AARP Foundation Litigation: Our Current and Recent Amicus Briefs

Delivery drivers and forced arbitration: Flowers Foods v. Brock (U.S. Supreme Court)

Status: Decided May 28, 2026. The Supreme Court protected delivery drivers from forced arbitration.

Last-mile delivery drivers sued over unpaid wages and labor violations. The question was whether they could take their employer to court or could be forced into private arbitration. AARP Foundation argued the drivers should keep their right to go to court, a protection that matters for the many older workers in trucking and delivery.

Case: Flowers Foods, Inc. et al. v. Brock · Supreme Court of the United States · Docket 24-935 · Brief filed January 22, 2026

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s decision (PDF) · SCOTUS Protects Truckers from Forced Arbitration

AI hiring tools and age bias: Mobley v. Workday (California)

Status: Decided March 6, 2026. The Court ruled that applicants may bring hiring claims under the federal age discrimination law.

Job applicants allege that Workday’s AI-powered screening tools unfairly filter out older candidates. The question was whether federal age discrimination law protects job applicants from hiring practices that screen them out, or only current employees. AARP Foundation argued that applicants are protected.

Case: Mobley et al. v. Workday, Inc. · U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · Docket 3:23-cv-00770-RFL · Brief filed February 12, 2026

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · [Court’s decision (PDF): LINK NEEDED] · Age Bias and Labor Law Impacting Older Workers

Proving age discrimination: Gallagher v. Central Valley School District (Third Circuit)

Status: Decided March 6, 2026. The Third Circuit held that the district court properly weighed the evidence of age discrimination as a whole in this case.

An older worker who was passed over for a job offered several pieces of evidence of age discrimination. The question was whether courts must weigh that evidence as a whole, rather than dismissing each piece on its own. AARP Foundation argued that courts must look at the whole picture.

Case: Gallagher v. Central Valley School District · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Docket 24-2757 · Brief filed March 12, 2025

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s decision (PDF)

Joining group workplace lawsuits: Richards v. Eli Lilly (Seventh Circuit)

Status: Decided August 5, 2025. The Seventh Circuit established a new process for certifying collective actions for lawsuits brought in that geographic area.

In age discrimination and wage-and-hour collective actions, workers must be notified about the case before they can join it. The question was whether courts should keep the traditional two-step process or adopt a stricter standard that makes it harder for older workers to learn about and join these lawsuits. AARP Foundation urged the court to keep the traditional process.

Case: Richards et al. v. Eli Lilly & Company et al. · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Docket 24-2574 · Brief filed December 4, 2024

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s decision (PDF) · SCOTUS Inaction Fractures Worker Collective Actions

Retiree benefits and disability discrimination: Stanley v. City of Sanford (U.S. Supreme Court)

Status: Decided June 20, 2025. The Supreme Court limited Americans with Disabilities Act protections for retirees.

A retired city employee challenged a cut to retiree health benefits she had earned while working. The question was whether former employees can sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act over discrimination in benefits they earned on the job. AARP Foundation argued that they should be able to do so.

Case: Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida · Supreme Court of the United States · Docket 23-997 · Brief filed September 23, 2024

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s decision (PDF) · Supreme Court Limits ADA Protections for Retirees

 

Housing and home equity

Renters who use housing vouchers: Lucinda LC v. Jones (Fourth Circuit)

Status: Brief filed; awaiting decision.

Virginia law bars landlords from turning away renters because they pay part of their rent with a government housing voucher. Landlords challenged the law. AARP Foundation urged the court to uphold it, protecting older renters who rely on vouchers.

Case: Lucinda LC et al. v. Jones et al. · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Docket 26-01442 · Brief filed July 22, 2026

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF)

Home equity after tax foreclosure: Pung v. Isabella County (U.S. Supreme Court)

Status: Decided June 23, 2026. The Supreme Court limited the compensation owed to homeowners after tax foreclosures.

When a county forecloses on a home over unpaid taxes and sells it, the former owner is owed the value left over after the debt. The question was whether that amount should be based on a low auction price or the home’s fair market value. AARP Foundation argued for fair market value, so older homeowners don’t lose decades of built-up equity.

