Scholl v. Mnuchin
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-05309
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Scholl v. Mnuchin, Judge Hamilton granted nonparties leave to file amicus briefs.
The nonparties seeking to file amicus briefs were permitted to do so. The parties were affected by the court's instruction that no replies would be permitted if the briefs were opposed.
What happened
In Scholl v. Mnuchin, the court considered a motion asking permission to file a brief on behalf of amici curiae, or nonparties offering information or perspectives that may help the court. No party opposed the motion.
The court explained that district courts have broad discretion to allow amicus participation when it is useful or desirable, including when a brief may address issues affecting people beyond the parties or provide a unique perspective. The opinion does not identify the proposed amici or describe the brief's subject.
Judge Hamilton granted the motion. The briefs were treated as filed on the date the request for permission was filed, and no replies were permitted if the briefs were opposed.
The detailed version
- Scholl v. Mnuchin · No. 4:20-cv-05309
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Sept. 9, 2020
Background
The court considered a motion for leave to file a brief for amici curiae. An amicus curiae is a nonparty who offers information, expertise, or a perspective that may assist the court. No party opposed the motion. The opinion does not identify the proposed amici or describe the subject of their briefs.
Legal standard
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 person or entity seeking to participate must show that its participation would be useful or desirable to the court. The court also noted that amicus briefs may be useful when legal issues could affect people beyond the parties or when the proposed amicus can provide information or a perspective that the parties' lawyers cannot provide.
Ruling
The court granted the motion for leave to file a brief for amici curiae. The subject briefs were deemed filed as of the date the request for permission was filed. The court further ordered that, if the briefs were opposed, no replies would be permitted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.