The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Judge Lee Rudofsky (E.D. Ark.) Suggests Filing of Amicus Briefs, Offers Oral Argument to Junior Lawyers
From Order on Amicus Briefs, just issued today; it will be entered in all of Judge Rudofsky's civil cases:
When I was practicing law, I often wondered why amicus briefs were generally not filed at the district court level. It occurred to me back then that such briefs could have considerably more impact at the district court level than they have at the circuit court level or even at the Supreme Court. Since taking the bench, my views on the desirability of amicus briefing at the district court level have only grown stronger. While the majority of cases on a district court's docket don't warrant amicus briefing, there are a healthy number of cases each year that do.
By way of example, and not limitation, each year a handful (or two) of cases on my docket present really serious issues of constitutional law or statutory interpretation that are not directly controlled by binding precedent. And I have found that, in these cases, the parties often do not have the necessary time or economic resources to devote to full analyses of the text and history of the provision or provisions at issue. In such cases, my judicial process and my decisions would likely benefit from amicus briefing on the original public meaning of the disputed provision or provisions. I can imagine amici providing, among other things, important historical context, in-depth corpus linguistics analyses, or detailed structural arguments that might not make it into the parties' briefing.
I recognize that amicus briefing is a costly and time-consuming endeavor. However, it is also a great way for more junior attorneys at law firms, non-profits, corporations, and government entities to gain valuable experience, make a good reputation for themselves, and get some oral argument time. Accordingly, in addition to making it known that I invite and am grateful for amicus briefs in my cases, I wish to extend the following notice. Anyone who is the principal drafter of an amicus brief on either a dispositive motion or a motion for preliminary relief in one of my cases will be guaranteed at least ten (10) minutes of oral argument time so long as the person has been a lawyer for fewer than seven (7) years. The parties in the case may not in any way fund the amicus brief or the drafter's attendance at oral argument.
An amicus brief (attached as an exhibit to a motion for leave to file) must be submitted no later than three (3) days after the filing of the principal brief by the party that the amicus brief supports. If the amicus brief supports neither party, it must be submitted no later than three (3) days after the filing of the principal brief by the party opposing the motion. An amicus brief must be no more than twenty (20) pages, unless leave of the Court is obtained to exceed that number of pages. As a general matter, the Court will look favorably upon a request by any party to respond to an amicus brief in writing. And, of course, any party may respond to any amicus brief at oral argument.
Some other courts have similarly tried to encourage oral argument by junior lawyers, but this is the first (though I hope not the last) example of this being expressly extended to amicus briefs. I think of this as a teaching hospital model, but for lawyers: There are obvious advantages to having work be done by the more experienced lawyers, but you can't get more experienced lawyers unless junior lawyers can get experience. And here at least the client's life won't be at stake (both because these are civil cases, and because the amicus doesn't have a direct liberty or property interest at stake in the case).
I expect that Judge Rudofsky would also be open to oral argument by law students who had drafted a brief under a professor's supervision, and who would be prepared extensively for argument by the professor. I was delighted to have my student Pauline Alarcon have a chance to do this before Judge Stephen Clark (E.D. Mo.); there might be an opportunity for this sort of thing here as well.
And while I expect that many of the takers will be from Arkansas, I think the local rules of the Arkansas federal courts let out-of-state lawyers join the district court bar without being members of the Arkansas state bar: A lawyer can join, and thus file amicus briefs, so long as the lawyer is "licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where that person's principal law office is located and where that person principally practices law," and is a member of the bar of at least one other federal District Court.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The obvious problem is that no one really cares what John (or Jane) Doe, District Judge, thinks about a difficult question of Constitutional interpretation. Whatever the ruling, it can be appealed as of right. So you know a higher court will likely review it. And even if not, the precedential impact is limited.
So I think it is a matter of prioritizing resources.
In the "each year a handful (or two) of cases on my docket" the judge discusses, people might well be interested, the potential cost/benefit ratio is favorable, and briefing could well improve issues for appeal. I think this is a pretty good idea, tbh ... and I say this as a former Federal district court clerk; it's not novel territory for me.
One problem I see is identifying which of the many, many cases on a district court judge's docket are the 1-2 that would benefit.
1: You might help someone deserving of help.
2: It's a way to get experience when no one will pay for you to get experience
3: If this becomes more common, winning amicus briefs will get shared around
4: The left has an ecosystem of "non-profits" that pay for the left to get these kind of arguments out. This offers a chance for right wing attorneys to get out the correct arguments
Which I guess would be why you hate it
LOL. Ask around here whether I am right-wing or left-wing. Stop the clownish ad hominems.
Imma support BL on this one. We don't always agree (putting it mildly), but a misinformed AdHom is a stupider-than-usual AdHom.
TY. And BTW, there are right-wing organizations that have resources for legal arguments they support. Which is fine. I would think in the Internet age, counsel in a case that raises novel issues would be able to find these organizations or resources.
Bored Lawyer, may I ask a question?
If you (personally) were a lawyer in a supervisory position within a law firm, would you take the judge up on his offer and have your junior-most legal associates write amicus briefs? Do you agree with the judge that this OJT opportunity is educational? Or do you just see this as a time suck that takes away from billable hours.
Hopefully you see this. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Eugene, I'd be interested in your thoughts on this blawg post from Scott Greenfield addressing the practical effect of amici on criminal defendants. I think it also indirectly supports Bored Lawyer's point. https://blog.simplejustice.us/2023/03/22/will-amici-help-or-hurt/