Law Commons^™

Amicus Brief Of Native Nations In Montana, Kathryn Shanley, And Denise Juneau, Held V. State Of Montana, Montana Supreme Court Docket No. Da 23-0575, Monte Mills, Jeremiah Chin, Mia Montoya Hammersley, Fredrick Ole Ikayo, Clare Derby, Natasha De La Cruz

Court Briefs

Montana’s Constitution specifically recognizes and protects the right of Native Nations and Indigenous individuals to preserve and sustain their cultural traditions through the education of future generations. These rights are inherently tied to the right to a clean and healthful environment.

Brief Of Legal Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Becerra V. San Carlos Apache Tribe, Becerra V. Northern Arapaho Tribe, U.S. Supreme Court Docket Nos. 23-250 & 23-253, Gregory Ablavsky, Seth Davis, Patty Ferguson-Bohnee, Ethan J. Leib, Dan Lewerenz, Nazune Menka, Monte Mills, Richard Monette, Joseph William Singer, Gerald Torres, Rebecca Tsosie

Court Briefs

Congress has enacted into law thousands of statutory provisions containing rules of construction. These rules direct courts to the permissible interpretations of the statutes that Congress enacts.

With respect to the self-determination contracts between Indian tribes and the United States at issue in these cases, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA) prescribes two interpretive rules that serve as congressional directives to this Court. First, each provision of the self-determination contract must be construed liberally for the benefit of the tribe. Second, the same is true of the statute itself: each provision of the ISDA must be construed liberally …

Brief Of Tribal Nations And Indian Organizations As Amici Curiae In Support Of The Navajo Nation, U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 21-1484, Monte Mills, Heather D. Whiteman Runs Him, Dylan R. Hedden-Nicely, John E. Echohawk, Steven C. Moore, David L. Gover, Joe M. Tenorio, Ada Montague Stepleton, Morgan E. Saunders, Wesley James Furlong, Sydney Tarzwell

Court Briefs

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: The Winters Doctrine recognizes and gives effect to the promises made by the United States in treaties, congressionally ratified agreements, and executive orders that Tribal Nations would retain permanent and viable homelands. These promises, made in exchange for the Tribal Nations’ cession of billions of acres of land, paved the way for the non-Indian settlement of the West. Although every tribal homeland is unique, invariably, each requires water to be livable. Applying the canons of construction this Court has developed as part of its federal Indian law jurisprudence, as well as the history and circumstances surrounding the …

Reply Brief For Petitioners, Gonzalez V. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333), Eric Schnapper, Robert J. Tolchin, Keith L. Altman

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. …

Brief For Respondents, Twitter, Inc. V. Taamneh, 143 S.Ct. 1206 (2023) (No. 21.1496), Eric Schnapper, Keith L. Altman, Robert J. Tolchin

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Petitioners, Gonzalez V. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333), Eric Schnapper, Robert J. Tolchin, Keith L. Altman

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. …

Brief In Opposition, Twitter, Inc. V. Taamneh, 143 S.Ct. 1206 (2023) (No. 21.1496), Eric Schnapper, Keith L. Altman, Daniel W. Weininger

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Gonzalez V. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333), Eric Schnapper, Robert J. Tolchin, Keith L. Altman, Daniel Weininger

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. …

Amicus Curiae Brief Of Professors Karen Boxx And Gregory Hicks, May V. County Of Spokane, 199 Wash.2d 389 (2022) (No. 99598-2), Karen Boxx, Greg Hicks

Court Briefs

This case raises the difficult question of how to deal with the stain of racial restrictive covenants that have long been rendered unenforceable and illegal but remain in the property records. Petitioner is seeking to have such an offending covenant physically removed from the public records relating to his real property under authority of former Washington statute RCW 49.60.227 (2018). Since Petitioner has begun this quest, the legislature amended RCW 49.60.227 to provide a more detailed procedure to address the remnants of racism in property records, but this new procedure does not afford Petitioner the remedy that he sought under …

Brief For Amici Curiae Andrea K. Bjorklund, Diane Desierto, And Franco Ferrari In Support Of Petitioners-Appllants And Reversal, Diane Desierto, Anread K. Bjorklund, Franco Ferrari

Court Briefs

2021 WL 2223764 (C.A.D.C.) (Appellate Brief)

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

HULLEY ENTERPRISES LTD.; Yukos Universal Ltd.; Veteran Petroleum Ltd., Petitioners-Appellants, v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 20-7113.

