Amicus Curiae Brief — Our Lady of Guadalupe School, Petitioner v. Agnes Morrissey-Berru

Nos. 19-267 & 19-348

================================================================================================================

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

-----------------------------------------------------------------OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL,

Petitioner,

v.

AGNES MORRISSEY-BERRU,

Respondent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------ST. JAMES SCHOOL,

Petitioner,

v.

DARRYL BIEL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE

OF THE ESTATE OF KRISTEN BIEL,

Respondent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------On Writs Of Certiorari To The

United States Court Of Appeals

For The Ninth Circuit

-----------------------------------------------------------------BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF COLPA, AGUDATH

ISRAEL OF AMERICA, AGUDAS HARABBONIM,

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YOUNG ISRAEL,

ORTHODOX JEWISH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,

RABBINICAL ALLIANCE OF AMERICA, AND

RABBINICAL COUNCIL OF AMERICA

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

-----------------------------------------------------------------Of Counsel

DENNIS RAPPS

450 Seventh Avenue

44th Floor

New York, NY 10123

(646) 598-7316

drapps@dennisrappslaw.com

NATHAN LEWIN

Counsel of Record

ALYZA D. LEWIN

LEWIN & LEWIN, LLP

888 17th Street NW,

4th Floor

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 828-1000

nat@lewinlewin.com

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

================================================================================================================

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... ii

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE .................... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................................. 2

ARGUMENT ............................................................ 5

I.

JUDAISM HAS MANY “MINISTERS” ............ 5

II. INDEPENDENCE AND AUTONOMY HAS

MARKED THE AMERICAN JEWISH

“MINISTRY” ...................................................... 7

III. THE POLISH JEWISH COMMUNITY WAS

GIVEN RELIGIOUS AUTONOMY UNTIL

1764 .................................................................... 9

IV. IN 1806 NAPOLEON IMPOSED

GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL OVER

FRENCH RELIGIOUS JEWRY...................... 10

V. THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S STANDARD

ENDANGERS THE RELIGIOUS AUTONOMY

OF AMERICA’S JEWS .................................... 12

CONCLUSION ....................................................... 15

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Page

Biel v. St. James School, 911 F.3d 603

(9th Cir. 2018) ................................................... 14

Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc.,

882 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2018) ............................. 13

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church

and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, 565 U.S. 171 (2012) ............... passim

Shaliehsabou v. Hebrew Home of Greater

Washington, Inc., 363 F.3d 299

(4thCir. 2004) .................................................... 15

Su v. Stephen S. Wise Temple, 244 Cal. Rptr.3d 546,

32 Cal. App.5th 1159 (Ct. App., Second District

2019) .................................................................. 14

Temple Emanuel of Newton v. Massachusetts

Commission Against Discrimination, 463 Mass.

472, 975 N.E.2d 433 (2012) .............................. 13

Other Authorities

Encyclopaedia Judaica (2d ed. 2007)........... 6, 9, 11

Encyclopedia Talmudit ............................................ 5

Ethics of the Fathers (Pirkei Avot) ......................... 6

Jewish Encyclopedia (1907) ..................................... 6

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Other Authorities

Abraham J. Karp, Haven and Home: A History of

the Jews in America (1985) ............................ 7, 8

Berel Wein, Herald of Destiny: The Story of the

Jews in the Medieval Era 750-1650 (1993) ........ 9

Berel Wein, Triumph of Survival: The Story of the

Jews in the Modern Era 1650-1990 (1990) ...... 10

Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews

(Jewish Publication Society 1949) ........ 10, 11, 12

Paul Mends-Flohr and Yehudah Reinharz,

The Jew In The Modern World (Oxford

University Press 1995)...................................... 11

1

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE 1

The National Jewish Commission on Law and

Public Affairs (“COLPA”) has spoken on behalf of

America’s Orthodox Jewish community for more

than half a century. COLPA’s first amicus brief in

this Court was filed in 1967 in Board of Education v.

Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968). Since that time, COLPA

has filed more than 35 amicus briefs to convey to

this Court the position of leading organizations

representing Orthodox Jews in the United States.

