COMMENTS FROM THE AUGUST 2024 PUBLICATION

Court rules

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL RULES & FORMS

To view the proposed amendments for the appellate rules that were

published for this comment period, please visit the Forms & Rules page of the

judiciary’s website at https://www.uscourts.gov/ to download the 2024 preliminary

draft of proposed amendments.

Comments were submitted through the regulations.gov portal under the

following docket number: https://www.regulations.gov/document/USC-RULESAP-2024-0001-0001.

The comment period started August 15, 2024 and closed February 17, 2025.

Comment Number

Submitter

Comment

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0003

Straw, Andrew

Amicus briefs are an expression of the First Amendment right to petition courts on matters of public interest. It costs virtually nothing to allow amicus

briefs to be filed and they should always be allowed regardless of the consent of any party. The Court is under no obligation to do what an amicus

wants, but it should always allow such statements in the public record. As a civil rights advocate for people with disabilities, it is exceptionally

important to allow these briefs in civil rights cases, but the rule of allowing them without exception should apply to all cases.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0004

Washington Legal Foundation

See attached file(s)

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0005

Anonymous

Thank you for the opportunity to comment anonymously.

Attachment Files

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010004/attachment_1.pdf

I agree with the changes to Rule 29. Amicus briefs have become a conduit for hyper-fixated interest groups, lobbying organizations, and partisan

political entities to unduly influence the legal and factual proceedings of federal courts. Naturally, all amicus-filers will post lengthy comments in

response to this Proposed Rule — indeed, this is what they love to do most! — lobbing complaints about “limiting access.” They will then go on to

speak about how judges have the freedom to ignore any filed amicus briefs they choose. Most importantly, they will bemoan the reduction of their

ability to prod their way into cases they have no direct connection to.

Good. All judges know that receiving amicus briefs is like getting junk mail in that you might be fooled into reading a brief in the same way you might

be fooled to reading junk mail that uses a font that resembles someone’s natural handwriting. However, at the end of the day, judges know that what’s

in amicus briefs is much like what’s in junk mail: something written by an entity that wants to influence you to do something you’d otherwise not do,

most often by emotional trickery and undergraduate-psychology-class marketing tactics.

I urge that the proposed amendments for Rule 29 are adopted. Thank you for your consideration.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0006

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse &

Congressman Hank Johnson

Please see the attached letter from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Congressman Hank Johnson.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0007

Hernandez, Simon

The Proposed Form 4 to apply for in forma pauperis in an appellate court will considerably ease those who are in need. As stated in the proposed

amendment, the current Form 4 is overly complicated, intrusive, and includes unneeded information. If a court believes that someone is lying about

their status, they can inquire. But why put up one more barrier for someone who already is struggling to navigate the complicated appellate process.

For example, the current form includes the employment history of a filer for the last two years. This is not likely relevant to the process of establishing

if they are qualified for in forma pauperis, the simplified form which includes only income and expenses will do the job. The Proposed Form 4 is an

example of how a government form can be better and should.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0008

Senators Mitch McConnell, John

Cornyn, and John Thune

See Attached

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0009

Morrison, Alan

See Attached

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0010

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0011

Anonymous

The FRAP should be more flexible for incarcerated inmates

Ravnitzky, Michael

See attached file(s)

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0012

Atlantic Legal Foundation

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010006/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010008/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010009/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010011/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010012/attachment_1.pdf

Comment Number

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0013

Submitter

Diamond, Maria

Comment

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

Administrative Office of the United States Courts

One Columbus Circle, NE

Washington, DC 20544

Dear Committee Members:

I submit this comment regarding the proposed amendments to FRCP 29. I am a civil litigator in Washington state who has practiced in both state and federal court

systems for 41 years. My comment is based on my experience as an attorney who has litigated multiple cases through the appeals process and also submitted

amicus briefs to the Washington State Supreme Court.

Amicus briefs play an important role in educating judges on issues of wide-ranging importance. They provide an opportunity for experts, such as academics, nonprofits, and think tanks, to educate the court on those issues. They assist judges by presenting ideas, arguments, theories, insights, factual background, and data

not found in the parties' briefs. My primary concern regarding the proposed rule change is elimination of the party consent option, requiring leave of court for the

filing of all amicus briefs. I believe this is a move in the wrong direction. In contrast to the proposal, the United States Supreme Court has changed its rules in the

opposite direction, freely allowing the filing of amicus briefs without leave of court or consent of the parties. The proposed change will place additional burdens on

the court that outweigh the purported concern over recusal issues.

