Digital Commons Network^™

Brief Of Amici Curiae Administrative And Federal Regulatory Law Professors In Support Of Respondents, Andrew F. Popper

Amicus Briefs

Amici write to address the first question presented: whether Chevron should be overruled. Properly understood, it should not. Chevron has been much discussed but not always understood. On the one hand, courts have sometimes misapplied the doctrine or failed to understand its legal foundations. On the other, courts and commentators alike have criticized Chevron, often as a result of such aggressive applications. This case provides an opportunity for the Court to clarify what Chevron does and does not entail, while reaffirming the essential role that judicial recognition of constitutionally delegated policymaking authority plays in federal statutory programs. Many of …

Brief Of Scholars Of Administrative Law And The Administrative Procedure Act As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Jeffrey Lubbers

Amicus Briefs

The principle of judicial deference to agency interpretations of law has been a pillar of this Court's administrative law doctrine for more than a century. This Court's decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), formalized one version of that principle, creating the two-step framework that is now subject to a multifaceted attack. Among other things, Chevron's opponents argue that the doctrine is at odds with the original public meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act. This is wrong, and the text and history of that landmark statute provide no basis for …

Brief Of Administrative Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Opposition To Petitioners' Request For Reversal, Jeffrey Lubbers

Amicus Briefs

Amici curiae are administrative law scholars from universities around the United States.

They are: • William D. Araiza, Professor of Law and Dean of Brooklyn Law School; • Blake Emerson, Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law; • Jeffrey Lubbers, Professor of Practice in Administrative Law at American University Washington College of Law; • Todd Phillips, Assistant Professor of Business Law at Georgia State University J. Mack Robinson College of Business; and • Beau Baumann, Doctoral candidate at Yale Law School.

Amici have a strong interest in how the Court’s decision will affect the field of administrative law and …

Brief For Amici Curiae Prof. Daniel Mccool, Prof. Ezra Rosser And Prof. David E. Wilkins, In Support Of Respondents, Ezra Rosser, David E. Wilkins

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Human Rights And Labor Rights Organizations And Experts As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Janie A. Chuang

Amicus Briefs

Since Congress first enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, it has expanded and strengthened it through successive reauthorizations. Congress has broadened the scope of the TVPRA in order to impose criminal and civil liability on individuals, corporations, and other legal persons who use, or knowingly benefit from ventures that use, forced labor, as well as those who aid and abet these practices. Through this legislation, Congress has bolstered efforts to hold traffickers accountable, opening the courthouse doors to victims of these egregious crimes.

The Ninth Circuit's decision below undermined the very statutory scheme Congress put in place to …

Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of Applicant' Application To Vacate The Injunction In Biden V. Nebraska, Jeffrey Lubbers

Amicus Briefs

Amici curiae are law professors at law schools around the nation. They respectfully move for leave to file the enclosed brief in support of Applicants' application to vacate the injunction entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit pending appeal of the preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, including leave to file without ten days' notice to the parties, as ordinarily required by this Court's Rule 37.2(a), and leave to file in 8½-by-11-inch format, as provided in Rule 33.2.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Professor Susan Carle In Support Of The Plaintiffs Arguing For Affirmance In Johnson And Tinker V. City Of Boston, Ma, Susan Carle

Amicus Briefs

This brief is being submitted by a law professor, Susan D. Carle, with more than 30 years of expertise in federal employment and antidiscrimination law, and especially the history and purposes of disparate impact law. She submits this brief to share her expertise with this Court. She is currently Professor of Law and Vice Dean of American University Washington College of Law (organizational affiliation is offered for identification purposes only).

Williams V. Texas, Bruce A. Green, Ellyde R. Thompson

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Defendants, Robert Abrams

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.

Caniglia V. Strom: Brief Of Professor Leroy Pernell And The National Association Of Criminal Defense Attorneys In Support Of Petitioner, Leroy Pernell

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For The Coalition Against Patent Abuse As Amicus Curiae In Support No Party, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

Perhaps unexpectedly, a case on the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has major significance to the pressing policy crisis of drug prices in the United States. Erroneously issued patents monopolize medical therapies, making them unaffordable or inaccessible to numerous Americans. The inter partes review proceedings that the Board conducts have repeatedly and successfully overcome such patents, enabling competition and dramatically lowering prices. This Court should ensure the continued viability of the Board and of inter partes review, by preserving the Board’s objectivity and independence from executive branch political influence.

Henness V. Dewine, Bruce Green, Bradley Pough, Gabriel Gillett

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Nat’L Assoc. Of Crim. Defense Attorney & Nat’L Assoc. Of Fed’L Defenders As Amicus Curiae, Pereida V. Barr, No. 19-438 (U.S.) (Feb. 2020)., Jenny Roberts

Amicus Briefs

Brief of Nat’l Assoc. of Crim. Defense Attorney & Nat’l Assoc. of Fed’l Defenders as Amicus Curiae, Pereida v. Barr, No. 19-438 (U.S.) (Feb. 2020).

