In a motion filed Wednesday, the two nonprofit organizations argued there is a "chasm" between Title VII employment protections guaranteed to everyone but judiciary employees in the United States and the judiciary's employment dispute resolution, or EDR, plan, which is intended to address sex and gender harassment and discrimination.
"[A] ruling adverse to the petitioner would permit sexual harassment and discrimination to remain relatively unchecked in the federal judiciary, not only harming all employees of the federal judiciary, but severely impacting all those with ties to the legal profession who may someday pursue such employment," the nonprofits said.
Strickland, a former assistant public defender in the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of North Carolina, first sued the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Fourth Circuit and several individuals in 2020.
She alleged that judiciary officials mismanaged her report about a supervisor's unwanted sexual advances, leading her to quit in 2019. She called into question the judiciary's employment dispute resolution plan and how it polices itself for employment discrimination.
After three years of litigation, in December 2023 the case went to a bench trial, in which a federal judge found that she received the process she was due.
After the Fourth Circuit agreed in August 2025, Strickland soon appealed, petitioning not only for a panel rehearing, but also a chance to unseal certain documents, including the government's unredacted motion to strike Strickland's privilege assertion.
In a short order in December, three circuit judges eventually decided that not only did the federal government raise "the better argument," but Strickland's argument premised on the withdrawal of her legal team was not "overlooked or misapprehended" previously. Accordingly, the judges denied Strickland's petition for a panel rehearing and related motions.
In May, Strickland petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. She argued that the Fourth Circuit's decision was wrong and that the EDR process is flawed.
"The nature of these flaws, by the plain language of relevant statutes and subsequent court decisions, [was] so severe as to render the entire process violative of Ms. Strickland's constitutional and statutory rights," her counsel wrote.
In their filing, the Georgia Association for Women Lawyers and Legal Accountability Project say they support Strickland's petition. They hope to comment on the case because they both serve the interests of those employed by the federal judiciary and the legal profession as a whole.
The nonprofits say they both regularly interact with those who will be most strongly impacted by the court's decision in the case and say those who they serve share a "strong interest in eradicating harassment and discrimination in the federal judiciary."
The GAWL and LAP argued that federal judiciary employees face "carveouts" from Title VII rights that other employees across the country receive. Those carveouts have led to a "pervasive and persistent problem with sexual harassment and discrimination" within the federal judiciary.
"Such employees are granted only one option: pursue claims of discrimination and harassment through the judiciary's EDR Plan — a system designed and administered by the judiciary itself," the nonprofits said.
The organizations say Strickland has asserted a good-faith claim of sexual harassment against her supervisor, yet she's been repeatedly denied a remedy.
"Petitioner's experience demonstrates how the existing protections (or, rather, lack thereof) fail employees who report harassment and will likely discourage future reporting by others pursuing careers in the federal judiciary. This court must rectify this gross injustice perpetuated by improper application of law," the nonprofits said.
They added that Strickland's experience demonstrates why federal judiciary employees who report harassment face an investigatory process that involves breaches of confidentiality, inadequate training of investigators, delayed responses and conflicts of interest.
Additionally, they said, employees' fear of retaliation and adverse career impacts may cause others to remain silent.
"Current EDR processes create a closed system in which victims are denied the right to an impartial decision-maker. The result is predictable — employees harbor distrust in the processes available, do not report misconduct out of fear of retaliation or inadequate recourse, and either endure hostile conditions or leave the judiciary entirely," they said.
Strickland is represented by Paul Robert Koster of the Emory Law School Supreme Court Advocacy Program.
The federal government is represented by D. John Sauer of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The nonprofits are represented by Kareemah LaDearah Lewis of the Georgia Association for Women Lawyers Inc.
The case is Caryn Devins Strickland, Petitioner v. Nancy L. Moritz, Judge, In Her Official Capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources, et al., case number 25-1303, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
--Additional reporting by Abigail Harrison. Editing by Rich Mills.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