June 1, 2021.

On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 14-1996 (BAH)

Brief for Amici Curiae Andrea K. Bjorklund, Diane Desierto, and Franco Ferrari in Support of Petitioners-Appellants and Reversal

James E. Berger, Charlene C. Sun, King & Spalding LLP, 1185 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-556-2202, Fax: 212-556-2222, Email: jberger@kslaw.com, csun@kslaw.com, for Amici Curiae.

The amici curiae …

Brief For Council Of Islamic Schools In North America, Partnership For Inner-City Education, And Union Of Orthodox Jewish Congregations Of America As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Nicole Stelle Garnett, Richard W. Garnett, Michael H. Mcginley

Court Briefs

DAVID AND AMY CARSON, as Parents and next Friends of O.C., and TROY AND ANGELA NELSON, as Parents and next Friends of A.N. and R.N., Petitioners

v.

A. PENDER MAKIN, in Her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Maine Department of Education, Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

BRIEF FOR COUNCIL OF ISLAMIC SCHOOLS IN NORTH AMERICA, PARTNERSHIP FOR INNER-CITY EDUCATION, AND UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

No. 20-1088

March 11, 2021

Amici curiae operate, represent, and support elementary …

Amicus Brief Of Constitutional Law, Torts, And Religion Professors And Scholars In Support Of Cert. Petition, Valerie Haney V. Church Of Scientology International Et Al., Leslie C. Griffin

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Amicus Brief Of Law And Religion Professors For Petitioners, Lippard V. Holleman, Leslie C. Griffin

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

John Fitisemanu, Et. Al. V. United States Of America, Et. Al., And The American Samoa Government And The Hon. Aumua Amata, Rafael Cox Alomar

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Child Usa Et Al. As Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Our Lady Of Guadalupe School V. Morrissey-Berru, Leslie C. Griffin

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Child Usa Et Al. As Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Little Sisters Of The Poor Saints Peter And Paul Home V. Pennsylvania, Leslie C. Griffin

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Financial Oversight And Management Board For Puerto Rico V. Aurelius Investment, Llc, Rafael Cox Alomar

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet, Yvette Joy Liebesman, John A. Conway

Court Briefs

Untethered to a sufficient public policy interest, right of publicity claims have exploded nationwide. Plaintiffs have asserted claims against inspirational plaques featuring civil rights icons, Rosa and Raymond Parks Inst. for Self Dev. v. Target Corp., 812 F.3d 824 (11th Cir. 2016),artwork commemorating significant events, Moore v. Weinstein Co., LLC, 545 Fed. App’x. 405 , 407 (6th Cir. 2013); ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ’g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003), Wikipedia edits that truthfully connected an astronaut with the watch he wore on his Moon walk, Scott v. Citizen Watch Co. of Am., Inc., 17-CV-00436-NC, 2018 WL 1626773 (N.D. …

John Fitisemanu, Et. Al. V. United States Of America, Et. Al., Rafael Cox Alomar

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief In Opposition. Idaho Department Of Corrections V. Fuller, 138 S.Ct. 1345 (2018) (No. 17-959), Eric Schnapper, Ericka Birch, Kass Hartstad

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED The court of appeals concluded that a reasonable jury could find that actions by supervisors at the Idaho Department of Corrections created a hostile work environment. Petitioner does not seek review of that holding. The question presented is: Did the court of appeals err in concluding that the record contained sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to infer that the actions of those supervisors were gender-based?

