DOCSLIB.ORG

Wordperfect Office Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wordperfect Office Document No. 19-1392 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ____________________ THOMAS E. DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL., Petitioners, v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, ET AL., Respondents. ____________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________________ Brief Amicus Curiae of Intercessors for America including its Intercessor Prayer Partners in Support of Petitioners ____________________ PHILLIP L. JAUREGUI WILLIAM J. OLSON* JUDICIAL ACTION GROUP WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C. 1300 I Street, NW 370 Maple Ave. W., Ste. 4 Suite 400 E Vienna, VA 22180 Washington, DC 20005 (703) 356-5070 (202) 216-9309 [email protected] Attorneys for Amici Curiae *Counsel of Record July 29, 2021 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................... iii INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ............... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................... 5 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................... 6 ARGUMENT I. JUDICIAL PREOCCUPATION WITH VIABILITY LEADS TO ERRONEOUS DECISIONS ........... 8 II. THIS COURT’S ABORTION JURISPRUDENCE IS BUILT ON A PAGAN FOUNDATION ........... 10 III. THIS COURT HAS CONSTITUTIONALIZED MORAL ISSUES AND UNDERMINED MORALITY ....... 14 IV. THIS COURT’S DECISIONS HAVE DE FACTO ESTABLISHED PAGANISM AS OUR NATION’S RELIGION ............................. 18 A. Elevation of the Collective over the Individual ........................ 19 B. Evicting God from Government Schools 20 C. Rewriting the Establishment Clause to Undermine Christianity............. 22 ii V. THIS COURT’S DECISIONS TO EMBRACE PAGANISM HAVE OPENED THE PEOPLE TO GOD’S RIGHTEOUS TEMPORAL JUDGMENTS ... 23 CONCLUSION .............................. 31 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page HOLY BIBLE Genesis 1:26-27 ........................... 25 Genesis 4:8-11 ............................ 30 Genesis 9:6............................... 25 Exodus 20:13............................. 25 Leviticus 18:6-23.......................... 30 Leviticus 18:24-28...................... 29, 30 Numbers 35:30-34...................... 25, 26 Deuteronomy 21:1-9........................ 27 Deuteronomy 16:20 ........................ 24 1 Samuel 2:10 ............................ 29 2 Kings 24:4.............................. 30 Psalm 9:15-17 ......................... 30, 31 Psalm 110:6 .............................. 29 Psalm 139:13-14, 16 ....................... 10 Proverbs 1:7.............................. 20 Proverbs 6:16-17 .......................... 10 Proverbs 29:2............................. 31 Jeremiah 1:5 ............................9, 30 Daniel 4:17............................... 24 Hosea 8:4................................ 24 John 10:10............................... 10 Romans 13:1-4............................ 28 Ephesians 2:1-22.......................... 26 I Timothy 2:4............................. 26 U.S. CONSTITUTION Amendment V............................. 6 Amendment XIV..................... 6, 13, 22 iv CASES Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) ..................... 21 Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859) ......... 24 Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) ............. 20 Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156 (1957) ........ 17 Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) ........... 20 Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) ...... 21 Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) ......2, 8 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) . 13 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) . 19 Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) . 16, 17 June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020) .................... 7 Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446 (2015) ..................... 16 Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) .................. 20, 31 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) .......... 22 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) ...... 21 Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) ............ 16 McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) ..................... 20 McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) ..................... 23 McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) ..... 22 Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) ...... 14 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) .............. 8 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ........6, passim Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) ..................... 23 Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) .......... 22 Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1842) .............. 16 v Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) ....... 18 Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) ....... 20 Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) ....... 23 Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) ......... 21 MISCELLANEOUS Abortion Facts, Pro-Life Action League......... 5 “Abortion Procedures,” Abort73.com ........... 5 R. Alcorn, “Finding Forgiveness After an Abortion,” Eternal Perspective Ministries (Jan. 21, 2010) ......................... 26 American Life League, “Abortion Statistics”.... 27 W. Barr, Speech at ADF (May 20, 2021) ....... 21 Amy Coney Barrett, “Justice Scalia and the Future of the Court,” Jacksonville Univ. Public Policy Institute (Nov. 3, 2016) ...... 13 M. Bilger, “Scientists Use Scalps From Aborted Babies to Create ‘Humanized Mice’ ” LifeNews.com (Dec. 18, 2020) ............. 12 William O. Douglas, The Court Years, 1939-1975: The Autobiography of William O. Douglas (Random House: 1980) .................. 