Furthermore, I am concerned about the proposed content restrictions. While I understand the desire to reduce redundancy, I seriously question how the proposed

amendment will prevent redundancy without coordination between amici and the parties. The proposal may also significantly increase the rate of amicus denials,

thereby chilling amicus curiae filings. This unintended consequence will deprive the courts of valuable assistance to aid their decision-making on issues of public

importance.

I applaud the committee's efforts to improve the appellate litigation process and thank you for your consideration of this comment.

Sincerely,

Maria S. Diamond

Diamond Massong, PLLC

Attachment Files

Comment Number

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0014

Submitter

Anonymous

Comment

Attachment Files

Honorable John D. Bates

Chair, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

Administrative Office of the United States Courts

One Columbus Circle NE

Washington, D.C. 20544

Dear Judge Gates,

Thank you for all the work the Advisory Committee has done regarding this issue and many others. I truly esteem the impartiality of the Courts in making decisions

like this, based on the common interest and the Constitution rather than any partisan agenda. I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed

amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 to enhance disclosure requirements for amicus curiae briefs — in fact, I would encourage the Committee to

go further to strengthen the disclosure requirements. As a college student, and one who is deeply interested in politics and the law, I believe that I bring an important

lay perspective on this issue: an issue that affects not just the courts but also the public.

This amendment is important. Arguments brought up in amicus curiae briefs can affect judges and judicial decisions — and these judicial decisions can have a very

real impact on the public at large. And, while I can not speak specifically on the governmental interest for amicus’ disclosure, I can confidently state that it is in the

American public interest for all of us to know who exactly is trying to influence our judicial system through amicus curiae briefs. Specifically, Rule 29(a)(4)(D), which

requires a concise description of the amicus curiae and their pertinence in the case, is particularly valuable. It imposes almost no additional cost on the amicus while

providing the public – along with the courts – important, accessible information. This would make it significantly quicker and simpler to observe court proceedings:

the public would be given valuable insight into the major political voices on a subject. However, even beyond this change, the others described in the amendment

can benefit the public interest. As Senator Whitehouse and Representative Johnson mention in their comment on the issue, the tactics of corporations and dark

money groups trying to affect the judicial decision-making process have sharply intensified — and this amendment can try and shed light on these machinations.

America does not belong to corporations or interest groups but rather to the American people. We – college students, young people, and average American

citizens – have every right to have this disclosure, donor or otherwise, from these organizations. Meanwhile, this disclosure would not affect the First Amendment

Rights of the amicus groups, as described in the Advisory Committee’s report.

I am quite shocked by, yet resigned to, the partisan politicization surrounding these disclosure enhancements. The government and the courts are designed to

serve, and be responsive to, the American people. Amicus curiae briefs play a powerful role in American governance, and, therefore, it is in the interests of

everyone – Democrat, Republican, or Independent – to have all of the information. Thank you for considering my comments on this amendment, and I strongly

encourage the Judicial Conference to approve these changes.

Most respectfully,

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0015

SIFMA

See attached file(s)

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0016

National Taxpayers Union

See attached file(s)

Foundation and People United For

Privacy Foundation

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0017

Andrade , Mia

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0018

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0019

National Federation of

Independent Business, Inc.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0020

Herman, Stephen

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0021

American Property Casualty

Insurance Association

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010015/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010016/attachment_1.pdf

I agree with the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. These changes are essential for improving the clarity, efficiency,

and fairness of the appellate process. By updating the rules, we can ensure that the legal system remains responsive to contemporary issues,

reducing unnecessary delays and ambiguities. This helps maintain the integrity of the judicial process and reinforces public confidence in the legal

system, which is crucial for ensuring justice and fairness for all parties involved.

See attached file.

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USC-

RULES-AP-2024-00010018/attachment_1.pdf

National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) comment letter of December 30, 2024, to Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCJudicial Conference of the United States concerning proposed amendments for Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, relating to amicus briefs, is RULES-AP-2024-0001attached.

