Practice Area

Appellate

Amicus Briefs

Below is a sampling of amicus briefs Patterson Belknap attorneys have prepared and filed in recent years.

  • Allen v. Cooper (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of Dow Jones & Company, Inc., on the question whether Congress abrogated state sovereign immunity via the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act.
  • Anes Elhady v. Charles H. Kable, IV (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit): Filed amicus brief on behalf of the Fred T. Korematsu Center.
  • Bollat Vasquez v. Wolf (U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit): Filed amicus brief on behalf of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council 119 challenging the Administration’s policy requiring asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico pending adjudication of their asylum applications in the United States.
  • Bostock v. Clayton County (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed two amicus briefs arguing that Title VII protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status: one on behalf of interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth and experts on intersex issues, and another on behalf of the Muslim Bar Association of New York and a coalition of Muslim organizations.
  • Carpenter v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of scholars of criminal procedure and privacy law arguing against application of the third-party doctrine to cell-site location information.
  • Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of New York Intellectual Property Association arguing in favor of certiorari in a case involving judicial reviewability of and claim construction standards in patent IPR proceedings.
  • Dep’t of Commerce v. State of New York (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of Common Cause and public officials opposing the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
  • Dep’t of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of cross-faith coalitions of religious entities that opposed attempts to repeal DACA.
  • Evenwel v. Abbott (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of Los Angeles, Chicago, and 17 other cities and urban areas, arguing that the Constitution requires legislative districts to be drawn on the basis of total population, rather than eligible voters.
  • Gill v. Whitford (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of Common Cause arguing that partisan gerrymandering is justiciable and unconstitutional.
  • Glossip v. Gross (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of National Catholic Reporter arguing against the lawfulness of experimental execution methods.
  • Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth and experts on intersex issues arguing that Title IX protects against discrimination on the basis of transgender status.
  • Google v. Oracle (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of the News Media Alliance (which represents more than 2,000 news media organizations) arguing for a proper understanding of the doctrine of fair use in copyright cases.
  • In re: Chiquita Brands International, Inc. Alien Tort Statute and Shareholder Derivative Litigation (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit): Filed amicus brief on behalf of a number of human rights and civil rights advocacy groups in an appeal in the Chiquita banana human rights litigation.
  • June Medical Services v. Gee (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of an interfaith coalition of 28 religious organizations opposing restrictive regulation of abortion clinics.
  • Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF) arguing for robust protections for transgender individuals under anti-discrimination laws.
  • Nat’l Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of social science researchers supporting California’s regulation of crisis pregnancy centers.
  • New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. City of New York (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of Citizens Crime Commission of New York City defending the Second Circuit’s approach to analyzing gun-control regulations.
  • Obergefell v. Hodges (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of 156 elected officials and former officeholders from Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee, arguing that the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.
  • Regents of Univ. of California v. Dep’t of Homeland Security (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of 127 religious organizations opposing termination of the DACA immigration relief program.
  • Sierra Club, Southern Border Communities Coalition v. Trump; State of California v. Trump (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit): Filed amicus brief on behalf of cross-faith coalition of religious entities that opposed the federal government’s attempt to divert allocated funds to build a border wall.
  • Tanzin v. Tanvir (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of cross-faith coalition of religious entities supporting the provision of a damages remedy under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to persons discriminated against on the basis of religion.
  • Trump v. Hawaii (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of a coalition of Muslim bar associations opposing President Trump’s ban on travel from certain Muslim-majority countries.
  • Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of CIS Council 119 opposing President Trump’s ban on travel from certain Muslim-majority countries.
  • Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt (U.S. Supreme Court): Filed amicus brief on behalf of an interfaith coalition of religious organizations opposing restrictive regulation of abortion clinics.
  • Zzyym v. Pompeo (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit): Filed amicus brief on behalf of interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth arguing that the State Department’s policy of denying passports to intersex persons violates the Administrative Procedure Act.