No thank you. Brief for an Amicus Curiae. Rule Brief for an Amicus Curiae Primary tabs 1. An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court.
An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored. An amicus curiae brief may be filed only by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court as provided in Rule 5. An amicus curiae brief in support of a petitioner or appellant shall be filed within 30 days after the case is placed on the docket or a response is called for by the Court, whichever is later, and that time will not be extended. An amicus curiae brief in support of a motion of a plaintiff for leave to file a bill of complaint in an original action shall be filed within 60 days after the case is placed on the docket, and that time will not be extended.
An amicus curiae brief in support of a respondent, an appellee, or a defendant shall be submitted within the time allowed for filing a brief in opposition or a motion to dismiss or affirm. An amicus curiae filing a brief under this subparagraph shall ensure that the counsel of record for all parties receive notice of its intention to file an amicus curiae brief at least 10 days prior to the due date for the amicus curiae brief, unless the amicus curiae brief is filed earlier than 10 days before the due date.
Only one signatory to any amicus curiae brief filed jointly by more than one amicus curiae must timely notify the parties of its intent to file that brief. The amicus curiae brief shall indicate that counsel of record received timely notice of the intent to file the brief under this Rule and shall specify whether consent was granted, and its cover shall identify the party supported.
Only one signatory to an amicus curiae brief filed jointly by more than one amicus curiae must obtain consent of the parties to file that brief. A petitioner or respondent may submit to the Clerk a letter granting blanket consent to amicus curiae briefs, stating that the party consents to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either or of neither party.
United States v. Jones :. The U. Court of Appeals for the D. United States That test reverses the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment by putting the onus on citizens to prove the reasonableness of their expectations instead of examining the reasonableness of government action. Similarly, using his car to collect information and track Jones became an unreasonable search.
Outcome : The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the government, on three different theories. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for five justices, held that installing the GPS device was a trespass intended to obtain personal information and thus constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for four justices, found a conventional privacy violation under the Katz test.
Windsor :. Edith Windsor, the plaintiff, was in a relationship with Thea Spyer for more than four decades when they legally married in Canada in Windsor sued for a refund of the tax money. The equal protection principle forbids the federal government from arbitrarily disfavoring a class of individuals under the law, the brief argued, which Section 3 did by discriminating against lawfully married individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.
DOMA was motivated by prejudice against homosexuals and in no way furthered any legitimate federal goals. This was a trailblazing decision and an important step on the road to equal rights for the LGBT community. Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus :. Believe it or not, it was illegal in Ohio to lie about politicians, for politicians to lie about other politicians, or for politicians to lie about themselves. While the complaint was ultimately dropped, the SBA List took Driehaus and the OEC to federal court, seeking to have this law declared unconstitutional and thus enable advocacy groups to have more freedom going forward.
Joined by legendary satirist P. Expressions Hair Design v. By mandating how merchants convey their pricing structure, New York restricts speech on the basis of its content, which seems to be an obvious First Amendment violation. A district court agreed — as have two other federal courts, including the Eleventh Circuit when it struck down a similar Florida law. Live Now. City of Chicago : In , in District of Columbia v. Driehaus : Believe it or not, it was illegal in Ohio to lie about politicians, for politicians to lie about other politicians, or for politicians to lie about themselves.
0コメント