The

following

national

Orthodox

Jewish

organizations join this amicus brief:

▪Agudath Israel of America, founded in 1922, is a

national grassroots Orthodox Jewish organization

that articulates and advances the position of the

Orthodox Jewish community on a broad range of

issues affecting religious rights and liberties in the

United States.

▪Agudas Harabbonim of the United States and

Canada is the oldest Jewish Orthodox rabbinical

organization in the United States. Its membership

includes leading scholars and sages, and it is

involved with educational, social and legal issues

significant to the Jewish community.

▪National Council of Young Israel is a coordinating

body for more than 300 Orthodox synagogue

to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, amici certify that no

counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part. No

person or party other than the amici has made a monetary

contribution to this brief’s preparation or submission.

Petitioners have filed blanket consents to the filing of amicus

briefs. Respondents have consented to the filing of this amicus

brief.

1Pursuant

2

branches in the United States and Israel that is

involved in matters of social and legal significance to

the Orthodox Jewish community.

▪Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce is a global

umbrella of businesses of all sizes, bridging the

highest echelons of the business and governmental

worlds together stimulating economic opportunity

and positively affecting public policy of governments

around the world.

▪Rabbinical Alliance of America is an Orthodox

Jewish rabbinical organization with more than 400

members that has, for many years, been involved in

a variety of religious, social and educational causes

affecting Orthodox Jews.

▪Rabbinical Council of America (“RCA”) is the largest

Orthodox Jewish rabbinic membership organization

in the United States comprised of nearly one

thousand rabbis throughout the United States and

other countries. The RCA supports the work of its

member rabbis and serves as a voice for rabbinic and

Jewish interests in the larger community.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

We are confident that the parties and amici will

amply demonstrate that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling

must be reversed because it conflicts with this

Court’s opinion in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical

Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, 565 U.S. 171 (2012). We

submit this amicus brief not only to join the chorus

of defenders of religious liberty that support the

petitioners, but also to elucidate, by reference to

Jewish observance and history, the importance of

unconditional and thorough commitment to the

3

principle declared in Chief Justice Roberts’ HosannaTabor opinion: “[I]t is impermissible for the

government to contradict a church’s determination of

who can act as its minister.” 575 U.S. at 185.

Because many different specialties are needed

for total Jewish observance, the term “minister”

encompasses an extensive breadth of religious

functionaries in Judaism. Resolution of this case

therefore shapes “the important issue of religious

autonomy” (565 U.S. at 198; Alito and Kagan, JJ.,

concurring) – an issue that is critical to Jewish life in

America. Full discussion of this subject could fill

volumes, but we provide only brief vignettes to

demonstrate the Jewish perspective on the issue

before the Court.

History has taught that when the Jewish

community is granted autonomy to develop and

administer its own religious observance, as was done

in Poland in the Sixteenth to Eighteenth centuries,

it can prosper spiritually. When, however,

government attempts to dictate or influence in any

manner who a Jewish community’s religious

authorities will be or how they will perform, as

Napoleon Bonaparte attempted to do in France, faith

is suppressed.

Observance of traditional Judaism requires

many specialists. Today’s American rabbi is very

different from the rabbis who led the Jewish

communities centuries ago. The rabbis of the

Talmud did not see the rabbinate as a profession;

their livelihood came from other sources. In today’s

Jewish communities, teachers, cantors, kosher-food

supervisors, and administrators of other religious

4

facilities carry out functions that are central in

Jewish observance. All these “ministers” are

appointed and supervised by their Jewish

communities. Government does not designate them

or participate in their selection. Jewish tradition, as

mandated by the Ethics of the Fathers, directs that

each observer of the Jewish faith choose his or her

rabbi.

Even in the United States, the position now

known as “rabbi” has had a significant evolution. In

America’s early years, cantors and unordained

experts led their communities in observance of

rituals of the Jewish faith. Teachers in Jewish

schools performed essential duties for local Jewish

communities.

