Law Commons^™

Brief Of Professors Of Law, Business, And Economics As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellees And Affirmance, Christopher L. Sagers, Robert K. Shelquist

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Patent Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Christa J. Laser

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

This Court should reverse the Federal Circuit and hold that IPR estoppel extends only to grounds that were raised or could have been raised during the IPR proceeding. Estoppel would therefore extend to instituted grounds, whether raised during the proceeding or not. Estoppel would not extend to uninstituted grounds, such as grounds which might have been challenged in the petition for review but were not.

Amicus Curiae Observations By Public International Law & Policy Group, Milena Sterio, Michael P. Scharf, Paul R. Williams

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The amicus brief argues that in a case where the defendant alleges a ground excluding criminal responsibility (an affirmative defense), such as mental illness or duress, the defendant has an evidentiary burden to produce some evidence to support his/her claim of mental illness or duress, but that the prosecution retains the legal burden of proof to establish the defendant's responsibility beyond reasonable doubt.

“This ruling will have repercussions for future cases where the defendant asserts a mental illness or duress affirmative defense. Depending on how the ICC decides, future defendants will have to meet a specific evidentiary (or legal) burden …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Professors Elizabeth A. Clark, Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Carl H. Esbeck, David F. Forte, Richard W. Garnett, Christopher C. Lund, Michael W. Mcconnell, Michael P. Moreland, Robert J. Pushaw, And David A., Skeel, Supporting Petitioners, David Forte, Elizabeth A. Clark, Robert F. Cochran Jr., Carl H. Esbeck, Richard W. Garnett, Christopher C. Lund, Michael W. Mcconnell, Michael P. Moreland, Robert J. Pushaw, David A. Skeel

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The case concerns the "church autonomy doctrine" based on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which declares that courts may not inquire into matters of church government or into disputes of faith and doctrine. Will McRaney was fired from a leadership position in the Southern Baptist Convention because of a conflict over policies relating to the expansion of the Baptist faith. He sued the Southern Baptist Convention in tort.

The district court dismissed the suit on the grounds of the church autonomy doctrine. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal as "premature," asserting that there were possible …

Brief Of Amici Curiae 65 Professors Of Law, Business, Economics, And Sports Management In Support Of Respondents, Chris Sagers, Michael A. Carrier, Lisa M. Geary

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The Alston plaintiffs are college athletes who successfully challenged the NCAA's "amateurism" rules, convincing the lower courts that the rules should be modestly relaxed to limit their effect on competition for athletic talent. Nearly 60 professors of law, business, and economics from around the country joined the brief.

Complaint, Milena Sterio, Diane Marie Amann, Margaret Deguzman, Gabor Rona

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

On June 11, 2020, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13,928, Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated With the International Criminal Court, threatening severe sanctions, monetary penalties, and imprisonment on persons who assist the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Executive Order exceeds its legal authority, impermissibly prohibits speech, and fails to provide notice as to who it covers and what for what activities.

Those impacted by the Executive Order include U.S. persons, including U.S. entities, as well as foreign persons and foreign entities. The Open Society Justice Initiative and four law professors, all of whom have engaged extensively …

Amicus Curiae Observations By Public International Law & Policy Group, Situation In The Democratic Republic Of The Congo, Milena Sterio, Michael P. Scharf, Paul R. Williams

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The Public International Law & Policy Group (“PILPG”) offers the following amicus curiae observations pursuant to the Decision No. ICC-01/04-02/06-2569. PILPG is willing to appear before the Court if it would assist. Prof. Paul R. Williams, Dean Michael P. Scharf, Prof. Milena Sterio, Dr. Brianne McGonigle Leyh, Dr. Julie Fraser, Jonathan Worboys, Eian Katz, Raghavi Viswanath, Nicole Carle, Alexandra Koch, Isabela Karibjanian, and Olivia Wang contributed to these observations.