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Kirk V. Invesco, Limited, 138 S.Ct. 1164 (2018) (No. 17-762), 2017 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 4618, 2017 Wl 5665441, Eric Schnapper, Nitin Sud

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED The Fair Labor Standards Act provides that covered employees who work more than 40 hours in a week must generally be paid overtime at a rate one and one-half times their regular rate. To assure compliance with that overtime rule, the Act and governing regulations require employers to maintain records of all hours worked by covered employees. If an employer has failed to keep the legally required records, the burden on the employee under Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. is simply to "produce[] sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter …

Reply Brief. Crouse V. Caldwell, 138 S.Ct. 470 (2017) (No. 17-242), Eric Schnapper, Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood, Marybeth Mullaney, Jennifer Munter Stark

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) When disputes of fact arise regarding whether speech by a public employee is protected by the First Amendment, should those factual issues be resolved by a trier of fact (the rule in the Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits), or by the court as a matter of constitutional law (the rule in the Fourth Circuit)? (2) When a government employee engages in speech on a subject of public concern, and a court applying Pickering balances the First Amendment interest against any contrary interests of the employer, should the extent of that First Amendment interest be “lessened” …

Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Appellant And In Support Of Reversal, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet

Court Briefs

ASTM’s fundamental complaint is about unauthorized use of its intangible content—the standards for which it claims copyright ownership. Dastar unambiguously holds, however, that only confusion regarding the source of physical goods is actionable under the Lanham Act; confusion regarding the authorship of the standards or their authorization is not actionable. ASTM cannot avoid Dastar just because Public Resource creates digital copies of those standards. Consumers encounter the ASTM marks only as part of the standards, into which ATSM chose to embed the marks. As a result, any “confusion” could only be the result of the content itself. Dastar teaches that …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Crouse V. Caldwell, 138 S.Ct. 470 (2017) (No. 17-242), Eric Schnapper, Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood, Marybeth Mullaney, Jennifer Munter Stark

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) When disputes of fact arise regarding whether speech by a public employee is protected by the First Amendment, should those factual issues be resolved by a trier of fact (the rule in the Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits), or by the court as a matter of constitutional law (the rule in the Fourth Circuit)? (2) When a government employee engages in speech on a subject of public concern, and a court applying Pickering balances the First Amendment interest against any contrary interests of the employer, should the extent of that First Amendment interest be “lessened” …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Favor Of Judgement As A Matter Of Law, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet, John A. Conway

Court Briefs

Plaintiff’s false designation of origin and false endorsement claims, such as they are, rest on the assertion that defendants falsely represented themselves as the origin of intellectual property on which the Oculus Rift is based. Those claims are barred by Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), which holds that only confusion regarding the origin of physical goods is actionable under the Lanham Act.

Petitioner's Reply Brief. Riley V. Elkhart Community Schools, 137 S.Ct. 1328 (No. 16-533), 2017 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 593, 2017 Wl 712023, Eric Schnapper, Robin Remley

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in promotion or hiring, is a plaintiff required to show that the position in question was filled by someone outside his or her protected group? (2) In Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, this Court held that in a case of alleged discrimination in hiring or promotion, a plaintiff “might seek to demonstrate that [the employer's] claim to have promoted a better qualified applicant was pretextual by showing that she was in fact better qualified than the person chosen for the position.” Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc. recognized that the …

Brief For Respondents. County Of Los Angeles V. Mendez, 137 S.Ct. 1539 (2017) (No. 16-3690), 2017 Wl 696103, Eric Schnapper, Rachel Lee, Leonard J. Feldman, Sara Berry

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Does the legal framework set out in Grnham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), apply to actions by police that foreseeably create a need for the use of force?

2. In an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where a house search that violates the Fourth Amendment results in the shooting of an innocent resident who did not know that the intruders were sheriff’s deputies, does a resident’s nonculpable response to the intrusion constitute a superseding cause that bars relief for the residents’ injuri

Reply Brief. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 9443770, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory termination, is a plaintiff required to show that he was replaced by someone outside his or her protected group?* (2) Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff prior to:bringing a civil action must first file a charge with the EEOC, usually within 300 days of the action complained of. The Question Presented is: Where a claimant files a timely Title VII charge asserting that employer conduct was the result of a particular unlawful motive, may the claimant after the end of the charge-filing period …

Brief Of Appellant, Abdullah Malik Joppy A/K/A Richard Joppy V. State Of Maryland, No. 533, Paul Dewolfe, Renée M. Hutchins, Peter Honnef

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Appellant, Davon Jones V. State Of Maryland, No. 547, Paul Dewolfe, Renée M. Hutchins, Matthew T. Healy

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.