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. Usually 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. In the United States, for example, non-profit legal advocacy organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and others, 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 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.
"Amici curiae" who do not file briefs often present an academic perspective on the case. Newspaper editorials, blogs, and other opinion pieces arguably have the capability to influence Supreme Court decisions as "de facto amici curiae". They are not, however, technically considered "amicus curiae," as they do not submit materials to the Court, do not need to ask for leave, and have no guarantee that they will be read.
The Supreme Court of the United States has special rules for "amicus curiae" briefs sought to be filed in cases pending before it. Supreme Court Rule 37 states, in part, such a brief should cover "relevant matter" not dealt with by the parties which "may be of considerable help". The cover of an "amicus" brief must identify which party the brief is supporting, or if the brief supports only affirmance or reversal. The Court also requires that, "inter alia", all non-governmental amici identify those providing a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of the brief. Briefs must be prepared in booklet format, and 40 copies must be served with the Court.
In the United States Supreme Court, 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 generally required. Allowing an "amicus curiae" to present oral argument is considered "extraordinary".
The role of "amicus curiae" briefs in the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system is controversial. The controversy arises due to the governmental nature of WTO disputes. As only WTO members have access to the system, any non-members such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are excluded and have no right to be heard. Thus the only way for them to contribute to a WTO decision is through "amicus curiae" briefs.
Henderson v. United States (1950)
Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 (1950) , was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that abolished segregation in railroad dining cars.
In the early part of the 20th century, railroads did not provide dining facilities for African-Americans. But public pressure in the 1930s and 1940s forced railroads to provide some kind of dining arrangement for black passengers. In response, they set up one or two tables for African-Americans. No matter how many needed to eat, there were only a few chairs available to them.
On May 17, 1942, Elmer W. Henderson, an African-American passenger, was travelling first-class on the Southern Railway from Washington, D.C. to Atlanta, Georgia. He was a lawyer traveling as part of his duties for President Roosevelt's Fair Employment Practice Committee.
At about 5:30 pm, while the train was in Virginia, the first call to dinner was announced and he went promptly to the dining car. Under practices then in effect, the two end tables nearest the kitchen were to be reserved initially for Negroes. As the tables were partly occupied by white passengers (with at least one seat at them unoccupied) the dining-car steward would not seat Henderson in the dining car. Instead, the steward offered to serve him at his pullman seat. Henderson said no and the steward agreed to send him word when space was available. No word was sent and he was not served, although he twice returned to the diner before it was closed at 9 pm.
Henderson filed a complaint with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in October 1942. He alleged this conduct violated provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. While the Commission agreed that he had suffered undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage, it dismissed the occurrence as a casual incident brought about by the bad judgment of an employee.
A three-judge United States District Court for the District of Maryland found the practice was in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act but remanded the case on February 18, 1946 back to the ICC. On March 1, 1946, the company announced a change in their rules for dining cars. Ten tables would be exclusively for white passengers and one table of four seats would be exclusively for black passengers with a curtain drawn between this and the other tables. White passengers could no longer be seated at the black table. This satisfied the ICC and the federal court. However, Henderson was not satisfied and, with the backing of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of "separate but equal" in this instance, but did find that the railroad had failed to provide the passenger with the same level of service provided to a white passenger with the same class of ticket. The Court found this violated the Interstate Commerce Act, which made it illegal for a railroad in interstate commerce “to subject any particular person… to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever.”
With the permission of the Court, Sam Hobbs, a member of the United States House Committee on the Judiciary filed a brief as "amicus curiae" in support of the lower court decision. Several other amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of Henderson, the appellant.
Plaque (biology)
A plaque in biology is a flat growth-form. The term is used for
New York International Auto Show
The New York International Auto Show is an annual auto show that is held in Manhattan in late March or early April. It is held at the Jacob Javits Convention Center. It usually opens on or just before Easter weekend and closes on the first Sunday after Easter. In 2016 the show started on March 25 and ended April 3.
The show has been held annually since 1900.
The show was held at the New York Coliseum from 1956 to 1987 when the show moved to the Javits Center.
Santali language
Santali is the official language of the Santal community. Most Santal people live in Jharkhand, Odisha, or West Bengal.
Chiang Mai Province
Chiang Mai (Thai เชียงใหม่) is the second-largest province ("changwat") of Thailand. It is in the country's north. It is bordered by Chiang Rai to the northeast, Lampang and Lamphun to the south, Tak to the southwest, Mae Hong Son to the west, and Shan State of Burma to the north. The capital, Chiang Mai, is 685 km north of Bangkok.
Chiang Mai Province is about from Bangkok. The highest mountain in Thailand, Doi Inthanon at , is in Chiang Mai Province.