15 M.S. Evans, The Theme is Freedom (Regnery: 1994) ........................ 11 E.D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (Yale Univ. Press: 1973) ................. 14 T. Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Harper & Row:1964) ................... 27 P. Lillback, Wall of Misconception (Providence Forum Press: 2007) .......... 18 A. Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1865) ......................... 28 Oral Argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144 (March 26, 2013) ............. 17 vi H. Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: The Conflict of Christian Faith and American Culture (Crossway Books: 1990) .......... 23 Philip Shenon, A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination (Henry Holt & Co.: 2013) ................ 15 John Paul Stevens, Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir (Little, Brown & Co.: 2011) ..... 15, 16 “Testimonials of Women Who Have Had Abortions,” Pro-Life America ............. 25 H. Titus, “Ending Abortion,” The Forecast, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Jan. 1997) ...............12, 13 M. Trewhella, The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates (CreateSpace: 2013) .......... 28 S.D. Warren & L.D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” 4 HARV. L. REV. 193 (Dec. 15, 1890) ......................... 13 INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE1 Intercessors for America (“IFA”) is a Massachusetts not-for-profit corporation, with offices in Purcellville, Virginia, exempt from federal income taxation under IRC section 501(c)(3). IFA was founded shortly after, and in direct response to, this Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. IFA has grown from a small group to a network reaching over 1 million Americans praying for the nation and the protection of life by all branches of government on whose behalf this amicus brief is also being submitted. As well as through their individual prayers posted on www.appealforlife.com, many thousands of Intercessors have prayed the following prayer for this case: Lord, it grieves my heart to think of the millions of lives lost because of legal abortion; each life is precious in Your sight, woven together in the womb. We ask that You would forgive us of this national sin and cause the U.S. Supreme Court Justices to agree with You that every life is precious. We deserve judgment, but we humbly ask for the wisdom of heaven to bring godly conviction upon our nine Supreme Court Justices. Lord, cause them to rule in favor of protecting life. Lord, we appeal to You as we appeal for life. In Jesus’ name, Amen. 1 It is hereby certified that counsel for the parties have filed blanket consents to the filing of this and other amicus briefs; that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part; and that no person other than these amici curiae, their members, or their counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. 2 Scant weeks after Roe was decided, a group of Christian leaders, including international Bible teacher, author and theologian Derek Prince, began to gather to develop an organizational response to this Court’s assault on life. Derek Prince was the author of over 100 books, including Shaping History Through Prayer and Fasting (Whitaker House: 2002), which reflects the founding principles of Intercessors for America. The result was the founding of IFA. These leaders saw Roe as a tragedy, but also a sign — a warning — to the People, that the nation had opened itself up to the judgment of a Holy and Righteous God. Biblical principles were being replaced by pagan principles. At such a time, they believed, it would be necessary to rally Americans to call upon the Lord. IFA continues to urge Christians to engage in the disciplines of prayer and fasting to overturn Roe — the same way in which the People have responded to other threats to the country throughout its history. STATEMENT OF FACTS Justice Kennedy recognized: “No one would dispute that, for many, D&E is a procedure itself laden with the power to devalue human life.” Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 158 (2007). In truth,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hugo Lafayette Black and John Harlan - Two Faces of Constitutional Law with Some Notes on Teaching of Thayer's Subject
    Louisiana State University Law Center LSU Law Digital Commons Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1982 Hugo Lafayette Black and John Harlan - Two Faces of Constitutional Law With Some Notes on Teaching of Thayer's Subject O. W. Wollensak Paul R. Baier Louisiana State University Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Wollensak, O. W. and Baier, Paul R., "Hugo Lafayette Black and John Harlan - Two Faces of Constitutional Law With Some Notes on Teaching of Thayer's Subject" (1982). Journal Articles. 372. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship/372 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HUGO LAFAYETTE BLACK AND JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN: TWO FACES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-WITH SOME NOTES ON THE TEACHING OF THAYER'S SUBJECT Bv 0. W. WoLLENSAK* I. It was a great surprise last semester when Supreme Court Justices Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan visited the LSU Law Center for what turned out to be a heated dialogue on color video tape. The program was hosted by LSU's media mastermind, Professor Paul Baier,** who apparently has given up suing hospitals, see Baier v. Woman's Hospital, 1 and turned to producing television shows, his latest entitled "Hugo Lafayette Black and John Marshall Harlan: Two Faces of Constitutional Law."2 Professor Baier believes that constitutional law includes • Editor's note: Professor Baier is following Karl Llewellyn in using a pseudo­ nym.