0019/attachment_1.pdf

See attached file(s)

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010020/attachment_1.pdf

See attached file(s)

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010021/attachment_1.pdf

Comment Number

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0023

American Council of Life Insurers

ACLI Comments to the Proposed Amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0024

DRI Center for Law and Public

Policy

Please find attached a comment on proposed changes to FRAP 23 from Lisa M. Baird in her capacity as chair of the DRI Center for Law and Public

Policy's Amicus Committee.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0025

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0026

Anonymous

I strongly urge the passing of this rule to support fairness and justice in the judicial process.

Young America's Foundation

Comment in Opposition to Proposed Changes to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0027

California Academy of Appellate

Lawyers

Please see attached.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0028

Philanthropy Roundtable

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0029

This comment, attached, is submitted by Avital Fried, Myriam Gilles, Andrew Hammond, Alexander A. Reinert, Judith Resnik, Tanina Rostain, Anna

Selbrede, Lauren Sudeall, and Julia Udell.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0030

Avital Fried, Myriam Gilles,

Andrew Hammond, Alexander A.

Reinert, Judith Resnik, Tanina

Rostain, Anna Selbrede, Lauren

Lucas, Seth

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0031

Court Accountability

Please see attached.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0032

Federation of Defense &

Corporate Counsel

See attached file(s)

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0033

Smoger, Gerson

See Attached

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0034

American Association for Justice

Comment with attachments from the American Association for Justice.

Submitter

Comment

Comment Letter from Zack Smith and Seth Lucas on Proposed FRAP 29 Amendments

Attachment Files

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010023/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010024/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010026/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010027/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010028/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010029/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010030/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010031/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010032/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010033/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010034/attachment_1.pdf

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010034/attachment_2.pdf

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0035

Industry Coalition

See attached file.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0036

Travinski, Brian

I strongly oppose the proposed changes to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

This rule would create unnecessary delays in the appellate process, as courts would be forced to review motions from amici before even considering

the briefs themselves. Judges and clerks already have effective methods for filtering out unhelpful amicus briefs, so there is no need for this

additional bureaucratic step.

I urge the Committee to reconsider this harmful proposal and withdraw it.

https://downloads.regulations.gov/USCRULES-AP-2024-00010035/attachment_1.pdf

Comment Number

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0037

Submitter

Allen, Timothy

Comment

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed amendments to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. This rule represents an

unnecessary intrusion into a well-functioning system and threatens to limit access to the courts for many public-interest organizations.

Judges are already capable of screening out unhelpful amicus briefs without additional motions. The proposal's claim that this will improve efficiency

is misguided by forcing amici to seek leave to file, the rule would actually increase the burden on the courts. More motions, more delays, and more

bureaucracy will be the result. Moreover, the proposal would require amici to disclose intrusive financial details, including donor information, which

raises serious First Amendment concerns.

Forcing organizations to reveal their financial supporters undercuts the fundamental right to free association. This chilling effect could deter many

groups from participating in important legal matters, especially smaller organizations that rely on private donations to fund their advocacy.

This proposal does more harm than good. It places additional burdens on the judiciary, limits the ability of organizations to advocate for justice, and

threatens constitutional rights. I urge the Committee to reject it.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0038

Tavares , C

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0039

Porter, Ann

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0040

Nelson, James

I strongly oppose the proposed changes to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

This rule would create unnecessary delays in the appellate process, as courts would be forced to review motions from amici before even considering

the briefs themselves. Judges and clerks already have effective methods for filtering out unhelpful amicus briefs, so there is no need for this

additional bureaucratic step.

I urge the Committee to reconsider this harmful proposal and withdraw it.

I strongly oppose the proposed changes to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

This rule would create unnecessary delays in the appellate process, as courts would be forced to review motions from amici before even considering

the briefs themselves. Judges and clerks already have effective methods for filtering out unhelpful amicus briefs, so there is no need for this

additional bureaucratic step.

I urge the Committee to reconsider this harmful proposal and withdraw it.

I am writing to express my concern about the proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. These changes would require amici

curiae to obtain court approval before filing briefs and disclose financial information, including donor identities. This is not only an unnecessary burden

on the courts but also an attack on First Amendment rights.

The requirement to disclose donor information threatens the right to free association. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that individuals

and organizations have the right to associate privately without fear of public disclosure. Forcing amici to disclose their donors would discourage many

from contributing, stifling the voices of smaller organizations that play a crucial role in advocating for justice and fairness in our legal system.