A model of autonomy of Jewish spiritual life was

the Council of Four Lands (“Vaad Arba Aratzot”)

that existed in Poland from 1560 to 1764. The

Council was granted authority by law to provide not

only for many secular needs of the Jewish

community, but also to maintain teachers and other

functionaries

needed

for

Jewish

religious

observance.

This autonomy may be contrasted with the effort

of Napoleon Bonaparte to prescribe an “Assembly of

Notables” and a “Sanhedrin” in France in 1806. By

participating actively in the selection of the Jews

who would administer Jewish religious life in France

Napoleon’s government effectively suppressed

authentic Jewish religious observance.

Decisions of American courts that substitute

judges’ appraisal of who qualifies as a “minister” for

the judgment of religious authorities are like

5

Napoleon’s governmentally sanctioned Assembly and

Sanhedrin. They deny religion the freedom that the

First Amendment guarantees. Three reported

decisions of American courts after Hosanna-Tabor

have concerned teachers at Jewish schools. Two were

correctly decided in favor of applying the ministerial

exception to the teachers. The most recent was

erroneously decided because it applied the rationale

that was used by the Ninth Circuit in this case. Even

before the Hosanna-Tabor decision the Fourth

Circuit correctly held that a kashruth supervisor at

a Jewish nursing home qualified for a federal

statutory ministerial exception.

ARGUMENT

I.

JUDAISM HAS MANY “MINISTERS”

Jewish religious observance calls on experts and

scholars over a wide spectrum of subjects. The

Hebrew Talmudic Encyclopedia (“Encyclopedia

Talmudit”), is currently being compiled, written, and

published in Israel at the rate of several volumes

each year. It comprehensively covers Jewish

traditional subjects, adhering to historic traditional

texts and commentaries. Volume 15, col. 52 declares

(our translation from the Hebrew) that a chacham –

a wise man – is “appointed by the community to

carry out specific functions such as judge, preacher,

teacher, [and] religious authority on what is

forbidden and permitted, unclean and clean, family

purity, dietary rules, inspection of knives for kosher

slaughter, repeal of vows, . . . .” Each of these

enumerated functions is supported by a footnote

reference to the Talmud or comparable authority. A

6

vibrant Jewish community can exist today only if it

has a substantial complement of learned and

experienced leaders who can supervise, administer,

and teach its many rituals.

The status of a “rabbi” in contemporary

American society is unlike its historic antecedent in

Jewish history. “The rabbi of the Talmud was . . .

completely different from the present-day holder of

the title. The Talmudic rabbi was an interpreter and

expounder of the Bible and Oral Law, and almost

invariably had an occupation whence he derived his

livelihood. It was only in the Middle Ages that the

rabbi became – in addition to, or instead of, the

interpreter and decisor of the law – the teacher,

preacher, and spiritual head of the Jewish

congregation or community . . . .” 17 Encyclopaedia

Judaica 11 (2d ed. 2007). 2

Teachers employed by schools, synagogues, and

other Jewish community organizations in today’s

society fill a role that was, in Jewish history, a

predecessor-model for the modern American rabbi.

Cantors,

kosher-food

supervisors,

and

administrators of other ritual facilities carry out

2 This modern description repeats the substance of the entry in

a 1907 encyclopedia. See 10 Jewish Encyclopedia 294 (1907):

“The rabbi in the Talmudic period was unlike the modern

official minister, who is elected by the congregation and who is

paid a stipulated salary. The function of the rabbi of the

Talmud was to teach the members of the community the

Scriptures and the oral and traditional laws.” The 1907

Encyclopedia is consistent with and quotes the account given

by Sherira Gaon, a tenth century leader of the Jewish

community who authored a famous Iggeret (epistle) which

reviewed, inter alia, the functions and titles of rabbis.

7

duties that are essential today for full observance of

the Jewish faith. The Jewish community selects

them. Rabbis are not imposed or named by

government. The lesson of Ethics of the Fathers

(Pirkei Avot) persists. “Provide [literally “make”] for

yourself a rabbi and acquire [literally “purchase”] for

yourself a colleague.” Ethics of the Fathers

1:6.(emphasis added)

II.