    [Show full text]
  • New York University Law Review
    NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 86 JUNE 2011 NUMBER 3 MADISON LECTURE LIVING OUR TRADITIONS THE HONORABLE ROBERT H. HENRY* In the annual James Madison Lecture, Robert Henry, former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, explores Justice John Marshall Harlan H's notable dissent in Poe v. Ullman. President Henry carefully examines Justice Harlan's method of constitutional interpretation. Refusing to adopt a "literalistic"reading of the Constitution and instead looking to the "history and purposes" of a particularconstitutional provision, Justice Harlan's approach serves as a source of both flexibility and restraint. Of particular importance is Justice Harlan's recognition of the role that "living" traditions play in supplying meaning to the concept of due process of law. What emerges from this probing review of Justice Harlan's Poe dissent is a moderate and thoughtful response to originalism. All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill, and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be liqui- dated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions and adjudications. -THE FEDERALIST No. 37 (James Madison)' * Copyright © 2011 by Robert H. Henry, President and CEO, Oklahoma City University. Formerly, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. An earlier version of this text was delivered as the James Madison Lecture at the New York University School of Law on October 12, 2010. I would like to thank Daniel Correa and Laana Layman for research assistance; also, for their comments and criticism, I thank Professors Art LeFrancois, Andy Spiropoulos, and Michael Gibson of the Oklahoma City University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Reslegal V02 1..3
    *LRB09414136HSS49035r* HR0622 LRB094 14136 HSS 49035 r 1 HOUSE RESOLUTION 2 WHEREAS, William Hubbs Rehnquist was born in Milwaukee, 3 Wisconsin, on October 1, 1924, the son of William Benjamin 4 Rehnquist, a paper salesman, and Margery Peck Rehnquist, a 5 translator and homemaker; and 6 WHEREAS, After graduating from Shorewood High School in 7 1942, Mr. Rehnquist attended Kenyon College for one quarter in 8 the fall of 1942 before entering the U.S. Army Air Corps; and 9 WHEREAS, Mr. Rehnquist served in World War II from March of 10 1943 to 1946; he was placed into a pre-meteorology program and 11 was assigned to Denison University until February of 1944, when 12 the program was shut down; and 13 WHEREAS, The program was designed to teach maintenance and 14 repair of weather instruments; in the summer of 1945, Mr. 15 Rehnquist went overseas and served as a weather observer in 16 North Africa; and 17 WHEREAS, After the war ended, Mr. Rehnquist attended 18 Stanford University under the G.I. Bill; in 1948, he received a 19 bachelor's degree and a master's degree in political science, 20 and in 1950, he went to Harvard University, where he received a 21 master's degree in government; he returned later to Stanford 22 University, where he attended law school, graduating first in 23 his class; and 24 WHEREAS, Mr. Rehnquist went to Washington, D.C., to work as 25 a law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson during the court's 26 1951-1952 terms; and 27 WHEREAS, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • THE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF: from FRIENDSHIP to ADVOCACY SAMUEL Krislovt
    THE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF: FROM FRIENDSHIP TO ADVOCACY SAMUEL KRISLOVt THE pretense by the lawyer that all precedents are, in Holmes' phrase, "born free and equal" all too often produces a curious portrait of a static legal uni- verse where instruments and decisions alike avoid both decay and develop- ment. Yet, scholars 1 have demonstrated many times over that imaginative util- ization of the historical approach can produce insights which have been con- cealed by a fallacious assumption of homogeneity. One device that, when not altogether ignored, has been thought of primarily in this antihistorical vein is the amicus curiae brief. Its delusive innocuousness, its seemingly static function and terminology, taken together with the offhand manner of its usual use in court, have in combination forestalled intensive schol- arly study. Inasmuch as the device was apparently known in Roman law - and