City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-04717
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Judge Hamilton granted nine unopposed requests to file amicus briefs.
The nonparties seeking permission to file amicus briefs, as well as the parties and court in the three related cases.
What happened
This order in City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services addressed nine requests from nonparties to file briefs offering information or perspectives to the court.
No party opposed any of the requests. The court explained that district judges may allow outside individuals or organizations to participate when their contributions would be useful or desirable.
Judge Hamilton granted each request. The briefs were treated as filed on the dates the permission requests were submitted, and no replies were allowed if any request was opposed.
The detailed version
- City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · No. 4:19-cv-04717
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 11, 2019
Background
The court considered nine motions for leave to file amicus curiae briefs across three related cases. An amicus curiae is a person or organization that is not a party but asks to provide information or arguments that may assist the court. No party opposed any of the nine motions.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that district courts have broad discretion to allow amicus participation. It explained that there are no strict prerequisites for amicus status; the proposed participant must show that its participation would be useful or otherwise desirable to the court. Courts may also welcome briefs addressing legal issues with effects beyond the immediate parties or providing a unique perspective.
Ruling
For good cause shown, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted each of the nine motions for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. The briefs were deemed filed as of the dates the requests for permission were filed. The court further stated that, if a request was opposed, no replies would be permitted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.