An amicus curiae (also spelled amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae) is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it. The information provided may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief (which is called an amicus brief when offered by an amicus curiae), a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and literally means "friend of the court".

History[link]

The amicus curiae figure originates in Roman law.^[1] Starting in the 9th century^{[citation needed]}, it was incorporated to English law, and it was later extended to most common law systems. Later, it was also introduced in international law, in particular concerning human rights. From there, it was integrated in some civil law systems (it has recently been integrated in Argentina). Today, it is used by the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of European Union.

Presentation[link]

The role of an amicus is often confused with that of an intervener. The role of an amicus is, as stated by Salmon LJ (as Lord Salmon then was) in Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Ltd [1968] 2 QB 229 at p. 266 F-G:

I had always understood that the role of an amicus curiae was to help the court by expounding the law impartially, or if one of the parties were unrepresented, by advancing the legal arguments on his behalf.

The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief in a case before an appellate court to which it is not a litigant. Appellate cases are normally limited to the factual record and arguments coming from the lower court case under appeal; attorneys focus on the facts and arguments most favorable to their clients. Where a case may have broader implications, amicus curiae briefs are a way to introduce those concerns, so that the possibly broad legal effects of court decisions will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case.

In prominent cases, amici curiae are generally organizations with sizable legal budgets. Non-profit legal advocacy organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice or NORML frequently submit such briefs to advocate for or against a particular legal change or interpretation. If a decision could affect an entire industry, companies other than the litigants may wish to have their concerns heard. In the United States, federal courts often hear cases involving the constitutionality of state laws. Hence states themselves may file briefs as amici curiae when their laws are likely to be affected, as in the Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago when thirty-two states under the aegis of Texas (and California independently) filed such briefs.^[2]

Amici curiae that do not file briefs often present an academic perspective on the case. For example, if the law gives deference to a history of legislation of a certain topic, a historian may choose to evaluate the claim using their expertise. An economist, statistician, or sociologist may choose to do the same. Blogs, newspaper editorials, and other opinion pieces arguably have the capability to influence Supreme Court decisions as de facto amici curiae.^[3][4] They are not, however, considered as an actual amicus curiae in the sense that they do not submit materials to the Court, do not need to ask for leave, and have no guarantee that they will be read.

Rules defining use in the United States[link]

The Supreme Court of the United States has special rules for amicus curiae briefs, covered generally by Supreme Court Rule 37. The Rule states, in part, such a brief should cover "relevant matter" not dealt with by the parties which "may be of considerable help".^[5] The cover of an amicus brief must identify which party the brief is supporting or if the brief only supports affirmance or reversal. Supreme Court Rule 37.3(a). The Court, inter alia, also requires that all non-governmental Amici identify those providing a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of the brief. Supreme Court Rule 37.6. Briefs must be prepared in booklet format and 40 copies must be served with the Court.^[6]

In general, unless the amicus brief is being filed by the federal government (or one of its officers or agents) or a U.S. state, permission of the court (by means of motion for leave) or mutual consent of the parties is required. Allowing an amicus curiae to present oral argument is considered "extraordinary".^[7]

See also[link]

• Intervener

References[link]

1. ^ Judithanne Scourfield McLauchlan (2005). "Congressional Participation As Amicus Curiae Before the U.S. Supreme Court". LFB Scholarly Publishing. p. 266. ISBN 1-59332-088-4. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/mclauchlan1005.htm. 
2. ^ Chicagoguncase.com
3. ^ Stanford Law Review article on ex parte blogging^{[dead link]}
4. ^ Slashdot - News for nerds, stuff that matters.
5. ^ Rule 37(1).
6. ^ United States Supreme Court Rule 33
7. ^ FRAP 29.

External links[link]

Wikisource has the text of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article Amicus Curiae.

• Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
• Dictionary - MSN Encarta (Archived 2009-10-31)
• Definitions from Dictionary.com
• The Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia

This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available. (April 2010)

Nick Dranias (Born in Chicago, IL in 1971), is an attorney and the director of the Joseph and Dorothy Moller Center for Constitutional Government^[1] at the Phoenix, AZ think tank the Goldwater Institute.

Education[link]

He received his B.A. in Economics and Philosophy cum laude from Boston University and his J.D. from Loyola University in Chicago, where he served as a senior member of the law review, participated in Loyola's national labor law moot court team and won American Jurisprudence and CALI awards for the highest grades in his legal writing, land use and remedies courses.

Work History[link]

Dranias began his legal career with Dranias, Harrington and Wilson, a Chicago law firm focusing on real estate, commercial and personal injury litigation and state appellate law. His major cases included Concrete Products vs. Centex Homes, a case with major implications for bankruptcy and mechanics lien law. He also prosecuted and defended numerous jury and bench trials, arbitrations, mediations and appeals. In 2001, he became co-editor of the Chicago Bar Association’s YLS journal, a post he held until 2005. While editor, Dranias won the Oliver Wendell Holmes award.^{[clarification needed]}

In 2005, Dranias accepted a post as staff attorney at the Minnesota chapter of the Institute for Justice, where he litigated cases protecting economic liberty and free speech. Every case Dranias handled to conclusion resulted in victory.

