Law Commons^™

Brief Of Professor Laura K. Donohue As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Fbi V. Fazaga, No. 20-828 (U.S. Aug. 6, 2021), Laura K. Donohue

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

Amicus submits this brief in support of neither party to provide the Court with background on the origins and evolution of the state-secrets privilege. The English and American cases decided before United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), as well as the decisions before and after the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), produce several observations that may help the Court to resolve this case.

First, both Reynolds and earlier English and American case law treat state secrets as an evidentiary privilege rather than a substantive rule of decision. As with other privileges, …

Brief Of Amici Curiae 116 Law Librarians And 5 Law Library Organizations In Support Of Respondent, Georgia V. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., No. 18-1150 (U.S. Oct. 16, 2019), Michelle M. Wu

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

Due process and the rule of law require that the public has meaningful access to “the law.” Every major modern society since the Greeks has recognized the importance of this principle. Roscoe Pound, Theories of the Law, 22 Yale L.J. 114, 117 (1912).

In the United States, “the law” largely comes from appellate courts, legislatures, and administrative agencies who have been granted rule-making authority. As every first year law student learns, those law-making bodies have developed highly specific methods for communicating their pronouncements of law through official publications, such as the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (“OCGA”).

Those specific methods …

Brief Of Brian Wolfman, Aderson B. Francois, And Eric Schnapper As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner In Peterson V. Linear Controls Incorporated, No. 18-1401 (U.S. Supreme Court June 6, 2019), Brian Wolfman, Aderson B. François

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

In Title VII disparate-treatment, employment-discrimination cases, the term “adverse employment action” originally developed as judicial shorthand for the statute’s text, which broadly prohibits any discriminatory conduct by an employer against an employee based on the employee's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1). But what started simply as shorthand has taken on a life of its own and now improperly limits the statute’s reach. The Fifth Circuit’s version of the adverse-employment-action rule stands out as especially improper: Only an “ultimate employment decision”—a refusal to hire, a firing, a demotion, or the like—constitutes impermissible discrimination.

In this …

On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, Brief Of Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Gregory P. Warger, V. Randy D. Shauers, Susan Crump, Bennett Gershman, Victor Gold, Paul F. Rothstein, Ben Trachtenberg

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

Petitioner asks this Court to interpret Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) as permitting statements made by jurors during deliberations to be admitted to support a motion for a new trial. The practical consequences of petitioner’s rule would be significant and problematic, not only fundamentally altering the purpose and practice of voir dire, but also providing a new, fact driven, basis for post-trial motions. These expanded proceedings would place substantial additional burdens of courts, lawyers and jurors alike. In light of existing mechanisms to ensure juror honesty and impartiality, petitioner’s rule would disrupt a well-functioning system for little to no benefit.

Amicus Briefs Of The National Association Of Consumer Advocates In Day V. Persels & Associates, 729 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2013), Brian Wolfman

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

These amicus briefs are likely to interest legal academics and practitioners who write, research, and practice in the areas of (1) federal courts, (2) class actions, (3) separation of powers, (4) constitutional law more generally, and (4) federal litigation.

In Day v. Persels & Associates, 729 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2013), an absent class member objected to a class-action settlement. The objector argued that the settlement was unfair because, among other reasons, it provided no monetary recovery to the class members. In the district court, prior to class certification and settlement, the defendants and the named plaintiff had consented …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Academic Authors And Legal Scholars In Support Of Defendants Appellees And Affirmance, Nos. 12-14676-Ff, 12-15147-Ff (April 25, 2013), David R. Hansen, Peter A. Jazsi, Pamela Samuelson, Jason Schultz, Rebecca Tushnet

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Nan D. Hunter, Et Al., Addressing The Merits In Support Of Respondents, Nan D. Hunter, Suzanne B. Goldberg

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

In this amicus brief filed in United States v. Windsor, pending before the Supreme Court, amici constitutional law professors argue that all classifications that carry the indicia of invidiousness should trigger a more searching inquiry than the traditional rational basis test under the Equal Protection Clause would suggest. Classifications that already receive heightened scrutiny, such as race or sex, fit easily into this approach. But the Court’s equal protection jurisprudence has become muddied in a series of cases in which it says rational basis review, but appears to do a more rigorous review. Sexual orientation classifications seemingly were analyzed …