was an early instrument of the common law, the assumption has been that it has remained functionally unchanged as long as the term has remained constant. Yet, the Supreme Court's first promulgation of a written rule on the subject of such briefs in 1937 followed by two modifications of this newly codified pro- vision within a span of twenty years belies the assumption of permanence." Quietly but unmistakably, such change demonstrates the transition that has occurred and continues to occur in the use of the brief. THE Amicus CURIAE AT COMMON LAW The early use of the device is still preserved in the standard definitions, and may be found today in such sources as Corpus Juris Secundum. As Abbott's Dictionaryof Terms and Phrasesdescribes it, the amicus curiae is: A friend of the court.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicusil!~ CURIAE
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Student Newspaper (Amicus, Advocate...) Archives and Law School History 1978 Amicus Curiae (Vol. 10, Issue 3) Repository Citation "Amicus Curiae (Vol. 10, Issue 3)" (1978). Student Newspaper (Amicus, Advocate...). 218. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/newspapers/218 Copyright c 1978 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/newspapers Prof. Waite Enioys "Visiting" Status At MW has been spending much more by David B. Kirby upon the cases. This committee­ free year was supposed to give time doing research in the Being a visiting professor at a him a chance to work on those library than he had expected. school has its advantages, the notes. For this reason, Waite said that best of which, according to G. Instead, Waite has found the the casebook he has begun will Graham Waite, Visiting need to prepare for a course he is probably remain on his Professor of Law, is " a year free teaching in future interests. He bookshelf this year. from any committee said that the Saturday before In addition, Waite also teaches assignments. " classes started he received a the year-long first year course in A year at a new school telephone call from the property and, next semester, a provides other opportunities, bookstore and was told that the course in trusts and estates. too, many that Waite, Professor casebook he had ordered for a If the casebook ever does get of Law at Catholic University, course he was to teach in water completed, its format will has already taken advantage of.
    [Show full text]
  • Response to Amicus Brief
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA JAMES MARTIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR, O}i~F'ICE OF OIL AND GAS, WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; OFFICE OF OIL AND GAS, WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT O}i' ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; AND EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, Respondents BelowlPetitioners, vs. Docket No. 11-11S7 MATTHEW L. HAMBLET, Petitioner BelowlRespondent. RESPONDENT MATTHEW L. HAMBLET'S RESPONSE TO AMICI CURIAE Cynthia J.T. Loomis (WV Bar #10007) P.O. Box 306 West Union, WV 26456 (304) 873·4350 Isak J. Howell (WV Bar #11558) 117 E. Washington St. Suite 1 Lewisburg, WV 24901 (540) 998-7744 Counselfor Matthew L. Hamblet TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CONSTITUTION W. Va. Const., Art. 3, § 10 ....... " ..........................................................................7 CASES Buskirk v. Civil Service Com'n o.fWest VirginiaJ.175 W.Va. 279,284,332 S.E.2d 579, 584 (W.Va. 1985) ............. ,....................... ,...... ,............................................,,, ... 7 Chesapeake & 0. Ry. Co. v. Bailey Production Corp., 163 F. Supp. 666, 671 (D.W.Va. 1958) ...5 FPL Farming Ltd. v. Environmental Processing Systems, L.c., 351 S.W.3d 306,310 (Tex. 2011)................. " .........................................................................................5 Gallapoo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 197 W.Va. 172475 S.E.2d 172 (1996) ............................. 2,10 Hutchison v. City ofHunting ton, 198 W.Va. 139, 154,479 S.E.2d 649, 664 (1996) .................7 Snyderv. Callaghan, 168 W.Va. 265, 284 S.E.2d 241 (W.V.1981) ............................... 4,5,6,7,8,12 State ex. Rei. Lovejoy v. Callaghan, 576 S.E.2d 246,213 W.Va. 1 (2002) ........................... passim State ex reI. West Virginia Bd. Of Educ.
