DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Supreme Court of the United States ———— MIKE BROWN, Acting Warden Petitioner, V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Supreme Court of the United States ———— MIKE BROWN, Acting Warden Petitioner, V No. 20-826 In the Supreme Court of the United States ———— MIKE BROWN, Acting Warden Petitioner, v. ERVINE DAVENPORT, Respondent. ———— On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ———— BRIEF FOR THE STATES OF ARKANSAS, ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, GEORGIA, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, AND UTAH AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ———— LESLIE RUTLEDGE Arkansas Attorney General OFFICE OF THE ARKANSAS NICHOLAS J. BRONNI ATTORNEY GENERAL Solicitor General 323 Center Street Counsel of Record Suite 200 VINCENT M. WAGNER Little Rock, AR 72201 Deputy Solicitor General (501) 682-6302 ASHER L. STEINBERG nicholas.bronni@ Assistant Solicitor General arkansasag.gov Counsel for Amici Curiae [Additional Counsel Listed after Signature Page] WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ iii INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ...................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................... 1 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 3 I. Finding prejudice under Brecht does not ensure that a state court’s harmlessness determination is unreasonable under AEDPA because Brecht allows courts to consult a broader universe of materials. 3 A. Brecht and AEDPA/Chapman look to different sets of legal materials. ......... 5 B. The differences in applicable legal materials can lead to different results. ................................................. 7 1. Extraneous evidence. ..................... 8 2. Presumptions of prejudice. ............ 12 3. New arguments. ............................. 14 II. Reasonable disagreements can be large as well as small, so finding prejudice under Brecht does not ensure that a state court’s harmlessness determination under Chapman is unreasonable. ............ 16 III. Determining whether a state court’s harmlessness determination is unrea- sonable requires actually considering the state court’s rationale. .............................. 22 (i) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page IV. If the Court has any doubt about whether the Sixth Circuit’s rule is correct, the Court should reject its rule. ...................... 25 CONCLUSION .................................................... 28 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) Ayala v. Wong, 756 F.3d 656 (9th Cir. 2014) ..................... 27 Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) ..................................passim Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1 (2011) (per curiam) ........... 18, 19, 20 Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) ....................................passim Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) ................................... 6 Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015) ................................... 3, 4, 5 Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) ............................. 12, 13, 14 Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007) ................................... 6, 9 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) ............................... 16, 23, 24 Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (1986) ................. 10, 11, 12, 21, 25 Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) ................................... 18 Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) ................................... 8, 21 Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) ..................................... 23 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) Marshall v. Rodgers, 569 U.S. 58 (2013) (per curiam) ................... 6, 9 Mays v. Hines, 141 S. Ct. 1145 (2021) (per curiam) ......... 24 Metrish v. Lancaster, 569 U.S. 351 (2013) ................................... 11 Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) ................................... 27 O’Neal v. McAnich, 513 U.S. 432 (1995) ................................... 4, 20 Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30 (2009) (per curiam) ............... 24 Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011) ................................... 13 Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (2010) ................................... 19 Rhoden v. Rowland, 172 F.3d 633 (9th Cir. 1999) ..................... 12, 14 Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) ................................... 24 Ruimveld v. Birkett, 404 F.3d 1006 (6th Cir. 2005) ............... 9, 12, 14 Sexton v. Beaudreaux, 138 S. Ct. 2555 (2018) (per curiam) ......... 6, 15 Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) ................................... 8 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s) United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) ..................................... 21 White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415 (2014) ................................... 6, 12 Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) ................................... 24 Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) ..................................passim STATUTES 28 U.S.C. 2254 .............................................. 6 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1) ..................................... 7 28 U.S.C. 2254(d) .......................................... 6 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) ..................................... 5, 6 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2)...................................... 7 OTHER AUTHORITIES Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty (1969) .. 23, 24 INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE Amici are the States of Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. As States, each defends habeas petitions in federal court and has an interest in ensuring that state-court judgments are accorded appropriate defer- ence under Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The decision below, uniquely in lower-court habeas jurisprudence, holds that federal courts may refuse to deferentially review state-court decisions on a particular issue, harmless error, so long as on de novo review, a federal court finds prejudice under a more demanding standard than the one state courts are required to apply. Amici States do not believe de novo review of prejudice, even under a higher standard than that applicable in state court, suffices to ensure States the deference their courts’ decisions are owed. