Stealth Judicial Lobbyists Get Reprieve
Why did the Judicial Conference withdraw a rule that would require disclosure of the parties who lobby federal courts through amicus curiae or 'friend of the court' briefs? Lobbying.
Lobbyists have successfully lobbied the governing body of the federal judiciary to withdraw a rule that would have required them to identify who they represent when they file amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs in a case.
It’s not like on Capitol Hill, where lobbyists buy Congress members a meal at a fancy restaurant to press their clients’ position with the promise of a campaign donation — or the threatened loss of support — during dessert.
In the federal court system, “non-party” groups and organizations submit written amicus curiae briefs to the court with the understanding that these documents present important information or data about issues relevant to the case.
In reality, much of the time these briefs are underwritten by judicial lobbyists.
The problem is that no one really knows who is behind these briefs. Did one of the parties to the lawsuit pay a third party to submit the brief to persuade the court under the guise of an independent third-party? Does one of the parties, or its counsel, have an ownership stake in the legal entity that submitted the brief?
For several years, U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, (D-RI), and Ron Johnson, (R-WI), have demanded the governing body of the federal judiciary, the Judicial Conference of the United States, adopt a rule requiring the identification of those who contribute to the preparation and submission of an amicus curiae brief.
A standing committee of the Judicial Conference, which operates the nation’s federal courts, studied the issue and proposed an amendment to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The amendment to Rule 29 was approved by the Conference on July 25. It was scheduled to be transmitted to the U.S. Congress for approval by May 1 and, upon approval, to take effect on December 1.
But the rule change was quashed when it was abruptly withdrawn by a Conference committee on March 26. Why? Because lobbyists objected.
