f11c4c No.1255 [View All]
Amicus briefs, or "friend of the court" briefs, serve a significant role in the judicial system, particularly in appellate courts and especially the U.S. Supreme Court.
Definition:
An amicus curiae brief is filed by someone not directly involved in the lawsuit but who has an interest in the case's outcome or the legal issues it raises. "Amicus curiae" translates from Latin as "friend of the court."
Purpose:
Influence Judicial Decisions:Amicus briefs are used to provide additional information, arguments, or perspectives that the litigating parties might not cover or emphasize. This can include legal interpretations, historical context, or the potential impact of a ruling on various sectors or society at large.
Offer Expertise:They can deliver expert analysis or data relevant to the case from scholars, industry experts, or advocacy groups.
Highlight Broader Implications:Amici often discuss how the court's decision might affect areas beyond the immediate case, such as public policy, economics, or civil rights.
Who Can File:
Non-Parties:This includes civic organizations, trade associations, unions, academic institutions, or even other governments.
Diverse Perspectives:From civil rights organizations to business groups, from local governments to international bodies, anyone with a stake in the case's outcome or the legal principles involved can file.
Filing Process:
Permission Needed:In many courts, especially appellate courts like the U.S. Supreme Court, an amicus must usually get consent from the court or the parties to file the brief.
Timing:There are specific deadlines for submission, typically aligned with when briefs from the parties are due or around oral arguments.
Content:
Legal Arguments:These briefs often delve into legal theories, precedents, or statutory interpretations that might sway judicial opinion.
Policy and Practical Effects:They might discuss the broader implications of the decision on industries, public policy, or human rights.
Empirical Data:Sometimes, amici provide data or research to support their arguments.
Impact:
Judicial Consideration:While courts are not obliged to consider these briefs, they often do, especially when they bring unique insights or clarify complex issues.
Public Influence:Filing an amicus brief can also serve to sway public opinion or encourage legislative action by highlighting societal or legal concerns.
Here's a link to all of them: https://www.americasfuture.net/law-policy/
Here's the status of all of them: https://www.americasfuture.net/amicus-briefs-status-reports/
You can find the Law Matters Podcast with Alicia Kutzer and Bill Olson that go over these Amicus Briefs: https://www.americasfuture.net/law-matters/
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Post last edited at
f11c4c No.2166
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f11c4c No.2906
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Post last edited at
f11c4c No.3050
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f11c4c No.3643
https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-scotus-brief-safeguards-separation-of-powers-defends-the-unborn/
>On Monday, February 10, 2025, America’s Future filed an Amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Eunice Medina, as South Carolina’s Interim Director of S.C. Department of Health and Human Services (SCDHS) v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al., SCOTUS Dkt. 23-1275. This case concerns states’ power and authority to regulate elective abortions in their jurisdiction. The SCOTUS public docket is located here. Our brief was filed in support of petitioner, SCDHS, and its position that healthcare providers who abort babies should be excluded from participating in its state Medicaid (MA) program.
Read the brief: https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AF-Amicus-Brief-Medina-v-Planned-Parenthood-SCOTUS-Filed-02102025.pdf
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f11c4c No.3745
>>2906
Here's a Law Matters episode about protecting hte meaning and value of American Citizenship.
https://www.americasfuture.net/law-matters-episode-17/
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c95d7e No.4608
https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-files-briefs-supporting-separation-of-powers-and-the-second-amendment/
>This matter arises out of the EO instructing the DOS to pause taxpayer funding of illegal alien assistance and resettlement programs, which had been free-flowing under the Biden administration, which surreptitiously expanded the meaning of “refugee” to include nearly half of the world’s population. As explained in the brief,
>U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) v Department of State, et al. (DOS), Dkt. No. 1:25-cv-00465
https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Americas-Future-Motion-Amicus-Brief-DOS-v-US-Conf-Catholic-Bishops.pdf
>The case arises out of a state law that took effect on June 12, 2021 following Missouri Governor Michael Parson’s signature. The law is called the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” (SAPA). It declared certain federal restrictions on firearms to be “infringements” of rights of Missourians protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
>Missouri v United States of America, SCOTUS Dkt No. 24-796
https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Americas-Future-Amicus-Brief-Missouri-v-US-SCOTUS.pdf
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
696c63 No.5087
https://www.americasfuture.net/law-matters-episode-19/
>In Episode 19, attorneys Kutzer and Olson address a challenge to a 2023 Tennessee law that prohibits healthcare providers from furnishing gender-changing items and services such as puberty blockers, hormone-altering drugs, and surgeries to minors. The case is now before the Supreme Court.
>Listen and learn about the travel of the case and the legal issues the Court will consider regarding whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from enacting laws protecting children from sex-transition medical interventions with risks of lifelong harm. The ruling could have a national impact since roughly half of the states have passed laws regulating the provision of gender-changing surgeries and drugs to minors. The case is U.S. v Jonathan Skrmetti, Tennessee’s Attorney General.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
42f116 No.5270
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
223d5a No.5606
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
223d5a No.5607
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
223d5a No.5608
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
223d5a No.5609
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
223d5a No.5610
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
223d5a No.5611
>>5606
https://www.americasfuture.net/amicus-briefs-status-reports/
There's literally like dozens of these briefs and they're all high impact with national consequences.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
23a07b No.6153
https://www.americasfuture.net/law-matters-episode-20/
>In Episode 20, attorneys Kutzer and Olson discuss the ongoing criminal matter against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, specifically examining the meaning of prosecutorial discretion and the motion to dismiss filed in this case by the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 48(a).