INDEPENDENCE AND AUTONOMY HAS

MARKED THE AMERICAN JEWISH “MINISTRY”

In Haven and Home: A History of the Jews in

America 66 (1985), an authoritative treatise,

Abraham J. Karp, who was president of the

American Jewish Historical Society, introduced his

description of “The Rabbi in America” as follows:

“America was a frontier society where religious

experimentation could be bold, deviation from

tradition radical. Many of the rabbis who came to

America were caught up in the enthusiasm for the

new and uncharted, and carved out careers of

imaginative leadership.” Professor Karp noted that

in the Revolutionary period a cantor named

Gershom Mendes Seixas expanded his role “beyond

the precentor of the liturgy, adding occasional

preaching and civic leadership closer to the role of

the American Protestant clergy and the West

European rabbiner.” Id. at 67. A leading midNineteenth Century leader of the American Jewish

religious community was Isaac Leeser “who began

life in America as a clerk, [and] had the grace never

to call himself rabbi.” Id.

8

Rabbis were not the only source of Jewish

religious training in Nineteenth Century America.

“In the forties and fifties many congregations or

individuals opened schools for Jewish children which

provided a full curriculum of general and Jewish

subjects.” Id. at 73. The first Jewish Sunday School

was opened in Philadelphia in 1837 under the

direction of Miss Rebecca Gratz and Isaac Leeser. Id.

at 74. Although the local rabbi and Leeser came to

visit, neither was a teacher at the school.

In July 1888 the first “Chief Rabbi of America,”

Rabbi Jacob Joseph, arrived in the United States

from Russia. Professor Karp observed that “[o]ne of

the chief reasons for engaging a chief rabbi was to

bring order to the religious life of Lower East Side

Jewry.” Id. at 107. Shortly after his arrival in

America, Rabbi Joseph announced “that inspectors

have already been appointed in the poultry

slaughter houses to test the knives and to have

supervision of everything in their care.” Id. at 107108.

By 1917 “there were so many functionaries,

‘reverends,’ ‘marriage performers,’ who dabbled in

religious matters for which they had neither the

knowledge nor the authority,” that a Board of

Orthodox Rabbis was organized to establish “a

procedure for the orderly supervision of kashrut and

gittin (divorces).” Id. at 238-239. The 1917-1918

Jewish Communal Register reported that only 25

percent of 784 permanent synagogues in New York

had rabbis. Id. at 239.

The religious duties carried out by the

individuals appointed by the community for each of

9

these functions give that person a status equivalent

to a “minister” in the Protestant clergy.

III.

THE POLISH JEWISH COMMUNITY WAS

GIVEN RELIGIOUS AUTONOMY UNTIL 1764

In the mid-Sixteenth Century an autonomous

governing body for the Jews of Poland was begun

with “an ad hoc council of rabbis and community

leaders that established itself as a governing body

for Jewish Poland.” Berel Wein, Herald of Destiny:

The Story of the Jews in the Medieval Era 750-1650

289-290 (1993). “By the 1560’s this council was

institutionalized and recognized as an official

autonomous legislature, court, and executive by the

Jews and non-Jews of Poland. The council met at

regular intervals . . . . The council came to be known

as the ‘Council of Four Lands’ and it effectively ruled

Polish Jewry until its dissolution by the Polish

authorities in 1764.” Id. at 290-291. “Its pinkas

(record book) contains the story of Polish Jewry for

two centuries . . . . It records for us the swing of

power away from the rabbis to the lay communal

leaders . . . . Only in Poland did the Jewish

community have so much internal control over their

society for such an extended period of time, and this

factor aided in the unique development and life of

Polish Jewry.” Id. at 291.

Volume 5 Encyclopaedia Judaica 239 (2d ed.

2007), describes the Council of Four Lands as “the

central institutions of Jewish self-government in

Poland and Lithuania from the middle of the 16th

century until 1764.” Among the duties of the councils

was “attend[ing] to the supply of teachers and the

10

fundamentals of Torah education . . . [and] giving

their approval to the publication of books.” Id. at

244.