Petitioners' Reply Memorandum In Support Of Their Emergency Petetion For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus, Joseph Mead, David J. Carey, Freda J. Levenson, David A. Singleton, Mark A. Vander Laan, Michael L. Zuckerman

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

In the roughly 120 hours since Petitioners filed their emergency petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the death toll at Elkton has doubled, and the number of BOP-confirmed COVID-19 cases among prisoners has tripled. About three dozen corrections staff have tested positive for the virus, a number that has also tripled since this case was filed. Elkton now accounts for more than one-third of all prisoner deaths from COVID-19 in federal prisons nationwide, and over half of the COVID-19 deaths in Columbiana County, making it one of the deadliest places a person can live in the current pandemic. According …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Ronald A. Cass, David F. Forte, James L. Huffman, Donald J. Kochan, Jesse J. Richardson And Reed Watson In Support Of Petitioners, David F. Forte, Ronald A. Cass, James L. Huffman, Donald J. Kochan, Jesse J. Richardson, Reed Watson

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The Court of Federal Claims ruled that the Klamath, Yurok and Hoopa (hereafter Tribes) reserved water rights in the Klamath River Basin are of a volume at least equal to the amount of water the Environmental Protection Agency has determined to be necessary to trigger endangered species protection. In the absence of an adjudication in state or federal court and contrary to the long history of federal deference (both by Congressional enactment and judicial precedent) to state adjudication of water rights, the Federal Circuit affirmed and thus preempted, without the participation of affected parties including petitioners, the State of Oregon’s …

Emergency Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus, Injunctive, And Declaratory Relief - Class Action, Joseph Mead, David J. Carey, Mark A. Vander Laan, Freda Levenson, David Singleton

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

As a tragic combination of infectious and deadly, COVID-19 poses a once-in-a-lifetime threat on a worldwide scale. Every state and territory in the United States has now been impacted, with nearly half a million cases and over 20,000 deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Even under ordinary conditions, each person who contracts this illness can be expected to infect between 2 and 3 others.

Cramped, overcrowded prisons amplify this threat. With thousands of people literally stacked on top of each other and unable to move around without rubbing shoulders, such environments are fundamentally incompatible with …

Brief Of Constitutional Law Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, David F. Forte, Ronald J. Colombo, Richard Epstein, Carl H. Esbeck, Robert P. George, Mary Ann Glendon, Brian Mccall, Stacy Scaldo, Steven Smith

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

Lurking behind the regulatory issues presented by this appeal is a concerted effort to displace the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. ("RFRA"), with a novel approach that would trivialize a law's burden on religion. The Court should not indulge it.

The critics' argument suffers from several analytical defects that can be remedied by (1) a proper constitutional understanding of RFRA's relationship to the Establishment Clause; (2) an accurate understanding of how the Religion Clauses safeguard third-party interests; and (3) the correct application of these understandings to the Final Rules.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Michael L. Rosin, David G. Post, David F. Forte, Michael Stokes Paulsen, And Sotirios Barber In Support Of Presidential Electors, David F. Forte, Michael L. Rosin, David G. Post, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Sotirios Barber

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The Framers of the Constitution crafted the Electoral College to be an independent institution with the responsibility of selecting the President and Vice-President. Therefore, they intended each elector to exercise independent judgment in deciding whom to vote for. A state cannot revise the Constitution unilaterally by reducing the elector to a ministerial agent who must vote in a particular way or face a sanction. The question of each elector’s moral or political obligation is not before the Court. Nor is the desirability of the current electoral system. Rather, this case turns on what the Constitution allows, and what it prohibits. …

Brief Amici Curiae Of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1851 Center For Constitutional Law, And Profs. Jonathan Entin, David F. Forte, Andrew Geronimo, Raymond Ku, Stephen Lazarus, Kevin Francis O’Neill, Margaret Tarkington, Aaron H. Caplan, And Eugene Volokh In Support Of Respondent-Appellant, Joni Bey And Rebecca Rasawehr V. Jeffrey Rasawehr, Supreme Court Of Ohio (Case No. 2019-0295), David Forte, Stephen R. Lazarus, Kevin F. O'Neill, Jonathan L. Entin, Andrew Geronimo, Raymond Ku, Margaret Tarkington, Aaron H. Kaplan, Eugene Volokh

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The brief argues that the Third District Court of Appeals, in violation of the First Amendment, erred in upholding an injunction that barred defendant from any online postings regarding plaintiff, whether or not those postings were to plaintiff or to third parties.