This proposal is a step in the wrong direction, and I urge the Committee to withdraw it

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0041

McLaughlin, Kirk L

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed changes to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. This proposal will not only create

unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles but will also severely limit the role that amici play in our judicial process, a role that has been crucial to ensuring fair

and balanced rulings.

Amici often provide the courts with critical insights that the parties to a case may not present. In many cases, amici play an important role in clarifying

broader implications that go beyond the immediate interests of the parties involved. This kind of input helps the courts to issue rulings that consider

the wider impact of their decisions.

Requiring amici to seek court approval would slow down the process and discourage the submission of briefs, especially from smaller organizations

and individuals who do not have the resources to engage in lengthy legal battles. Judges and their clerks are already proficient at filtering out

unhelpful briefs, and this proposal would only add unnecessary steps to an already complex process.

This rule change also threatens First Amendment rights by requiring amici to disclose financial details about their donors. Such a requirement would

have a chilling effect on organizations and individuals who want to support causes they care about but are unwilling to have their personal information

disclosed publicly.

I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal and withdraw it to protect both the efficiency of the courts and the constitutional rights of those who

support legal advocacy.

Attachment Files

Comment Number

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0042

Submitter

Stiver , Phil

Comment

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed changes to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. This proposal will not only create

unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles but will also severely limit the role that amici play in our judicial process, a role that has been crucial to ensuring fair

and balanced rulings.

Amici often provide the courts with critical insights that the parties to a case may not present. In many cases, amici play an important role in clarifying

broader implications that go beyond the immediate interests of the parties involved. This kind of input helps the courts to issue rulings that consider

the wider impact of their decisions.

Requiring amici to seek court approval would slow down the process and discourage the submission of briefs, especially from smaller organizations

and individuals who do not have the resources to engage in lengthy legal battles. Judges and their clerks are already proficient at filtering out

unhelpful briefs, and this proposal would only add unnecessary steps to an already complex process.

This rule change also threatens First Amendment rights by requiring amici to disclose financial details about their donors. Such a requirement would

have a chilling effect on organizations and individuals who want to support causes they care about but are unwilling to have their personal information

disclosed publicly.

I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal and withdraw it to protect both the efficiency of the courts and the constitutional rights of those who

support legal advocacy.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0043

Wendell, Jerome

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed changes to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. This proposal will not only create

unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles but will also severely limit the role that amici play in our judicial process, a role that has been crucial to ensuring fair

and balanced rulings.

Amici often provide the courts with critical insights that the parties to a case may not present. In many cases, amici play an important role in clarifying

broader implications that go beyond the immediate interests of the parties involved. This kind of input helps the courts to issue rulings that consider

the wider impact of their decisions.

Requiring amici to seek court approval would slow down the process and discourage the submission of briefs, especially from smaller organizations

and individuals who do not have the resources to engage in lengthy legal battles. Judges and their clerks are already proficient at filtering out

unhelpful briefs, and this proposal would only add unnecessary steps to an already complex process.

This rule change also threatens First Amendment rights by requiring amici to disclose financial details about their donors. Such a requirement would

have a chilling effect on organizations and individuals who want to support causes they care about but are unwilling to have their personal information

disclosed publicly.

I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal and withdraw it to protect both the efficiency of the courts and the constitutional rights of those who

support legal advocacy.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0044

Easterlin, Eric

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0045

Goebel, Michael

I strongly oppose the proposed changes to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

This rule would create unnecessary delays in the appellate process, as courts would be forced to review motions from amici before even considering

the briefs themselves. Judges and clerks already have effective methods for filtering out unhelpful amicus briefs, so there is no need for this

additional bureaucratic step.

I urge the Committee to reconsider this harmful proposal and withdraw it.

I am writing to oppose the proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, which would create unnecessary barriers for filing

amicus curiae briefs.

Forcing all amici to seek court permission before filing briefs would slow down the judicial process and discourage smaller organizations from

participating.

Worse, the proposal to require amici to disclose donor information raises serious constitutional concerns. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that

organizations have a right to protect the privacy of their supporters. This rule would have a chilling effect on individuals and groups that want to

contribute to important legal advocacy but fear exposure of their private affiliations.