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Below, the Sixth Circuit held that if a habeas court has grave doubt about whether an error caused preju- dice under Brecht, it’s necessarily unreasonable under AEDPA for a state court to have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. For multiple reasons, that is wrong. But even if the Court is inclined to think it is right, it should reverse the Sixth Circuit and require courts to demonstrate that AEDPA has been satisfied before granting relief. I. The Sixth Circuit’s rule rests on the proposition that a state court’s assessment of prejudice can only differ so much from a habeas court’s before it becomes 2 unreasonable under AEDPA. If Brecht and AEDPA review of state-court decisions applied the same law, that argument would have surface appeal—though nothing more. But in reality, Brecht analysis is informed by a large body of law that federal courts can’t consider when addressing reasonableness under AEDPA. And those materials can determine out- comes, whether by instructing courts on what evidence of prejudice they can consider, or providing presump- tions and rules of thumb for assessing the likely effects of certain errors. So however broad reasonable legal disagreements can be in the abstract, substantial reasonable disagreements here are entirely possible. II. Even if courts only considered this Court’s holdings when applying Brecht, finding grave doubt about prejudice de novo would not mean a state court’s harmlessness determination was necessarily unrea- sonable. The Sixth Circuit’s rule presumes that the gap between grave doubt and no reasonable doubt is simply too great a gap for reasonable disagreement to bridge. But no rule of law or logic says that reasonable minds can only differ by small margins. This Court’s precedent on sufficiency-of-the-evidence review shows just the opposite; a court can have grave doubts about a defendant’s guilt, yet conclude a reasonable jury could find it beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable disagreements of this magnitude are possible because a reviewing court will not always be certain its own view is correct; the weaker its confidence in its own view, the wider range of differing views it will deem reasonable. And prejudice determinations, in particu- lar, are an area where it is especially difficult to make confident judgments. III. Even confident prejudice determinations under Brecht do not ensure a state court’s harmlessness 3 determination is unreasonable. Rather, the only way to really determine whether a state court’s reasoning is reasonable is to actually review it. Even if a court feels certain grave doubt about prejudice is warranted, that certainty may be unearned. Until a court has demonstrated that reasonable jurists could not accept the state court’s reasoning for finding harmlessness, it cannot be certain its own assessment of prejudice is correct. IV. Even if the Court is inclined to conclude that finding prejudice under Brecht means that findings of harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt are unrea- sonable, the Court should still require lower courts to review state-court harmlessness determinations under AEDPA before granting relief. If the Sixth Circuit is correct, requiring lower courts to apply AEDPA
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States District Court District of Oregon Eugene Division
    Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 515 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 22 STEVE MARSHALL Attorney General of Alabama Edmund G. LaCour Jr. (AL Bar No. 9182-U81L) Solicitor General Thomas A. Wilson (AL Bar No. 1494-D25C) Deputy Solicitor General STATE OF ALABAMA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36130 Telephone: (334) 242-7300 Fax: (334) 353-8400 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Proposed Defendant-Intervenor [additional counsel listed on State of Alabama signature page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA Plaintiffs, v. PROPOSED DEFENDANT-INTER- VENORS STATES OF ALABAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ALASKA, ARKANSAS, GEORGIA, Defendants. INDIANA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MON- TANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DA- KOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS, UTAH, AND WEST VIRGINIA’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUP- PORT OF MOTION FOR LIM- ITED INTERVENTION. (ECF Nos. 475, 508, 509) Proposed Defendant-Intervenors’ Reply Memo. in Support of Motion for Limited Intervention Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 515 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 22 INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs’ response to the States’1 Motion for Limited Intervention (Doc. 475) confirms that through their ongoing settlement negotiations with Defendants, Plaintiffs seek “a fundamental transformation of this country’s energy system.” Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159, 1171 (9th Cir. 2020).2 And any such “transformation” would, of course, affect the States. The States thus have an interest in participating in these negotiations, objecting to any potential settlement of Plaintiffs’ claims, and seeking the denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and file a second amended complaint.
    [Show full text]
  • May 25, 2021 the Honorable Charles Schumer Majority Leader United
    May 25, 2021 The Honorable Charles Schumer The Honorable A. Mitchell McConnell Majority Leader Minority Leader United States Senate United States Senate 322 Hart Senate Office Building 317 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Richard Durbin The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senators: The Second Amendment is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. It guarantees our natural God-given right to defend our lives, our families, our property, and our freedom. The confirmation of David Chipman to head the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) is an attack on that right and on the millions of law-abiding gun owners across the country. As state Attorneys General, we took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and protect the rights and freedoms of our constituents. These responsibilities force us to stand in opposition to Mr. Chipman’s nomination and in support of our constituents’ rights. Firearms are far beyond a hobby or a passion. They are a part of our national heritage and everyday life for tens of millions of Americans, particularly those of us who live in rural areas. We use them to hunt, protect livestock, and provide peace of mind when law enforcement may be miles away. This is why Mr. Chipman’s past affiliation with anti-gun organizations and his extreme positions on commonly owned firearms is so concerning to us as attorneys general and why he is unfit to be confirmed as head of the ATF.
