With Election Day approaching, voting rights are again at the center of national conversations about democracy and civic participation. For WilmerHale Partner Brittany Amadi, a recent pro bono victory in Virginia underscores how creative lawyering and a commitment to public service can help expand access to the ballot box. Working alongside partners including Protect Democracy and the ACLU of Virginia, a WilmerHale team secured a landmark ruling challenging Virginia's longstanding felony disenfranchisement scheme through a novel legal theory grounded in a Reconstruction era federal statute.
Brittany is based in the firm’s Washington DC office and was recently named to the Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll, recognizing attorneys who dedicate significant pro bono service to expanding access to justice in the District of Columbia.
In this Q&A, she discusses the years-long effort behind the case, why the court's decision could have implications beyond Virginia, and how pro bono work provided meaningful opportunities for attorneys across the firm to shape a significant voting rights victory.
Q: For readers who may not be familiar with the case, what was at stake and why did it matter?
Brittany Amadi: At its core, the case was about voting rights. We challenged Virginia's practice of disenfranchising individuals with felony convictions unless their voting rights were restored by the governor. That system affected thousands of people across the Commonwealth. Our goal was to show that Virginia’s practice violates a federal statute enacted after the Civil War that imposed limits on Virginia's ability to maintain those restrictions. The court ultimately agreed with our position, making this an important victory for individuals seeking a path back to civic participation.
Q: This case relied on a legal theory that had rarely been tested before. What inspired that approach?
Brittany Amadi: We wanted to look at the issue from a different angle. Over time, many of the traditional avenues for challenging disenfranchisement laws have become increasingly difficult. Our team spent significant time researching whether the Readmission Act of 1870 offered a viable path forward. What made the case especially exciting was the opportunity to develop and litigate a theory that had largely not been tested in this context. It was a reminder that sometimes meaningful legal change comes from revisiting overlooked sources of law and asking new questions.
Q: The litigation spanned several years. What stood out most about the effort behind the scenes?
Brittany Amadi: This was truly a team effort led by Robert Kingsley Smith and myself. Before the lawsuit was even filed, the team spent about a year conducting legal research, investigating potential claims and identifying the right jurisdiction. Over the course of the litigation, many different lawyers contributed to the effort through briefing, appeals, discovery and court appearances. What impressed me most was the dedication of the associates and counsel who invested countless hours in the case and helped drive it forward over many years.
Q: How does this case reflect the value of pro bono work?
Brittany Amadi: Pro bono matters allow attorneys to make a tangible difference while also gaining invaluable experience. This case created opportunities for several associates to argue in court, some for the first time in their careers. Those experiences are incredibly meaningful, both professionally and personally. It's one of the reasons pro bono work is such an important part of our culture. Attorneys can contribute to significant matters, serve communities and develop advocacy skills at the same time.
Q: Why could this decision have significance beyond Virginia?
Brittany Amadi: Virginia is not the only state with laws that restrict voting rights for individuals with felony convictions. While every state's legal framework is different, the decision may provide a precedent for examining similar issues elsewhere. More broadly, I think the case demonstrates the value of creative and thoughtful advocacy. It shows that even on longstanding issues, there may still be novel arguments worth exploring and that those arguments can have a real-world impact.
Q: What lessons do you hope young lawyers take away from this case?
Brittany Amadi: Don't be afraid to think creatively. One of the most rewarding aspects of this matter was seeing attorneys at all levels contribute ideas that helped shape the case. The legal theory we advanced came from people willing to dig into history, challenge assumptions and explore an unconventional path. No matter where you are in your career, you can play a meaningful role in achieving important outcomes if you're willing to approach problems with curiosity and persistence.