    [Show full text]
  • Document Expressing Support for a Particular Set of Positions on Controver- Sial Public Issues—Say, the Platform of One of the Major Political Parties
    No. 20-1678 ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- DANIEL Z. CROWE; LAWRENCE K. PETERSON; and OREGON CIVIL LIBERTIES ATTORNEYS, an Oregon nonprofit corporation, Petitioners, v. OREGON STATE BAR, a Public Corporation, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF LAWYERS UNITED INC. IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- W. P EYTON GEORGE JOSEPH ROBERT GIANNINI 907 Old Santa Fe Trail Counsel of Record Santa Fe, NM 87505 12016 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 5 Phone 505 984 2133 Los Angeles, CA 90025 [email protected] Phone 310 804 1814 [email protected] ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ............. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 6 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 9 I. THIS COURT HAS NEVER DECIDED AND SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER STATES MAY COMPEL LAW- YERS TO JOIN A UNION THAT SUBSI- DIZES BAR ASSOCIATION POLITICAL
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Harlan's Enduring Importance For
    NYLS Law Review Vols. 22-63 (1976-2019) Volume 61 Issue 3 Issue 61.3: Celebrating 125 Years of New York Law School: Faculty Chair Investitures & Issue 61.4: Select Legal Article 2 Scholarship from the New York Law School Law Review January 2017 Justice Harlan’s Enduring Importance for Current Civil Liberties Issues, from Marriage Equality to Dragnet NSA Surveillance NADINE STROSSEN John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/nyls_law_review Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation NADINE STROSSEN, Justice Harlan’s Enduring Importance for Current Civil Liberties Issues, from Marriage Equality to Dragnet NSA Surveillance, 61 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. (2016-2017). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Law Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL LAW REVIEW VOLUME 61 | 2016/17 VOLUME 61 | 2016/17 NADINE STROSSEN Justice Harlan’s Enduring Importance for Current Civil Liberties Issues, from Marriage Equality to Dragnet NSA Surveillance 61 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 331 (2016–2017) ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Nadine Strossen is the John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School and the immediate past president of the American Civil Liberties Union, 1991–2008. This article is an adapted version of the speech she gave when being honored as the John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law. She thanks her research assistants Jakub Brodowski, Anne Easton, Elizabeth Lanza, Michael McKeown, Rachel Searle, and Rick Shea for assistance with the footnotes.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Law Clerks on Effective Amicus Curiae Briefs NAME
    LEXSEE 20 J. L. & POLITICS 33 Copyright (c) 2004 Journal of Law & Politics, Inc. Journal of Law & Politics Winter, 2004 20 J. L. & Politics 33 ARTICLE: Best Friends?: Supreme Court Law Clerks on Effective Amicus Curiae Briefs NAME: Kelly J. Lynch* BIO: * Department of Justice, Tax Division. B.A. University of Pennsylvania, 2003. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely my own and do not reflect those of the Department of Justice. I would like to thank Kathryn Dunn Tenpas for her invaluable advice and encouragement. SUMMARY: ... Precisely what influences the justices of the United States Supreme Court? Numerous scholars have pondered this question, addressing it from many different perspectives: the influence of law clerks, the preferences of Congress, and the role of public opinion. ... One clerk reported, "Amicus briefs from the solicitor general are "head and shoulders' above the rest, and are often considered more carefully than party briefs." ... Would prefer to see collaboration 90% Would NOT prefer to see collaboration/No preference 10% Clerks' preferences for collaboration in amicus brief filing were apparent after the initial interviews, prompting additional inquiry. ... Clerks repeatedly commented, "Providing social science data is one of the useful things that an amicus brief can do for the Court," or, in referring to a brief containing such data, "This is a classic example of a helpful brief." ... In light of the clerks' reported propensity to give closer attention - at least initially - to an amicus brief filed by a prominent Supreme Court practitioner or academic (88% for both cases), a potential amicus filer should seriously contemplate hiring a top advocate.