Supreme Court Rule Puts a Crimp in Crowd-Funded Amicus Briefs
“The Clerk's Office interprets this language [of Rule 37.6] to preclude an amicus from filing a brief if contributors are anonymous,” a spokesperson for the Supreme Court told NLJ.
December 10, 2018 at 02:53 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A handful of organizations have recently resorted to GoFundMe campaigns to generate donations for covering the cost of producing amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.
But because GoFundMe allows for anonymous contributions, the nascent trend has hit a speed bump.
A lawyer for the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance is withdrawing an amicus brief she filed in a pending case, after the court clerk's office informed her that amicus groups must identify all contributors who gave money to fund such briefs. The alliance's GoFundMe campaign included anonymous donors.
“We're going to re-file the brief with a revised disclosure that identifies all the donors to the GoFundMe,” Allison Ehlert of Ehlert Appeals in El Cerrito, California, said. “The client has returned the donation of the one or two anonymous donors who preferred to remain anonymous.”
The sticking point is the high court's Rule 37.6, which requires that amicus brief filers “shall identify every person other than the amicus curiae, its members or its counsel, who made such a monetary contribution.” The court imposed the rule in 1997 in an effort to stop parties in a case from surreptitiously “buying” what amounts to a second or supplemental merits brief, disguised as an amicus brief, to get around word limits.
In a statement to The National Law Journal, the court's public information office said last week, “The Clerk's Office interprets this language [of Rule 37.6] to preclude an amicus from filing a brief if contributors are anonymous.” The National Law Journal first brought the issue of anonymous GoFundMe amicus funding to the court's attention Nov. 28.
The Alcohol Policy Alliance brief was filed in the case of Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd, a Twenty-First Amendment dispute over a Tennessee law that requires two years of residence in the state before someone is eligible for a license to sell liquor to consumers.
The alliance supports the law as a way of ensuring that retailers “have a connection to the communities in which they do business and thus have a greater incentive than out-of-state retailers to be viewed as law-abiding, responsible sales people by their neighbors and friends.”
The alliance's GoFundMe campaign is titled, “Protect States' Options on Alcohol” and has raised nearly $3,000, with a goal of $5,000.
An organization on the other side of the case also has a GoFundMe page, titled “Wine Freedom,” which is an affiliate of the National Association of Wine Retailers. The group opposes state regulations that, among other things, restrict wine shipments from out-of-state wine stores and online retailers.
Wine Freedom has raised more than $26,000, exceeding its GoFundMe goal of $25,000. It too includes anonymous donors, but the brief is not due until Dec. 20.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
Litigators of the Week: The Eighth Circuit Knocks Out a $564M Verdict Against BMO in Ponzi Case
Litigator of the Week: Reversing a $2B Trade Secret Verdict, the Largest in Va. History
What the Decline in Jury Verdicts Means for Appellate Courts
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250