In March 2008, Dranias joined the Phoenix, AZ think tank the Goldwater Institute. Since August 2008, Dranias has been the lead attorney in a lawsuit against the state of Arizona over a law called the Clean Elections Act, which provides publicly financed candidates funds that automatically match what their rivals receive.^[2] Dranias argued that the statute unconstitutionally limited freedom of speech by punishing private donors and candidates for spending money to engage in political expression. In January 2010, Dranias succeeded in convincing a federal district court to permanently enjoin the matching funds component of the Clean Elections Act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the permanent injunction in late May 2010; but two weeks later, on June 8, 2010, Dranias succeeded in persuading the Supreme Court to suspend the Ninth Circuit's decision. The Supreme Court's extraordinary intervention in the case has restored the district court's permanent injunction until the Court determines whether to accept the Institute's appeal from the Ninth Circuit's decision. On August 17, 2010, the Institute filed its formal appeal from the Ninth Circuit's decision with the Supreme Court. On November 29, 2010, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the formal appeal and heard oral arguments on March 28, 2011. On June 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling and agreed with Dranias' argument, declaring matching funds unconstitutional.

In addition to his work litigating the constitutionality of the Clean Elections Act, Dranias has prepared and filed amici briefs in support of efforts to overturn local and federal gun laws, as well as the preclearance requirements of the federal Voter Protection Act. He is also a member of the Goldwater Institute litigation team that is challenging the constitutionality of the Obama administration's heath care reforms.

Publications[link]

Dranias has been widely published in law reviews, bar journals and newspapers, and has also written several reports for the Goldwater Institute, including "Federalism D.I.Y.: 10Ways for States to Check and Balance Washington,"^[3] "A New Charter for American Cities: 10 Rights to Restrain Government and Protect Freedom,"^[4] and other reports on issues such as campaign finance^[5] and the Second Amendment.^[6] His article, "The Local Liberty Charter: Restoring Grassroots Liberty to Restrain Cities Gone Wild," was recently published by the Phoenix Law Review as part of its recent book on Arizona government.

Bar Admissions[link]

Dranias is a member of the federal bars of the United States Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits, as well as the U.S. District Courts for the District of Arizona, the Northern District of Illinois, District of Minnesota, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. He is an active member of the Washington, D.C. Bar and as a Rule 38(f) admittee to the Arizona State Bar. He is an inactive member of the Minnesota and Illinois State Bar.

References[link]

Carol Costello (born October 11, 1961) is an American news anchor, currently hosting the 9 am–11 am CNN Newsroom.

Personal life[link]

A former resident of Atlanta, Georgia, Costello had moved to the New York area after getting married in 2004. She later moved with her husband to Baltimore, Maryland, where she currently resides.

Costello is a graduate of Minerva High School in Minerva, Ohio and Kent State University where she earned a B.A. in journalism. After attending Kent State University, Costello worked at Akron, Ohio's WAKR-TV as an award-winning police and court reporter. Following that Costello was an emmy-award-winning anchor/reporter for WSYX and 10-TV, the CBS affiliate in Columbus, Ohio. Costello also worked as an anchor at CNN Headline News and was also the anchor of Good Morning Washington and an investigative reporter at WJLA-TV, the ABC affiliate in Washington, DC.

After a CNN viewer nominated her, Costello ran with the Olympic torch through the streets of Atlanta prior to the Atlanta Olympics.

Work at CNN[link]

She previously worked out of the network's New York City bureau. She was part of CNN's Peabody-winning coverage of Hurricane Katrina and the 2008 presidential election, and also covered the Virginia Tech shootings, the Obama inauguration and the Casey Anthony trial. Costello has done in-depth reporting on bullying, coal ash, and women's issues. As a reporter and anchor, Costello has interviewed Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Previously, Costello anchored the CNN early morning program CNN Daybreak and also was news reader and correspondent on American Morning. Currently, Costello hosts the 9 am–11 am slot of CNN Newsroom.

References[link]

External links[link]

• Profile at CNN website

Karen Keiser in 2011.

Karen Keiser is a Democratic politician from the U.S. state of Washington. She represents the 33rd district in the Washington State Senate, which contains parts of Burien, Normandy Park, SeaTac, Kent and Des Moines. She has served in the state senate since 2002 and served in the Washington House of Representatives from 1995 to 2002.

Karen is a California native who moved to Washington state to change and influence the vote.

External links[link]

• Official website
• Campaign website

This article about a politician from the state of Washington is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e