Case: Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan · Supreme Court of the United States · Docket 25-95 · Brief filed December 8, 2025

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s decision (PDF) · SCOTUS Limits Just Compensation in Tax Foreclosures

Recovering home equity after tax foreclosure: Western States Land Reliance Trust v. Linn County (Oregon)

Status: Decided September 4, 2025. The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the county acted improperly by keeping the surplus money after a home foreclosure, but ruled that the claim was untimely filed. Appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court; awaiting decision.

An Oregon county sold a foreclosed home for unpaid taxes and kept the money left over after the debt was paid, which can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The question is whether, and how, the former owner can get that money back. AARP Foundation argued that the government must return it, so older homeowners don’t lose their life savings.

• Oregon Supreme Court · Dockets A184258 & S072331 · Brief filed January 5, 2026 · AARP Foundation brief (PDF)
• Oregon Court of Appeals · Docket 24-cv-06966 · Brief filed November 29, 2024 · Decided September 4, 2025 · AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s decision (PDF)

Read more: SCOTUS Limits Just Compensation in Tax Foreclosures

Assisted living “community fees”: Ryan v. Mary Ann Morse Healthcare (Massachusetts)

Status: Decided March 13, 2026. The Court found that assisted living centers did not have to refund “community fees” to its residents because the fees relate to specific assisted living services, distinct from standard landlord-tenant fees.

Many assisted living centers charge new residents a large, non-refundable upfront “community fee.” The question was whether a center must return those fees under the Massachusetts tenant protection law when it doesn’t track how the money is spent. AARP Foundation argued that the fees must be returned, so a lack of record-keeping can’t become a loophole.

Case: Ryan et al. v. Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corporation · Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Docket SJC-13726 · Brief filed October 23, 2025

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s decision (PDF)

Disability accommodations in senior living: McGinn v. Broadmead (Fourth Circuit)

Status: Decided February 18, 2026. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the plaintiff’s accommodation claim because she failed to bring the lawsuit in a timely manner. 

A resident of a retirement community has a medical condition that keeps her from safely eating the food served under its mandatory meal plan. The question was whether the Fair Housing Act requires the community to waive those costs as a reasonable accommodation. AARP Foundation argued that it does.

Case: McGinn v. Broadmead, Inc. · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Docket 25-1028 · Brief filed March 26, 2025

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s decision (PDF)

Fair housing rules and homeowners insurance: National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies v. HUD (D.C. Circuit)

Status: Brief filed; awaiting decision. 

Federal fair housing rules bar practices that have a discriminatory effect, even when unintended. Insurers argued homeowners insurance should be exempt. AARP Foundation urged the court to apply the rules to insurers so they can be held accountable for policies that create unfair disparities in housing.

Case: National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development et al. · U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · Docket 23-5275 · Brief filed July 10, 2024

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF)

 

Consumer protection, courts and voting

Groups’ ability to go to court for their members: Citizens Action Coalition v. Duke Energy Indiana (Indiana)

Status: Brief filed; awaiting decision.

Associational standing lets an organization go to court on behalf of its members, so individuals don’t each have to sue on their own. The Indiana Supreme Court is deciding whether to recognize this doctrine in state courts, in a case involving Duke Energy Indiana and the state’s utility regulator. AARP Foundation argued that associational standing keeps justice accessible and affordable for older adults.

Case: Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana & Vote Solar v. Duke Energy Indiana, LLC & Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission · Supreme Court of Indiana · Docket 26S-EX-00127 · Brief filed July 30, 2026

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF)

Keeping class actions available: LabCorp v. Davis (U.S. Supreme Court)

Status: Decided June 5, 2025. The Supreme Court dismissed the case as improvidently granted.

The question was whether a class action can go forward when some class members may not have been harmed, or whether every member must prove an individual injury at the start of the case. AARP Foundation argued that such a requirement would block the class actions older adults rely on to fight widespread consumer fraud and mistreatment in nursing homes.