>Listen and learn what “leave of court” means and how activist judges game the system, violate the Constitution, and undercut the rules of judicial ethics when they act as partisan players instead of as referees or umpires calling balls and strikes. The attorneys look back at the persecution of General Mike Flynn. The case is United States of America v Eric Adams
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e84621 No.6533
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e84621 No.6534
https://www.americasfuture.net/americas-future-files-scotus-brief-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
This is a good one that will help stop anchor babies and other fraudulent forms of getting citizenship.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b3fdcc No.6687
https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1908895124232282468
>Law Matters - Episode 21
>In Episode 21, attorneys Kutzer and Olson examine a case addressing federalism and states’ rights. The case arises out of a 2021 Missouri law announcing it would not enforce federal gun regulations that the state perceived to be in violation of the Second Amendment.
>Listen and learn why the State of Missouri signed into law its “Second Amendment Preservation Act” to protect its citizens’ rights to bear arms, what lower courts ruled, and why federal courts cannot second-guess a state’s Tenth Amendment authority. The case is Missouri v United States of America, which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b3fdcc No.7140
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
eec274 No.7533
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
eec274 No.8062
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
eec274 No.8394
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
eec274 No.8415
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
eec274 No.8571
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
207386 No.8906
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
207386 No.8944
https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1924531811125690394
https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Americas-Future-Noem-v-NTA-SCOTUS-May-8-2025.pdf
>
In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court granted the Trump Administration’s request for a stay of a district court injunction, allowing it to move forward with deporting hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans during the appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
207386 No.9167
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
207386 No.9335
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
207386 No.9450
https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1928489823934751107
>The Supreme Court granted a stay of the Massachusetts district court’s injunction in Noem v Doe, et al., in a 7-2 decision, allowing President Trump to move forward with the revocation of parole and removal of more than 500,000 persons illegally allowed into the country.
https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Americas-Future-Amicus-Brief-Noem-v-Doe-SCOTUS-05152025.pdf
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
207386 No.9559
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
207386 No.9661
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
207386 No.9721
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
207386 No.9741
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
12e55f No.9924
https://www.americasfuture.net/newsletter/standing-for-america/#keeping-you-informed
United States v. Shilling: On May 6, 2025, in a 6-3 vote, the SCOTUS entered an order granting the government’s Application for Stay of an injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in connection with President Trump’s January 27, 2025, Executive Order (EO) called “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.” The decision allowed President Trump’s Executive Order to go forward, removing persons with gender dysphoria from the U.S. military. America’s Future was the only amicus brief filed supporting the government’s position.
https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Americas-Future-Amicus-US-v-Shilling-SCOTUS.pdf
Noem v. National TPS Alliance: On May 19, 2025, in an 8-1 decision, the SCOTUS granted the Trump administration’s request for a stay, allowing it to move forward with deporting hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans during the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. America’s Future is proud to have helped score this win with its amicus brief to the Supreme Court, available here.
https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Americas-Future-Noem-v-NTA-SCOTUS-May-8-2025.pdf
Trump v. Wilcox: On May 22, 2025, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s application for a stay, allowing the firing of members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. America’s Future had filed an amicus brief supporting the government’s request on April 15, 2025, in addition to filing a brief on March 29, 2025, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Read America’s Future’s Supreme Court brief here.
https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Americas-Future-Amicus-Wilcox-v-Trump-SCOTUS-04152025.pdf
Noem v. Doe: On May 30, 2025, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court granted a stay of the Massachusetts district court’s injunction, allowing President Trump to move forward with the revocation of parole and removal of more than 500,000 persons illegally allowed into the country. America’s Future is proud to support President Trump and uphold the Constitution by helping score this victory with our amicus brief in this case. Read the brief here.
https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Americas-Future-Amicus-Brief-Noem-v-Doe-SCOTUS-05152025.pdf
The big cases that make the news America's Future weighs in on and wins.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
12e55f No.9978
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
12e55f No.10036
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
12e55f No.10087
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
12e55f No.10090
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
12e55f No.10216
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
12e55f No.10310
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
12e55f No.10335
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
12e55f No.10336
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
12e55f No.10404
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
12e55f No.10464
https://www.americasfuture.net/speaking-with-american-patriots-bill-olson/
> If courts are to make such decisions, the voice of Christian constitutional conservatives must be heard by judges through amicus briefs filed in those courts. Generally, amicus briefs can be more principled and bolder than the briefs filed by parties, and America Future’s amicus briefs even quote Scripture in briefs as appropriate.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
38b8bb No.10664
https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1942695433349833158
https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Americas-Future-Amicus-Brief-SCOTUS-Trump-v-AFGE.pdf
>Just now, in an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed an injunction issued by yet another rogue district court judge, which allows the Trump Administration to move forward with its workforce reduction plan to cut government waste and restore accountability.
We do be firing the federal govt now.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b83b81 No.10807
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
94b6fe No.10974
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5a29e3 No.11358
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
644b72 No.11579
https://x.com/Amerifuture/status/1955400508321181922
https://www.americasfuture.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/AF-Amicus-Brief-Brandt-v.-Griffin-11162023.pdf
>In an 8-2 decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (en banc), families and children win! America’s Future is thrilled to have helped score this victory that upholds Arkansas’s SAFE Act, protecting children from “gender affirming” medical and surgical atrocities. The court also rejected the claim that the plaintiff parents had a right to transition their kids, concluding there was "no such right in this Nation's history and tradition."
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
Post last edited at
6e7c49 No.11782
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.