This NAACP Amicus Brief, argues that an all-white jury, violates both the 6th Amendment right of the accused for a "fair cross section of the community in the jury pool" and the "Equal Protection Right Against Racially Discriminatory,"strikes by the prosecutor in the seating of the final jury.   The case comes from Fort Dodge, IA, but the constitutional issues impact African Americans and people of color across the entire State, including Des Moines and potentially the Nation.

This memo was filed with the Iowa Supreme Court's Jury Selection Committee, advocating for jury reforms that would increase jury diversity.

This joint NAACP Amicus Brief submits a constitutional challenge to pretextual traffic stops as a violation of the Iowa Constitution. It argues that pretextual traffic stops are an abuse of police power and also serve as the justification for racial profling.

This NAACP Amicus Brief was submitted on behalf of a class of African American plaintiffs alleging class-wide systemic disparate impact discrimination in State Government employment. The NAACP Amicus Brief makes two principal arguments:
 

     1. Plaintiffs demonstrated state-wide disparate impact in the selection to interview stage of the State of Iowa’s hiring process, a showing of particularized adverse impact sufficient to shift the burden of proving job-relatedness and the business necessity to the State Employer.

     
2. Plaintiffs’ proof that the State of Iowa failed to maintain its employment records established that the elements of its decision-making process are not capable of separation for analysis, allowing Plaintiff to prove disparate impact discrimination under Title VII by proof of adverse impact in the State’s bottom line hiring.  

The NAACP Amicus Brief filed in the Iowa Supreme Court was submitted on behalf of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and its independent civil rights enforcement efforts.  The NAACP Amicus Brief made two arguments:
 

     1. The District Court erred in holding that under the Federal Arbitration Act an employee’s private arbitration agreement is binding on a state public agency even though the agency is not a party to the agreement and even though it is charged by state law with the independent duty to enforce and prosecute violations of the Iowa Civil Rights Act. 
 

     2. The District Court erred in holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the Iowa Civil Rights Commission’s integrated prosecutorial and enforcement role that is not derivative of the individual employee’s complaint and that is integral to the enforcement of both state and federal anti-discrimination law.