    [Show full text]
  • Document Future Danger (Including Past Violence Where the Same Regime Prohibited Their Right to Self-Defense), the Regime Fails Muster Under Any Level of Scrutiny
    No. 20-843 In the Supreme Court of the United States NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. KEVIN P. BRUEN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRIEF OF ARIZONA, MISSOURI, ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, IDAHO, INDIANA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WYOMING AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS MARK BRNOVICH ERIC S. SCHMITT Arizona Attorney Missouri Attorney General General JOSEPH A. KANEFIELD D. JOHN SAUER Chief Deputy Solicitor General BRUNN W. ROYSDEN III JEFF JOHNSON Solicitor General Deputy Solicitor General DREW C. ENSIGN Deputy Solicitor General OFFICE OF THE MISSOURI Counsel of Record ATTORNEY GENERAL ANTHONY R. NAPOLITANO Supreme Court Building Assistant Attorney General 207 West High Street OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA P.O. Box 899 ATTORNEY GENERAL Jefferson City, MO 65102 2005 N. Central Ave. (573) 751-3321 Phoenix, AZ 85004 [email protected] (602) 542-5025 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae (Additional Counsel listed on inside cover) Additional Counsel STEVE MARSHALL DANIEL CAMERON Attorney General Attorney General of Alabama of Kentucky TREG TAYLOR JEFF LANDRY Attorney General Attorney General of Alaska of Louisiana LESLIE RUTLEDGE LYNN FITCH Attorney General Attorney General of Arkansas of Mississippi ASHLEY MOODY AUSTIN KNUDSEN Attorney General Attorney General of Florida of Montana CHRISTOPHER M. CARR DOUGLAS J. PETERSON Attorney General Attorney General of Georgia of Nebraska LAWRENCE G.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the SIXTH CIRCUIT BRISTOL REGIONAL WOMEN’S CENTER, P.C., Et Al
    Case: 20-6267 Document: 50 Filed: 03/02/2021 Page: 1 Case No. 20-6267 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT BRISTOL REGIONAL WOMEN’S CENTER, P.C., et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees v. HERBERT H. SLATERY III, Attorney General of Tennessee, et al. Defendants-Appellants On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Case No. 3:15-cv-705 BRIEF OF THE STATES OF KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, GEORGIA, IDAHO, INDIANA, KANSAS, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS, UTAH, &WEST VIRGINIA AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS’ PETITION FOR INITIAL HEARING EN BANC OR ALTERNATIVELY REHEARING EN BANC Daniel Cameron Jeff Landry Attorney General of Kentucky Attorney General of Louisiana Barry L. Dunn Elizabeth B. Murrill Deputy Attorney General Solicitor General S. Chad Meredith Office of the Attorney General Solicitor General Louisiana Department of Justice Matthew F. Kuhn* 1885 N. Third Street Principal Deputy Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 Solicitor General (225) 326-6766 Brett R. Nolan Deputy Solicitor General *Counsel of record Office of the Attorney General 700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (502) 696-5300 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae Case: 20-6267 Document: 50 Filed: 03/02/2021 Page: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………………………………… ii INTERESTS OF AMICI …………………………………………………………………………………. 1 ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 I. The motion panel’s decision undermines recent circuit precedent on an issue of exceptional importance. ………………………………………………………………………………. 2 II. The motion panel’s decision cannot be squared with Casey or this Court’s precedent.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 1 of 23 No. 19-55376 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VIRGINIA DUNCAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, V. XAVIER BECERRA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, No. 17-cv-1017-BEN-JLB BRIEF OF TWENTY-TWO STATES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES ON EN BANC REHEARING Jeff Landry Mark Brnovich Louisiana Attorney General Arizona Attorney General Elizabeth B. Murrill Joseph A. Kanefield Solicitor General Chief Deputy & Chief of Staff Josiah Kollmeyer Brunn W. Roysden III Assistant Solicitor General Solicitor General Louisiana Department of Justice Michael S. Catlett 1885 N. Third Street Deputy Solicitor General Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Counsel of Record (225) 205-8009 OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL 2005 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 542-7751 April 1, 2021 [email protected] Counsel for Amici States (Additional counsel listed after signature block) Case: 19-55376, 04/01/2021, ID: 12061300, DktEntry: 145, Page 2 of 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............................................................................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 3 ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • June 28, 2021 by OVERNIGHT MAIL Hon. Nancy Pelosi Speaker U.S. House of Representatives Hon. Kevin Mccarthy Minority Leader U.S