Brief Fof The R Street Institutte, Public Knowledge, And The Niskanen Center As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Charles Duan, Meredith F. Rose

Amicus Briefs

The Java SE declarations of this case are simply a language of commands. As an application programming interface, or API, they exhibit features common to any language: a structured vocabulary and grammatical syntaxes, which a computer system understands as instructions to perform predefined tasks. What Oracle accuses as infringement is “reimplementation,” namely the building of a system, in this case Google’s Android platform, that repurposes the same words and syntaxes of the Java declarations.

Brief Of Amici Curiae National Health Law Program And National Network Of Abortion Funds Supporting Petitioners-Cross-Respondents, Maya Manian, Jill E. Adams, Sara Ainsworth, Abigail K. Coursolle, Yvonne Lidgren, Sarah Somers, Melanie R. Medalle

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of The R Street Institute, The Wikimedia Foundation, And Public Knowledge As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

Twenty-five centuries of history reject the foundation of Petitioners’ case. In contending that it may assert federal copyright law against its citizens to block distribution of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, the State of Georgia contemplates a bright line between its uncopyrightable statutes and all other edicts of government that “lack the force of law.” No such line exists. On the contrary, sovereigns since antiquity have promulgated not only statutes but also proclamations, explanations, commentaries, and even annotations, all of which, even lacking “force of law,” carry great weight for the rule of law and the functioning of government. …

Brief Of The R Street Institute As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

It is a common but misleading premise of cases such as this one that the disappointed patent applicant has two options for judicial review: a 35 U.S.C. § 145 district court action and an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 141. The applicant also has a non-judicial option: administrative remedies within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

These administrative remedies add an important dimension to this case. The Court of Appeals adopted what it conceded was an atextual construction of § 145 expense recovery provision in order to ensure that § 145 actions were not cost-prohibitive to “small businesses and individual …

Brief For The R Street Institute As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

The government and its agencies should be treated as a “person” that may petition to institute post-issuance review proceedings under the America Invents Act, for two reasons. First, permitting the government to seek review of patents under these proceedings best realizes the intent of Congress to make those proceedings widely available. Second, compared to the government’s alternative option for administratively challenging patents, AIA post-issuance review better serves important norms of procedure and governance, including transparency, due process, and separation of functions.

Brief For The R Street Institute And Engine Advocacy As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, an inventor may not obtain a patent on an invention that has been “on sale” for more than a year. The question is whether, from this so-called on-sale bar, certain classes of sales should be exempted— sales under a confidentiality agreement, in Petitioner’s view; and sales to those other than the ultimate customers, according to the government.

Brief For The R Street Institute And Engine Advocacy As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, an inventor may not obtain a patent on an invention that has been “on sale” for more than a year. The question is whether, from this so-called on-sale bar, certain classes of sales should be exempted— sales under a confidentiality agreement, in Petitioner’s view; and sales to those other than the ultimate customers, according to the government.

Brief Of International Law Scholars And Non-Governmental Organizations As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellees In International Refugee Assistance Project V. Trump, 2017 U.S. 4th Cir., Amanda Frost

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Public Knowledge, The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Engine Advocacy, And The R Street Institute As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

Where Congress places conditions upon the patent grant in furtherance of the public interest in individual liberty, Congress acts at the apex of its powers under the Constitution. Inter partes review is a legislative condition on the patent grant, designed for an innovative modern world, specifically crafted to dispose of erroneously issued patents that burden the public. It is the traditional place of Congress to make these balanced political judgments, and Article III poses no barrier to Congress executing its Article I obligation to protect the public by limiting patents.

Weaver V. Commonwealth Of Massachusetts, Bruce Green, Russell Pearce

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.

Amicus Brief In Jae Lee V. United States, Jenny M. Roberts

Amicus Briefs

This amicus brief was filed on behalf of the Immigrant Defense Project, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild in support of the petitioner in Jae Lee v United States, No. 16-327. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Lee, holding that Lee met his burden of showing that his attorney's erroneous advice about deportation prejudiced him. The Court found that it would not have been irrational for Lee to reject the plea he accepted and go to trial, despite the fact that he was "almost certain" to lose at trial. …

Brief For Amici Curiae Scholars Of Immigration Law In Support Of Plaintiffs-Appellees And Affirmance In Hawaii V. Trump, 2017 U.S. 9th Cir., Anita Sinha

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.

Johnson V. Kelley, Bruce Green

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.

David Brown Versus Louisiana, Charles Ogletree, Ronald Sullivan

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.

Amicus Brief In Terrance Williams V Pennsylvania, Lawrence J. Fox

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.

Eric M. Berman, P.C. V. City Of New York, Carolyn Coffey, Theodora Galacatos, Susan Shin

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.

Richard E. Glossip V. Kevin J. Gross, Bruce Green, Faith Gay

Amicus Briefs

No abstract provided.