Amicus Curiae Brief Of Equality Ohio In Support Of Intervenor Urging Reversal, Doron M. Kalir, Kenneth J. Kowalski

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

Title VII’s plain language bars discharge of “any individual”—whether transgender or not—“because of such individual’s . . . sex.” It applies whenever employers take gender into account in making employment decisions. It is undisputed that the employer in this case based his decision to terminate Ms. Stephens solely on sex-based considerations. To be sure, he could have terminated Ms. Stephens for a wide array of reasons—tardiness, failure to perform, disciplinary issues—or for no reason at all. Under those circumstances, such termination—even of a transgender person—would not be “because of such individual’s sex.” But that is not the case here. Here, …

Amicus Brief In Support Of Motion For Reconsideration, In The Case Of Murray V. Chagrin Valley Publishing Co., Case No. 2015-0127, Supreme Court Of Ohio, David Forte

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

Forte authored an Amicus brief in support of motion for reconsideration, in the case of Murray v. Chagrin Valley Publishing Co., Case no. 2015-0127, Supreme Court of Ohio, on issues dealing with free speech and libel. The brief was filed on July 20, 2015. In the brief, Forte writes, 'I have chosen to participate as an amicus curiae in support of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Appellants Robert E. Murray, Murray Energy Corporation, American Energy Corporation, and The Ohio Valley Coal Company because as a career constitutional scholar, I believe that Appellants’ case presents questions of keen interest to …

Brief Of Antitrust Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellees, Supporting Affirmance, Chris Sagers, K. Craig Wildfang, Ryan W. Marth, David Martinez

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

Amici urge affirmance for three principal reasons. First, we elaborate a point to dispel Appellant's suggestion that antitrust somehow does not belong here. Second, we show that ordinary rule of reason treatment was appropriate. Relying rather daringly on a case that it overwhelmingly lost, Appellant asks this Court to find within NCAA v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U. S. 85 (1984), a rule that its "amateurism" or "eligibility" restraints are "valid...as a matter of law." NCAA Br. at 14, 22. Board of Regents did not say that, and even Appellant's own amici admit it. See Wilson …

Brief For The National Association Of Social Workers And The Ohio Chapter Of The National Association Of Social Workers As Amici Curie In Support Of Petitioners, No. 13-933, United States Supreme Court (Mar. 6, 2014), Doron M. Kalir, Carolyn I. Polowy

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

NASW's first argument is simple. To protect children from abuse - a major congressional and state legislative goal - this Court should apply qualified immunity to protect social workers from personal liability where a reasonable decision has been made to remove a child without a warrant.

NASW's second argument is equally cogent. DeShaney was decided 25 years ago. Since then, this Court's "continued silence" on the issue, Kovacic, 724 F.3d at 708 (Sutton, J., dissenting), has failed "to provide guidance to those charged with the difficult task of protecting child welfare within the confines of the Fourth Amendment." Camreta v. …

Brief Of Political Scientists And Historians As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner V. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281, United States Supreme Court (Nov. 25, 2013), David F. Forte, Hadley P. Arkes, Joseph M. Bessette, Nelson Lund, Jeremy A. Rabkin, Ralph A. Rossum

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The Recess Appointments Clause does not permit the unilateral appointments to the NLRB made by the President in this case. Those appointments - made during a three-day “intra-session” break when the Senate was meeting pro forma - are unique in the history of the Republic. They are also the culmination of unnecessary and inappropriate Executive overreaching. This overreaching has undermined a valuable Senate prerogative in a manner unfathomable to the Founders and inconsistent with the design of the Constitution.

The primary purpose of this brief is to show that adhering to the original meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause has …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae American Antitrust Institute In Support Of Appellants And Reversal Of The District Court's Decision, Federal Trade Commission And State Of Minnesota V. Lundbeck, Inc. Nos. 10-3548 And 10-3549, United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth District (2011), Christopher L. Sagers, W. Joseph Bruckner, Richard M. Brunell

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The basis for the District Court’s ruling was its view that cross-price elasticity of demand was “very low” between the two drugs acquired by Lundbeck, and therefore that they could not be in the same relevant market.2 AAI urges reversal on three grounds. First, assuming arguendo that crossprice elasticity was low – even if it were zero – the court’s approach fundamentally misapprehended the law. A lack of price competition between two functionally interchangeable products does not preclude a determination that they are in the same relevant market. Second, regardless of “low” cross-price elasticity, the acquisition removed an actual or …

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, Bellecourt, Et Al., V. City Of Cleveland, 544 U.S. 1033, 125 S. Ct. 2271 (2005), Kevin Francis O'Neill, Terry H. Gilbert

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

Deciding an important question of Federal Free Speech law, the Ohio Supreme Court has recognized a fire safety justification so easy to invoke that it may be used to punish virtually every instance of flag burning and effigy burning - thereby undercutting this Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson, and creating a question of first impression that requires this Court's review and correction.