    June 28, 2021 BY OVERNIGHT MAIL Hon. Nancy Pelosi Hon. Kevin McCarthy Speaker Minority Leader U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives Hon. Maria Cantwell Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr. Chair Chairman U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Science, & Transportation Commerce Hon. Roger Wicker Hon. Cathy McMorris Rogers Ranking Member Ranking Member U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Science, & Transportation Commerce Re: Consumer Protection and Recovery Act (H.R. 2668) Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Chair Cantwell, Chairman Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member Wicker, and Ranking Member McMorris Rogers: As the leading antitrust and consumer protection officers in our respective States, we write to express our strong support for the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act, H.R. 2668 (“Act”), which will ensure the ability of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to obtain equitable monetary relief and redress harms to consumers impacted by fraud or anticompetitive conduct. We applaud the Act’s goal of redressing harms suffered by victims of anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive trade practices, and its application to FTC cases that are currently in litigation. The Act is essential to prevent the severe harm to consumers that will result from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission,1 which held that the FTC lacks the authority to obtain equitable monetary relief through its Section 13(b) enforcement actions.2 The AMG decision upends four decades of FTC practice and seriously undermines the FTC’s efforts to combat fraud and other anticompetitive or unfair trade practices.
    [Show full text]
  • CAFA Notice Materials
    Case: 1:16-cv-03792 Document #: 118 Filed: 07/19/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:563 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ANTHONY D. KOLTON, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) No. 16-cv-3792 ) v. ) The Honorable Charles Kocoras ) MICHAEL W. FRERICHS, Illinois State ) Treasurer, ) ) Defendant. ) DECLARATION OF SARAH H. NEWMAN I, Sarah H. Newman, state that I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, that I am competent to testify and if called to testify would state as follows: 1. I am an Assistant Attorney General with the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. I am the attorney representing Defendant Michael W. Frerichs in this matter. 2. On July 14 and 15, 2021, I caused a notice of the proposed settlement in this case to be sent to the Attorney General of the United States and the attorneys general of the states and United States jurisdictions in which class members reside or may reside. I caused these notices to be sent pursuant to Paragraph 3.1.4 of the Agreement of Settlement and in accordance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b). Working at my direction, Stephanie Ratliff, Roxy Hollenstine, and Rick Cory, employees of the Illinois State Treasurer’s office, sent the CAFA notices to the attorneys general via certified mail, return receipt requested. Exhibit A hereto is a list of the recipients of the CAFA notices, including the tracking numbers for each notice sent. Case: 1:16-cv-03792 Document #: 118 Filed: 07/19/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:564 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Brief Without the Parties’ Consent Or Leave of the Court
    No. 18-2926 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _____________________________________________________ Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Appellant, vs. Nizar Wehbi et al., Appellees. ___________________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA _____________________________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE STATES OF MINNESOTA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, MISSISSIPPI, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OKLAHOMA, OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TEXAS, UTAH, VERMONT, VIRGINIA, AND WASHINGTON, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE _____________________________________________________ KEITH ELLISON Attorney General State of Minnesota ANGELA BEHRENS # 0351076 STEPHEN MELCHIONNE #0391374 ALLEN COOK BARR #0399094 Assistant Attorneys General 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400 St. Paul, MN 55101-2127 Telephone: 651-757-1204 ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE STATES STATEMENT UNDER FED. R. APP. P. 29(a)(4)(D) The States of Minnesota, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court District of Oregon Eugene Division
    Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 475 Filed 06/08/21 Page 1 of 28 STEVE MARSHALL Attorney General of Alabama Edmund G. LaCour Jr. (AL Bar No. 9182-U81L) Solicitor General Thomas A. Wilson (AL Bar No. 1494-D25C) Deputy Solicitor General STATE OF ALABAMA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36130 Telephone: (334) 242-7300 Fax: (334) 353-8400 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Proposed Defendant-Intervenor [additional counsel listed on State of Alabama signature page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-AA Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR LIMITED v. INTERVENTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT BY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., PROPOSED DEFENDANT- Defendants. INTERVENORS STATES OF ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, GEORGIA, INDIANA, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS, UTAH, AND WEST VIRGINIA. REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RULING Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 475 Filed 06/08/21 Page 2 of 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... ii LOCAL RULE 7-1(a) CERTIFICATION.................................................................................. 1 MOTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Here Magazines Capable of Holding More Than Ten Rounds Are Lawfully Possessed and Used