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 20-659 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States LARRY THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. POLICE OFFICER PAGIEL CLARK, SHIELD #28472, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION PARTNERSHIP IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER MATTHEW D. SLATER Counsel of Record ALEXIS COLLINS HANI BASHOUR JACK H.L. WHITELEY CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP 2112 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037 (202) 974-1930 [email protected] QUESTION PRESENTED A plaintiff must await favorable termination of criminal proceedings before bringing a Section 1983 action alleging unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process. Because the plaintiff must also adequately plead and ultimately prove that the defendant engaged in deliberate misconduct, should this Court reject the Second Circuit’s rule that the plaintiff show that the criminal proceeding against him has “ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence,” Lanning v. City of Glens Falls, 908 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 2018), which focuses on the prosecutor’s intent, and instead require only that the proceedings “formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with his innocence,” Laskar v. Hurd, 972 F.3d 1278, 1293 (11th Cir. 2020), which allows the case to turn on the defendant’s actions, and thereby provide a necessary tool for public accountability for deliberate misconduct? ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ----Page QUESTION PRESENTED ...................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... iv INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ........................ 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................... 2 ARGUMENT ........................................................... 4 I. Ensuring Public Trust Is Essential for Police to Do Their Jobs Effectively ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 16-402 In the Supreme Court of the United States TIMOTHY IVORY CARPENTER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit BRIEF OF THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ANDREW J. PINCUS Counsel of Record Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 263-3000 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................... iii INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE....................1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................1 ARGUMENT ...............................................................6 THE FOURTH AMENDMENT’S WARRANT REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO THE CELL PHONE LOCATION DATA AT ISSUE HERE..........6 A. Broad Categories Of Highly Sensitive Personal Information About Virtually Every American Are Now Routinely Possessed By Third Parties..............................7 B. Fourth Amendment Principles Should Apply To Personal Information Held By Third Parties In A Manner That Recognizes The Realities Of Americans’ Use Of New Technology. ................................15 1. Possession Of An Individual’s Personal Information By A Third Party Does Not By Itself Exempt That Information From Fourth Amendment Protection. ...........................16 2. Whether A Third Party Obtains Personal Information Through Individuals’ “Voluntary” Acts Should Not Be Relevant To The Expectation Of Privacy Inquiry.....................................20 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS—continued Page 3. The Legitimate Expectation Of Privacy Inquiry Should Turn On The Nature Of The Personal Information And Whether Individuals Would Reasonably Expect Their Information To Be Generally Available To Others. .................................23 C. The Cell Phone Location Information Here Is Subject To The Warrant Requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief of Amicus Curiae, the American Center for Law and Justice, In
    Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405366, DktEntry: 133, Page 1 of 26 No. 17-15589 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII AND ISMAIL ELSHIKH Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., Defendants-Appellants. On Appeal from Entry of Preliminary Injunction District Court for the District of Hawaii Case No. 1:17-CV-50-DKW-KSC, Hon. Derrick K. Watson BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE, THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS’ POSITION ON APPEAL AND URGING THAT THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE VACATED. BRIEF FILED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES. JAY ALAN SEKULOW* EDWARD L. WHITE III* Counsel of Record ERIK M. ZIMMERMAN* STUART J. ROTH* AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW COLBY M. MAY** AND JUSTICE ANDREW J. EKONOMOU** 3001 Plymouth Road, Suite 203 JORDAN SEKULOW** Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 CRAIG L. PARSHALL** Tel.: 734-680-8007 MATTHEW R. CLARK** Email: [email protected] BENJAMIN P. SISNEY* AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW FRANCIS J. MANION* AND JUSTICE GEOFFREY R. SURTEES* 201 Maryland Avenue, NE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW Washington, DC 20002 AND JUSTICE Tel.: 202-546-8890 6375 New Hope Road Email: [email protected] New Hope, Kentucky 40052 Tel.: 502-549-7020 Email: [email protected] * Admitted to Ninth Circuit Bar ** Not admitted in this jurisdiction Counsel for amicus curiae Case: 17-15589, 04/21/2017, ID: 10405366, DktEntry: 133, Page 2 of 26 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(4)(A), the amicus curiae, the American Center for Law and Justice, makes the following disclosures: it is a non-profit organization that has no parent corporation and no publicly held corporation owns any portion of it.
    [Show full text]