When Headlines Hit Hard: Communicating with Confidence After Supreme Court Rulings Like Ames

In this week’s episode, Sarah Larson joins Jennifer Simpson Carr to discuss how law firm leaders should communicate in the wake of high-profile legal rulings like Ames v. Ohio. They explore the impact of fear-driven headlines, how to avoid reactionary messaging, and why alignment with firm values must drive both internal and external responses.

In last week’s episode, Gina Rubel and employment lawyer Eric Meyer discussed the SCOUTS decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. Today, we’re diving into the communications considerations for law firm leaders when Supreme Court decisions like these hit the news. We’ll talk about how, when, and whether to communicate about these significant decisions with a focus on preserving trust, preventing misinformation, and reinforcing firm values.

Gina and I were attending an industry event in New York last Thursday when the Ames v. Ohio decision hit the news. Given that we were among C-level executives in the legal industry, this became a significant topic of conversation during lunch and during our networking breaks. In this case, our initial understanding was that it was a case involving employment discrimination, or “reverse-discrimination” as many headlines said, as well as a significant perceived threat to diversity, equity, and inclusion. That is a lot to process at any point, but especially when you are in the midst of a workday and trying to remain focused.

In these high-stakes situations, there may be a rush to react, especially understandably, at firms with a diverse group of employees.

What is the first thing law firm leaders should be thinking about when news such as this breaks?

We’re hearing from many law firm leaders who are grappling with this. Their employees are reading headlines about “reverse discrimination,” or they’re seeing social media posts framing Ames as the end of DEI. This creates anxiety and panic, not only in employees but also in the leadership of law firms that want to communicate a message of strength and support.

First, pause before responding. Take a breath, gather facts, and engage your internal leadership. Before making any kind of firmwide statement or reacting to headlines, you need clarity on what the ruling actually means and how it may or may not impact your existing policies. That initial pause helps ensure that any response is rooted in facts, aligned with your values, and delivered in a way that supports—not unsettles—your employees.

You mentioned headlines, which is a significant consideration in how we receive communication in a 24/7/365 news cycle. I have learned from you as a former journalist that one of the metrics for success for reporters is how much traffic their articles generate. So, understandably, that success metric translates into headlines that leverage urgency and sometimes fear. One of the challenges in moments like this is that headlines simplify extremely complex rulings. We’ve seen headlines since June 5, such as:

• “Supreme Court sides with woman claiming anti-straight job discrimination,”
• “Woman scores legal victory in ‘reverse discrimination’ suit after she was wrongly passed over for a job,” and
• “Supreme Court revives case of Ohio woman who says she was demoted because she is straight.”

Based on the case and the SCOTUS ruling, these can feel a bit misleading.

From a communications standpoint, how should law firm leaders approach the decision of when to speak up, what to say, and how to say it in a way that’s thoughtful and doesn’t feed into fear or misinformation?

It is a question we’re getting more and more from managing partners and executive committees. The reality is that headlines are designed to generate clicks, not necessarily to educate. So, when something like the Ames ruling comes out, and the first thing employees or even clients see is a phrase like “anti-straight discrimination,” it can trigger fear, confusion, or assumptions.

We advise our clients to acknowledge the noise without amplifying it. That means taking the time to communicate with facts, reinforce their firm’s core values, and offer a sense of clarity and stability.

For example, internally, this might mean a leadership message that says:

“We’re aware of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Ames v. Ohio. While some headlines are causing confusion, we want to assure you that our commitment to fair, inclusive, and merit-based practices remains unchanged. We’re reviewing the decision closely and will continue to ensure our policies reflect both legal compliance and our firm values.”

Ultimately, your role as a communicator isn’t just to inform, it’s to build trust and reduce panic by helping people process complex issues in a calm, clear, and values-aligned way.

Let’s transition to a firm’s external brand. We know that, especially in recent years, law firm leaders have come under greater external pressure to take a position on world issues, including social justice, politics, etc. In this case, it falls squarely in the legal realm with a court decision by the highest court in our country. Law firms may feel pressure to take a stand publicly, or at least clarify their position. When, if ever, is it appropriate for a law firm to speak up publicly about a decision like Ames? And what factors should guide that decision?

That’s such a nuanced question. When it comes to external communications, not every legal decision warrants a public response from a law firm.

In some cases, especially those that intersect with your firm’s values, practice areas, or client concerns, it might be appropriate to say something. The key is to be strategic, not reactive.

First, consider your audience. Are your clients reaching out with questions? Are they likely to misinterpret the decision or apply it to their own policies? If the answer is yes, then a measured, educational response such as a client alert or a blog post can be incredibly valuable. It positions your firm as a trusted guide and shows that you’re paying attention to the broader implications, not just the headlines.

Second, consider your role in the conversation. Is this an opportunity to reinforce your firm’s commitment to inclusive, merit-based practices or to offer practical legal guidance in a shifting landscape? If so, your message should be grounded in legal clarity and reflect your firm’s tone, culture, and brand voice.

And finally, consider timing and tone. You don’t have to be first; you have to be right. Take the time to get internal alignment before going public. Avoid inflammatory language, and instead focus on what the decision means, what it doesn’t mean, and how your firm is approaching the moment thoughtfully and responsibly.

Ultimately, external communication should be intentional and value-driven, not performative or reactionary. When done well, it can deepen trust with clients and reinforce your firm’s leadership in the legal and business community.

Resources:

• Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf
• Statement from EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas Celebrating the Supreme Court’s Unanimous Ruling in Ames Restoring Evenhanded Application of Title VII (June 6, 2025): https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/statement-eeoc-acting-chair-andrea-lucas-celebrating-supreme-courts-unanimous-ruling-ames
• Reverse Discrimination and the Future of DEI: What Ames Means for Employers: https://www.furiarubel.com/podcasts/reverse-discrimination-and-the-future-of-dei-what-ames-means-for-employers/
• Law Firm ERGs Under Scrutiny: Navigating Compliance, Risk, and Culture: https://www.furiarubel.com/podcasts/law-firm-ergs-under-scrutiny-navigating-compliance-risk-and-culture/
• Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM): https://www.shrm.org/home