    No. 20-1507 In the Supreme Court of the United States ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC.; and BLAKE ELLMAN, Petitioners, v. GURBIR S. GREWAL, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of New Jersey, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit BRIEF OF ARIZONA, LOUISIANA, AND TWENTY-TWO OTHER STATES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS JEFF LANDRY MARK BRNOVICH Louisiana Attorney Arizona Attorney General General JOSEPH A. KANEFIELD ELIZABETH B. MURRILL Chief Deputy and Solicitor General Chief of Staff JOSIAH KOLLMEYER BRUNN W. ROYSDEN III Assistant Solicitor Solicitor General General MICHAEL S. CATLETT LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT Deputy Solicitor General OF JUSTICE Counsel of Record 1885 N. Third St. KATE B. SAWYER Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Assistant Solicitor General (225) 205-8009 OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL 2005 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 542-5025 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae (Additional Counsel listed on Inside Cover) STEVE MARSHALL DOUGLAS J. PETERSON Attorney General Attorney General of Alabama of Nebraska TREG TAYLOR WAYNE STENEHJEM Attorney General Attorney General of Alaska of North Dakota LESLIE RUTLEDGE DAVE YOST Attorney General Attorney General of Arkansas of Ohio CHRISTOPHER M. CARR MIKE HUNTER Attorney General Attorney General of Georgia of Oklahoma LAWRENCE G. WASDEN ALAN WILSON Attorney General Attorney General of Idaho of South Carolina THEODORE E. ROKITA JASON R. RAVNSBORG Attorney General Attorney General of Indiana of South Dakota DEREK SCHMIDT HERBERT H. SLATERY III Attorney General Attorney General and of Kansas Reporter of Tennessee DANIEL CAMERON KEN PAXTON Attorney General Attorney General of Kentucky of Texas LYNN FITCH SEAN D.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter from Ken Paxton, Att’Y Gen
    Congressional Leaders June 21, 2021 Page 1 June 21, 2021 Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Majority Leader Schumer, and Minority Leader McConnell: We were disappointed to find the conspicuous omission of the Hyde Amend- ment in the budget proposal that President Biden delivered to Congress earlier this month. 1 The Hyde Amendment was first enacted in 1976 following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, and has been reenacted every year since with broad bipartisan support.2 The key to the Hyde Amendment’s four- and-a-half-decades longevity is that its purpose is clear and commonsensical: it prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions (with exceptions), on the basis that a great many taxpayers object to abortion on moral or religious grounds and, therefore, it is unconscionable to force them to pay for abortions by using their tax dollars for that purpose. Congress should resist following President Biden down this path and should instead maintain the Hyde Amendment language in the budget it ultimately passes. Fighting for the freedom of conscience has been a hallmark of state attor- neys general. We have a unique interest in the Hyde Amendment as an important protection for the consciences of the millions of Americans who oppose public funding of abortion. As we wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar in 2018, “Protecting religious liberty and freedom of conscience is at the root of the Constitution’s commitment to individual liberty and limited govern- ment.”3 Congress and the courts have historically recognized this founding prin- ciple, particularly in the context of abortion, as evidenced by the array of federal 1 OFF.
    [Show full text]
  • Here Is One of Profound Substantive Importance to Our Democratic System of Governance
    No. 20-601 In the Supreme Court of the United States DANIEL CAMERON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, Petitioner, v. EMW WOMEN’S SURGICAL CENTER, P.S.C., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS STAFF, AND ITS PATIENTS, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ARIZONA, ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, IDAHO, INDIANA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, AND WEST VIRGINIA MARK BRNOVICH BRUNN W. ROYSDEN III Attorney General Solicitor General Counsel of Record JOSEPH A. KANEFIELD DREW C. ENSIGN Chief Deputy and MICHAEL S. CATLETT Chief of Staff Deputy Solicitors General KATE B. SAWYER Assistant Solicitor General OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL 2005 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 542-5025 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae (Additional Counsel listed at end of brief) i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 5 I. The States Have A Strong And Indisputable Sovereign Interest In Defending The Constitutionality Of Their Laws ....................... 5 II. The Panel Majority’s Denial Of The Kentucky Attorney General’s Motion To Intervene Was An Abuse Of Discretion ............ 9 III. The Decision Below Is Also Problematic In A Non-Unitary Executive Structure And Creates Both Serious Efficiency Problems And Improper Traps For Attorneys General And Lower Courts ............................................ 13 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 16 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Abbot v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018) .............................................
    [Show full text]