Brief Amici Curiae Of The Progressive Intellectual Property Law Association And The Union For The Public Domain In Partial Support Of Petitioners, Eldred V. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), Michael H. Davis

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

This case affords this Court a unique opportunity to do more by doing less. Judicial restraint generally impels this Court to decide only essential constitutional issues. Here the issues are uniquely situated so that the decision of only one issue—that of retrospective extensions—will do far more than merely defer the remaining issue of prospective extensions, but will render that issue permanently beyond any need of judicial review. If this Court decides that retrospective extensions are unconstitutional, it will not only be able to avoid deciding the other issue today of whether a prospective extension violates the “limited times” Constitutional provision3 …

Brief Amicus Curiae Of Ohio Psychological Association, National Association Of Social Workers And Ohio Chapter, American Academy Of Child And Adolescent Psychiatry, Ohio Human Rights Bar Association And The Lesbian/Gay Community Service Center Of Greater Cleveland In Support Of Appellants, In Re Adoption Of Jane Doe, Ohio Ninth District Case No. 19017, Susan J. Becker

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

I. THE BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN ARE PROMOTED BY ALLOWING UNMARKED COUPLES TO BE ABLE TO PETITION TO ADOPT CHILDREN.

II. CHILDREN RAISED BY GAY AND LESBIAN PARENTS ARE AS HAPPY AND HEALTHY AS OTHER CHILDREN AND ARE NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THEIR PARENTS' SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

III. SECURING A HAPPY AND STABLE HOME LIFE FOR THE CHILD, NOT FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT LESBIAN AND GAY FAMILIES, SHOULD BE THE COURT'S DETERMINING CONSIDERATION.

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, Northeast Ohio Coalition For The Homeless, Et Al., V. City Of Cleveland, 522 U.S. 931 (1997), Kevin F. O'Neill, David Goldberger, Raymond V. Vasvari, Joan M. Englund

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Of Ohio Right To Life Society, Inc., Cleveland Lawyers For Life, Inc., Physicians For Life, Inc. In Support Of Respondents, National Organization For Women V. Scheidler, 114 S. Ct. 798 (1993), David F. Forte

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

(In this action, petitioner health care clinics alleged, among other things, that respondents, a coalition of antiabortion groups called the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN) and others, were members of a nationwide conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics through a pattern of racketeering activity -- including extortion under the Hobbs Act -- in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) chapter of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968.)

Amici contend that the ordinary canons of statutory interpretation support the Seventh Circuit's conclusion below that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") chapter of …

Brief Of Defendant-Appellees Catholic Diocese Of Cleveland And Bishop Anthony M. Pilla , Hawley V. City Of Cleveland, 24 F3d 814 (6th Cir. 1994), David F. Forte, Douglas J. Paul, Edward J. Maher, Bernard Niehaus

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

A City of Cleveland Ordinance leasing space in the airport to the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland for use as a chapel, which is available to religious groups and persons of all faiths does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Brief Of Feminists For Life Of America, Professional Women's Network, Birthright, Inc., Legal Action For Women, As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents And Cross Petitioners - Planned Parenthood Of Southeastern Pennsylvania V. Casey, 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992), David F. Forte, Keith A. Fournier, Christine Smith Torre, Theodore H. Amshoff, Mary Dice Grenen

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

Amici, representing women from all walks of life, are compelled by experience and conviction to advocate strongly that this Court reverse the vulnerable position of women caused by the lack of information given to women contemplating abortion. Amici respectfully urged this Court to affirm the ruling of the Court below, supporting the efforts of the women citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to cause that government to exercise its police power to protect their health and safety by compelling the dissemination of the information necessary to make a fully informed decision.

Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Taxpayers Asset Project Of The Center For Study Of Responsive Law In Support Of Petitioners, Genetics Institute, Inc., Et. Al. V. Amgen Inc., 502 U.S. 856 (1991), Michael H. Davis

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

Although a patent appears to be a private right, that private right is only "secondary," as this Court has stated, to the public bargain of which it is but a part. The focus must always be whether the public has received full information about the nature of the invention so that future inventors may reuse and improve it. The decision below reflects a failure to recognize the patent's monopoly nature and as a result abandons the "best mode" rule forbidding the inventor form concealing the best way of replicating the invention. By turning the subjective test of "best mode" into …