tools violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 644KB)opens in new window
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 3/89] — Whether a state statute that comprehensively regulated abortion was unconstitutional.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 887KB)opens in new window
Williamson v. Liptzin, 539 S.E. 2d 313 (2000)
[Court of Appeals of North Carolina/brief filed 2/00] — Whether public policy supports the extension of the law of proximate causation to allow liability in this case concerning negligence by a mental health professional.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 130KB)opens in new window
Windsor v. United States (2012)
[U.S. Court of Appeals from the Second Circuit/brief filed 9/7/2012] — At challenge is the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the term 'marriage,' for all federal purposes, as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and thus requires the federal government to disregard marriages of same-sex couples.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 171KB)opens in new window
Wit v. United Behavioral Health I (2022)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit/brief filed 4/22] — Whether a health insurer is in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when it ignores generally accepted medical standards and uses its own cost-based guidelines to determine what behavioral health services constitute a “medically necessary” service that will be covered by the plan.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 212KB)opens in new window
Wit v. United Behavioral Health II (2022)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit/brief filed 3/23]— Reconsideration of 9th Circuit’s reversal of the District Court’s decision that when developing medical necessity standards for mental health, UBH must follow generally accepted standards of care developed by professional associations and the community—instead of prioritizing its own financial bottom line.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 346KB)opens in new window
Wright v. Pennsylvania (2011)
[Supreme Court of Pennsylvania/brief filed 11/08] — Involves the lower courts’ interpretation that the Post Conviction DNA testing statute (which governs when convicted felons can have potentially exonerating DNA tests performed) does not allow access to DNA testing, if there has been a “voluntary” confession in the case.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1.3MB)opens in new window
Wyatt v. Aderholt (1973)
[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit/brief filed 11/72] — Whether (1) mentally impaired individuals who are involuntarily confined in state institutions have the right to treatment and (2) confinement without treatment deprives such individuals of their constitutional rights.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 1.4MB)opens in new window
Youngberg v. Romero (1982)
[U.S. Supreme Court/brief filed 9/81] — Whether mentally retarded residents of state hospitals have the constitutional right to be free from undue bodily restraint, the right to personal security and protection, and the right to adequate treatment.
Full-text amicus brief (PDF, 735KB)opens in new window