Heinrich Graetz, a historian of Jewish life,

evaluated the Council of Four Lands as follows (4

Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews 643-644

(Jewish Publication Society 1949))(emphasis added):

It

gave

the

Polish

communities

extraordinary unity, firmness, and strength,

and hence secured respect both from their

members and outsiders. . . . Disputes in the

communities, questions of taxation, religious

and social regulations, the averting of

threatened dangers, and help to brethren in

distress, were the main points treated by the

synods, and settled finally. . . . On this

account, the synod of Polish Jews was

respected even abroad . . . .

IV.

IN 1806 NAPOLEON IMPOSED

GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL OVER

FRENCH RELIGIOUS JEWRY

Napoleon Bonaparte was initially an advocate of

equality for Jews. Under Napoleon, “the Jews of

Western Europe had their legal disabilities lifted

and were ushered into the Age of Reason and

Enlightenment.” Berel Wein, Triumph of Survival:

The Story of the Jews in the Modern Era 1650-1990

71 (1990). In 1806, possibly as part of “grand plan to

have them disappear entirely by means of total

assimilation,

intermarriage,

and

conversion,”

Napoleon convened a 111-member “Assembly of

Jewish Notables” and a “Sanhedrin” of 71

11

governmentally chosen French Jews. Only 46 of the

Sanhedrin’s members were rabbis. Id. at 72.

Napoleon

presented

the

Assembly

and

Sanhedrin with 12 questions regarding the social,

political, and religious life of French Jewry. Question

7 was, “Who appoints the rabbis?” The answers to

Napoleon’s questions were formulated under the

leadership of the chief rabbi of Strasbourg, a

renowned Talmudic scholar who exercised great skill

in order to avoid offending the emperor.

The Assembly’s answer to Question 7 was:

Since the revolution, the majority of the

chiefs of families names the Rabbi, wherever

there is a sufficient number of Jews to

maintain one, after previous inquiries as to

the morality and learning of the candidate.

This mode of election is not, however,

uniform. It varies according to place, and, to

this day, whatever concerns the elections of

Rabbis is still in a state of uncertainty.

Paul Mends-Flohr and Yehudah Reinharz, The Jew

In The Modern World 130-131 (Oxford University

Press 1995).

Pleased with the Assembly’s answers, Napoleon

decided to establish “an ecclesiastical organization to

lead the Jews as French citizens of the Mosaic faith.”

2 Encyclopaedia Judaica 601 (2d ed. 2007). In 1807

he dissolved the Assembly and the Sanhedrin. In

March 1808, Napoleon issued regulations for the

“ecclesiastical structure” of the Jewish religion.

“Consistories” were created with the authority to

12

appoint rabbis, determine their salaries, regulate

religious services, and maintain synagogues. Id.

Graetz’s History of the Jews condemns “the

wretched consistorial organization which degraded

the officials of the synagogue to the level of

policemen, and regulated the civil position of the

Jews, or rather made encroachments on their

hitherto favorable condition, although he repeatedly

assured them that their equalization would suffer no

restrictions.” 5 Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews

498 (Jewish Publication Society 1949) (emphasis

added). The result, he says, was that “the Jews of

France, the anchor of hope of their brethren in other

countries, were once again humiliated and placed

under exceptional legislation.” Id. at 499.

V.

THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S STANDARD

ENDANGERS THE RELIGIOUS AUTONOMY

OF AMERICA’S JEWS

This brief historical background illustrates why

this Court should reject the very limiting perspective

of the Ninth Circuit as hostile to religious freedom in

the United States.

Petitioner had “significant

religious responsibilities as a teacher,” “committed to

incorporate Catholic values and teachings into her

curriculum,” “led her students in daily prayer,” and

“was in charge of liturgy planning for a monthly

Mass.” Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit refused to

acknowledge that she is a “minister.” An employee of

a Jewish school or synagogue who performed any

comparable Jewish religious functions would

indisputably be well within the concept of “ministry”

by historic Jewish standards.

