• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Amicus curiae brief from Dems


Founder's Club Member
Jun 15, 2006
Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
I would have thought this would have been posted, but I don't see it. The actual brief submitted by the Dem senators. To me it reads like an editorial gussied up with big margins and lots of footnotes. I do have to admit that, though I am not a lawyer and don't often read the actual submitted briefs, it seemed odd to see a TV commercial cited as a source in this one.


Regular Member
Jul 31, 2011
North Carolina
Submitting threats to the court in a curiae brief~~this should go over well with the court. Funny the dems have no problem with justices who rule along liberal lines, NOW if they don't get what they want they respond with threats, and tantrums.


Active member
Nov 21, 2018
Washington Island, WISCONSIN. Out in Lake Michigan
Tucker Higgins reports at CNBC on friend-of-the-court briefs filed in support of the city in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, a challenge to New York City’s limits on transporting personal firearms, by groups of senators and representatives, including several Democratic presidential candidates. At National Review, David French takes aim at the senators’ brief, suggesting that its “true intent … is to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Court itself.” In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse argues that, “[q]uirky as the [city’s] regulation might be, this case is potentially the vehicle that Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have been waiting for — a chance to turn the ambiguous and quite narrow Heller decision into the constitutional charter for gun rights that the gun lobby had hoped for but has not yet obtained.”

Note that the Rule 37 option of mutual consent of parties was taken, rather than (what I believe is more normal) permission of the Court.

Reading the Pleadings, it appears that some entities are addressing SCOTUS for the first time. There are a number of refused submissions.
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Oct 7, 2007
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Richard Durbin, And Kirsten Gillibrand are anti-Trumpers and are the only ones signed onto this brief. The brief is just a political hit piece complaining that the some of the justices are right leaning and not left leaning. Unfortunately I wasted time reading that garbage.