We have blogged in the past regarding amici briefs, see e.g. The best amici brief ever. In the recent DACA argument before the Supreme Court, two such briefs are of particular note.
First, the National Law Journal reports how in the oral argument, Justice Breyer gave a shout out to an appellate practitioner by referencing “families in the Lisa Blatt brief.” In the world of Supreme Court practice, this is an honor equal to a nobleman receiving the privilege of handing Louis XIV his sock when he got dressed, so whoo hoo for her. (As we have blogged on before, commentators have studied the insular world of the Supreme Court, which only wants a handful of lawyers to appear before them, their ex-clerks, preferably with a stint in the Solicitor General’s office, who went to the right schools (i.e. Harvard or Yale), and know the secret handshake. See At America’s court of last resort, a handful of lawyers now dominates the docket; The Supreme Court’s Advocacy Gap. The similarities between the Court and the Court of Louis XIV are illuminating).
Here’s her brief: Brief of Amici Curiae Pars Equality Center, et al., Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965. (Incidentally, Ms. Blatt went to the University of Texas – shocking – but did clerk for Justice Ginsburg).
A second amici brief submitted in that matter, to which a reader alerted us (thank you very much), has an Argument which in its entirety reads as follows:
A haiku ban might
not be anti-Japanese
“per se”; but . . . you know.
The summary of argument is: “Subtext/context is of import in this case; rather as a bird’s shrill tweets might give clues to its behavior.”
Brief of Amicus Curiae David Boyle, Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965