On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit, Brief For Private Petitioners On Severability, National Federation Of Independent Business, Et Al., V. Kathleen Sebelius, Et Al., State Of Florida, Et Al., V. Department Of Health And Human Services, Et Al., Nos. 11-393, 11-400 (U.S. Jan. 6, 2012), Randy E. Barnett

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Dinah Bear, Robert Glicksman, Oliver Houck, Daniel Mandelker, Thomas Mcgarity, Robert Percival, Zygmunt Plater, Nicholas Robinson, And Gary Widman In Support Of Respondents, Monsanto Co. V. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475 (U.S. Apr. 5, 2010), Hope M. Babcock

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For The Respondants, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, Nos. 08-1498, 09-89 (U.S. Dec. 22, 2009), Neal K. Katyal

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

On Writs Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, Nos. 08-1298, 09-89 (U.S. Nov. 16, 2009), David Cole

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit, Stolt-Neilsen S.A., V. Animalfeed International, No. 08-1198 (U.S. Oct. 20, 2009), Cornelia T. Pillard

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

On Cross-Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, No. 09-89 (U.S. Sept. 8, 2009), David Cole

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Opposition To Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, No. 08-1498 (U.S. July 6, 2009), David Cole

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Conditional Cross-Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, No. 08-1498 (U.S. July 6, 2009), David Cole

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of The Conference Of Chief Justices As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Caperton V. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22 (U.S. Jan. 5, 2009), Roy A. Schotland

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Members Of Congress In Support Of Respondents, Coeur Alaska, Inc. V. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Nos. 07-984 & 07-990 (U.S. Nov. 14, 2008), Kathryn A. Sabbeth, David C. Vladeck

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Respondents Riverkeeper, Inc., Entergy Corporation V. Environmental Protection Agency V. Riverkeeper, Nos. 07-588, 07-589 & 07-597 (U.S. Sept. 29, 2008), Richard J. Lazarus

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Former Fda Commissioners Dr. Donald Kennedy And Dr. David A. Kessler In Support Of Respondent, Wyeth V. Levine, No. 06-1249 (U.S. Aug. 14, 2008), Kathryn A. Sabbeth, David C. Vladeck

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Petition For Rehearing, Kennedy V. Louisiana, No. 07-343 (U.S. July 21, 2008), Viet D. Dinh, Neal K. Katyal

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Summers V. Earth Island Inst., No. 07-463 (U.S. June 27, 2008), Richard J. Lazarus, Amanda C. Leiter, David C. Vladeck

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Amicus Curiae Of The National Academy Of Arbitrators In Support Of Respondents, 14 Penn Plaza V. Pyett, No. 07-581 (U.S. June 27, 2008), James Oldham

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Tobacco Control Legal Consortium Et Al. In Support Of Respondents, Altria Group, Inc. V. Good, No. 07-562 (U.S. June 17, 2008), Kathryn A. Sabbeth, David C. Vladeck

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae American Academy Of Pediatrics Et Al. In Support Of Neither Party, Federal Communications Commission V. Fox Television Stations, No. 07-582 (U.S. June 9, 2008), Angela J. Campbell, Coriell Wright

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief For Petitioner, Engquist V. Oregon Department Of Agriculture, No. 07-474 (U.S. April 9, 2008), Justin Florence, Mathew Gerke, Neal K. Katyal

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Petitioner, Engquist V. Oregon Dept. Of Agriculture, No. 07-474 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2008), Justin Florence, Mathew Gerke, Neal K. Katyal

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Aarp In Support Of Respondents, Warner-Lambert Company Llc V. Kent, No. 06-1498 (U.S. Jan. 18, 2008), Kathryn A. Sabbeth, David C. Vladeck

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief For Petitioner, Knight V. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, No. 06-1286 (U.S. Nov. 2, 2007), Cornelia T. Pillard, Peter J. Rubin

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Consumers Union Of United States, Inc., As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Riegel & Riegel V. Medtronic, Inc., No. 06-179 (U.S. Aug. 27, 2007), Lisa Heinzerling

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Salim Hamdan As Amicus Curiae, Boumediene V. Bush & Al Odah V. United States, Nos. 06-1195 & 06-1196 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2007), Neal K. Katyal

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.