Case: Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis et al. · Supreme Court of the United States · Docket 24-304 · Brief filed April 7, 2025

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s decision (PDF) · Absent Class Member Standing Threatens Class Actions

Group lawsuits over defective products: Speerly v. General Motors (Sixth Circuit)

Status: Decided June 27, 2025. The Sixth Circuit rejected certification of a large, multi-state class action and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings on whether smaller, more tailored classes could move forward.

Car owners sued General Motors as a group, saying they overpaid for vehicles with a defect. The question was whether each owner must show the defect personally affected them before the group can sue. AARP Foundation argued that class actions should remain available since older adults use them to challenge corporate misconduct such as understaffing in long-term care.

Case: Speerly et al. v. General Motors LLC · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Docket 23-1940 · Brief filed March 5, 2025

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s decision (PDF) · Supreme Court Case Could Reshape Access to Justice

Life insurance canceled after a missed payment: Farley v. Lincoln Benefit Life (Ninth Circuit)

Status: Decided August 29, 2025. The Ninth Circuit held that policyholders must prove that an insurer’s failure to provide the required notices actually caused harm.

Life insurers must send warning notices before canceling a policy over a missed premium. The question was whether families must prove they would have paid if they had been warned, or whether the insurer’s failure to send the notices keeps the policy in force. AARP Foundation argued the policies stay in force so older adults don’t lose decades of coverage over one missed payment.

Case: Farley v. Lincoln Benefit Life Company · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Docket 23-16224 · Brief filed April 29, 2024

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s decision (PDF)

Life insurance canceled without notice: Poe v. Northwestern Mutual (Ninth Circuit)

Status: Decided March 4, 2025. The Ninth Circuit held that policyholders must prove that an insurer’s failure to provide the required notices actually caused harm.

Policyholders say Northwestern Mutual canceled life insurance policies without sending legally required warning notices. The question was whether the insurer could defeat the class action by arguing its failure didn’t cause the policies to end. AARP Foundation argued that failing to send the notices makes the cancellations unlawful.

Case: Poe et al. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Dockets 23-3124 & 23-3243 · Brief filed March 15, 2024

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s memorandum decision (PDF)

Affordable phone and internet service: FCC v. Consumers’ Research (U.S. Supreme Court)

Status: Decided June 27, 2025. The Supreme Court upheld the Universal Service Fund.

The FCC’s Universal Service Fund helps pay for phone, internet and telehealth service for low-income and rural households. Challengers argued the program is unconstitutional. AARP Foundation urged the Court to uphold it, protecting older adults from isolation and preserving their access to 911.

Case: Federal Communications Commission et al. v. Consumers’ Research et al. & Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition et al. v. Consumers’ Research et al. · Supreme Court of the United States · Dockets 24-354 & 24-422 · Brief filed January 16, 2025

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s decision (PDF) · Supreme Court Preserves Affordable Internet Access

Mail-in ballot rejections: United States v. Paxton (Fifth Circuit)

Status: Decided August 4, 2025. The Fifth Circuit held that the Texas state ID requirement for mail-in ballots complies with federal civil rights law.

Texas law lets officials reject mail-in ballots when an ID number doesn’t match state records, even when the voter is eligible. The question was whether that state law violates federal civil rights law. AARP Foundation argued that it does, because the rule threatens to disenfranchise older voters and voters with disabilities who rely on voting by mail.

Case: United States et al. v. Paxton et al. · U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Docket 23-50885 · Brief filed August 19, 2024

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s decision (PDF) · Supreme Court: Voting Rights Legal Challenges

The consumer watchdog’s funding: CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association (U.S. Supreme Court)

Status: Decided May 16, 2024. The Supreme Court ruled that the CFPB's funding is constitutional.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau enforces rules against predatory lending and financial fraud. Lending industry groups argued that the way the agency is funded is unconstitutional. AARP Foundation urged the Court to uphold the funding so the agency can keep protecting older Americans’ savings.

Case: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau et al. v. Community Financial Services Association of America et al. · Supreme Court of the United States · Docket 22-448 · Brief filed May 15, 2023

Read more: AARP Foundation brief (PDF) · Court’s decision (PDF) · Supreme Court Case: Is CFPB Funding Constitutional?