13

The religious autonomy critical for future Jewish

observance in the United States is best secured by

application of the simple test articulated by Justice

Thomas’ concurring opinion in Hosanna-Tabor:

“[T]he Religion Clauses require civil courts to apply

the ministerial exception and to defer to a religious

organization’s good-faith understanding of who

qualifies as its minister.” 565 U.S. at 196. In this

case, as in Hosanna-Tabor and in any future

litigation involving an employee of a Jewish

synagogue, school, or community organization, it

should be sufficient, as Justice Thomas suggested, if

the employer “sincerely considers” the employee to

be a “minister.” Id. at 197.

To our knowledge, there have been three

reported cases since Hosanna-Tabor concerning

teachers employed by Jewish institutions. Temple

Emanuel of Newton v. Massachusetts Commission

Against Discrimination, 463 Mass. 472, 975 N.E.2d

433 (2012), correctly held that a teacher at a Jewish

religious school who “was not a rabbi, was not called

a rabbi, and did not hold herself out as a rabbi” was

within the ministerial exception because “she taught

religious subjects at a school that functioned solely

as a religious school, whose mission was to teach

Jewish children about Jewish learning, language,

history, traditions, and prayer.” 975 N.E.2d at 443.

In Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School,

Inc., 882 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2018), the Seventh

Circuit applied the “four-factor test” that it derived

from the Court’s opinions in Hosanna-Tabor. The

court held that a Hebrew teacher in a Jewish day

school was a “minister” for “ministerial exception”

purposes even though she believed her religious

14

tasks were “voluntary.” The court rejected the

alternative approach of the Becket Fund’s amicus

curiae brief that any employee who performs

religious functions could be deemed a “minister” if so

characterized by his or her employer. In our view

that “functional” test should control this issue rather

than the four-part “totality of the circumstances”

test.

The most recent reported decision concerning

teachers in a Jewish religious entity is Su v.

Stephen S. Wise Temple, 244 Cal. Rptr.3d 546, 32

Cal. App.5th 1159 (Ct. App., Second District 2019).

The California Court of Appeal erroneously, in our

view, reversed a decision that had held that a

Reform temple’s preschool teachers were within the

“ministerial exception.” The school’s curriculum had

both secular and religious content, and its teachers

did not have to be Jewish or knowledgeable about

Jewish belief and practice. The school asserted,

however, that since it was a religious school that

fulfilled the temple’s religious obligation, and its

teachers (a) taught about Jewish religious holidays,

(b) participated in weekly Shabbat services, (c)

taught Jewish prayers, and (d) transmitted Judaism

to future generations, its teachers are “ministerial

employees.”

The California court mistakenly concluded that

the Wise Temple teachers are not ministers because

“they need not be religiously educated and they are

not held out as ministers.” 244 Cal. Rptr.3d at 554,

32 Cal. App. 5th at 1169. In reaching that result, the

court relied partly on the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous

decision in Biel v. St. James School, 911 F.3d 603

(9th Cir. 2018). We urge this Court to reject that

15

view because it conflicts with the principles of

religious autonomy that are fundamental in

American society.

In 2004, the Fourth Circuit ruled that claims

made by a kashruth supervisor against a Jewish

nursing home under the Fair Labor Standards Act

were barred by the ministerial exception in the

federal law. Shaliehsabou v. Hebrew Home of

Greater Washington, Inc., 363 F.3d 299 (4thCir.

2004). That decision represents, in our view, the

proper application of the rule that is now

constitutionally mandatory after this Court’s

unanimous ruling in Hosanna-Tabor.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should be

reversed and this Court should hold that the First

Amendment requires a court to defer to a religious

organization’s good-faith understanding of who

qualifies as its minister.

Respectfully submitted,

Of Counsel

NATHAN LEWIN

DENNIS RAPPS

450 Seventh Avenue

44th Floor

New York, NY 10123

(646) 598-7316

drapps@dennisrappslaw

.com

ALYZA D. LEWIN

LEWIN & LEWIN, LLP

888 17th Street NW

4th Floor

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 828-1000

nat@lewinlewin.com

February 2020

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

Counsel of Record