When the Supreme Court announced that effective January 1, 2023, it no longer will require the parties’ consent, or the Court’s permission, to file an amicus brief, ALF Executive Vice President & General Counsel Larry Ebner posted a short alert about this development on LinkedIn. After the alert—which proposed that that the same requirement be eliminated in federal courts of appeals—received more than 7,000 views and numerous “thumbs up,” Larry decided to write an op-ed for Law360 on this subject.
Larry’s December 12 op-ed, titled Federal Courts Should Follow Supreme Court’s Amicus Stance, argues that federal courthouse doors should open automatically to true friends of the court. He explains that amicus briefs provide organizations and individuals with a direct voice in appellate courts on legal issues important to them. As a result, the opportunity to file an amicus brief should be viewed as a pillar of our nation’s open and transparent federal judicial system.
Larry’s op-ed cautions, however, that counsel for a prospective amicus curiae has a responsibility to decide whether filing an amicus brief is appropriate in a particular case, and if so, to draft a brief that provides a broader perspective on the legal issues or their potential effects, new or expanded legal argument, or relevant factual information that is not specific to the case being adjudicated.
Larry’s op-ed was one of the 5 most-read Expert Analyses among Law360’s 1.5 million readers during the week of December 12.
Last April, when the Supreme Court Clerk asked for public comment on the proposed elimination of the consent requirement for amicus briefs filed in that Court, ALF submitted written comments supporting the rules change. In a December 8 letter, the Clerk thanked ALF for its thoughtful comments on the rules revision.
