1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-18-00223-001-TUC-RCC (BPV)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Motion of Professors Katherine Franke, Caroline 

Mala Corbin, Micah Schwartzman, Elizabeth Sepper, and Nelson Tebbe for Leave to File 

Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Counts 2 

and 3. Doc. 87. No response has been filed and the time to file such a response has not 

expired. However, in the interests of avoiding further delay and because the Court finds 

a response would not aid its decision on the motion (Doc. 87), the Court further finds the 

motion ripe for resolution. 

 A district court has broad discretion regarding the appointment of amici. Hoptowit 

v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir.1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. 

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); In re Roxford Foods 

Litig., 790 F.Supp. 987, 997 (E.D.Cal.1991). “An amicus brief should normally be 

allowed” when, among other considerations, “the amicus has unique information or 

perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are 

able to provide.” Cmty. Ass’n for Restoration ofEnv’t (CARE) v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-BPV Document 91 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

54 F.Supp.2d 974, 975 (E.D.Wash.1999) (citing N. Sec. Co. v. United States, 191 U.S. 

555, 556, 24 S.Ct. 119, 48 L.Ed. 299 (1903)). While “[h]istorically, amicus curiae is an 

impartial individual who suggests the interpretation and status of the law, gives 

information concerning it, and advises the Court in order that justice may be done, rather 

than to advocate a point of view so that a cause may be won by one party or another,” 

CARE, 54 F.Supp.2d at 975, the Ninth Circuit has said “there is no rule that amici must 

be totally disinterested.” Funbus Sys., Inc. v. State of Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 801 F.2d 

1120, 1125 (9th Cir.1986) (citation omitted); Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1260 (upholding 

district court’s appointment of amicus curiae, even though amicus entirely supported only 

one party’s arguments). 

 Here, the Court finds it appropriate to grant the Motion. Amici describe 

themselves as law professors and specialists in the field of religion and law. Doc. 87 at 2. 

Their proposed brief provides focused legal analysis on issues relevant to Defendant’s 

Amended Motion to Dismiss Counts 2 and 3 and will enable the Court to make a wellinformed decision regarding the associated Report and Recommendation (Doc. 81). See, 

e.g., Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir.1997) 

(“An amicus brief should normally be allowed when ... the amicus has unique 

information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the 

parties are able to provide.” (citing MillerWohl Co., Inc. v. Comm’r of Labor & Indus., 

State of Mont., 694 F.2d 203 (9th Cir.1982))). Furthermore, there is no indication Amici 

are seeking to control the case or that the parties are “mere strawmen” for purposes of 

conferring Amici standing to litigate their views. See Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1260 (citing 

these as impermissible roles for amici curiae). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Motion (Doc. 87) is GRANTED. Should they so choose, the parties shall 

have up to and including July 5, 2018 to respond to the Amicus Brief of and By 

Professors of Religious Liberty as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss. 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-BPV Document 91 Filed 06/27/18 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall file, on the record, the Amicus Brief of and By 

Professors of Religious Liberty as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss, which is presently lodged at Doc. 88. 

 Dated this 26th day of June, 2018. 

 

 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-BPV Document 91 Filed 06/27/18 Page 3 of 3