This proposal is both unnecessary and harmful. I strongly urge you to withdraw it and protect the integrity of the judicial process.

Attachment Files

Comment Number

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0046

Submitter

FLETCHER, CRAIG

Comment

I am writing to express my concern about the proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. These changes would require amici

curiae to obtain court approval before filing briefs and disclose financial information, including donor identities. This is not only an unnecessary burden

on the courts but also an attack on First Amendment rights.

The requirement to disclose donor information threatens the right to free association. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that individuals

and organizations have the right to associate privately without fear of public disclosure. Forcing amici to disclose their donors would discourage many

from contributing, stifling the voices of smaller organizations that play a crucial role in advocating for justice and fairness in our legal system.

This proposal is a step in the wrong direction, and I urge the Committee to withdraw it

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0047

Kloppenburg, Judy

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed changes to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. This proposal will not only create

unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles but will also severely limit the role that amici play in our judicial process, a role that has been crucial to ensuring fair

and balanced rulings.

Amici often provide the courts with critical insights that the parties to a case may not present. In many cases, amici play an important role in clarifying

broader implications that go beyond the immediate interests of the parties involved. This kind of input helps the courts to issue rulings that consider

the wider impact of their decisions.

Requiring amici to seek court approval would slow down the process and discourage the submission of briefs, especially from smaller organizations

and individuals who do not have the resources to engage in lengthy legal battles. Judges and their clerks are already proficient at filtering out

unhelpful briefs, and this proposal would only add unnecessary steps to an already complex process.

This rule change also threatens First Amendment rights by requiring amici to disclose financial details about their donors. Such a requirement would

have a chilling effect on organizations and individuals who want to support causes they care about but are unwilling to have their personal information

disclosed publicly.

I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal and withdraw it to protect both the efficiency of the courts and the constitutional rights of those who

support legal advocacy.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0048

Trump, Jim

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed changes to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. This proposal will not only create

unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles but will also severely limit the role that amici play in our judicial process, a role that has been crucial to ensuring fair

and balanced rulings.

Amici often provide the courts with critical insights that the parties to a case may not present. In many cases, amici play an important role in clarifying

broader implications that go beyond the immediate interests of the parties involved. This kind of input helps the courts to issue rulings that consider

the wider impact of their decisions.

Requiring amici to seek court approval would slow down the process and discourage the submission of briefs, especially from smaller organizations

and individuals who do not have the resources to engage in lengthy legal battles. Judges and their clerks are already proficient at filtering out

unhelpful briefs, and this proposal would only add unnecessary steps to an already complex process.

This rule change also threatens First Amendment rights by requiring amici to disclose financial details about their donors. Such a requirement would

have a chilling effect on organizations and individuals who want to support causes they care about but are unwilling to have their personal information

disclosed publicly.

I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal and withdraw it to protect both the efficiency of the courts and the constitutional rights of those who

support legal advocacy.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0049

White, Erich

I am writing to express my concern about the proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. These changes would require amici

curiae to obtain court approval before filing briefs and disclose financial information, including donor identities. This is not only an unnecessary burden

on the courts but also an attack on First Amendment rights.

The requirement to disclose donor information threatens the right to free association. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that individuals

and organizations have the right to associate privately without fear of public disclosure. Forcing amici to disclose their donors would discourage many

from contributing, stifling the voices of smaller organizations that play a crucial role in advocating for justice and fairness in our legal system.

This proposal is a step in the wrong direction, and I urge the Committee to withdraw it

Attachment Files

Comment Number

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0050

Submitter

Inkman, Michael

Comment

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed amendments to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. This rule represents an

unnecessary intrusion into a well-functioning system and threatens to limit access to the courts for many public-interest organizations.

Judges are already capable of screening out unhelpful amicus briefs without additional motions. The proposal€™s claim that this will improve

efficiency is misguided by forcing amici to seek leave to file, the rule would actually increase the burden on the courts. More motions, more delays,

and more bureaucracy will be the result. Moreover, the proposal would require amici to disclose intrusive financial details, including donor information,

which raises serious First Amendment concerns.

Forcing organizations to reveal their financial supporters undercuts the fundamental right to free association. This chilling effect could deter many

groups from participating in important legal matters, especially smaller organizations that rely on private donations to fund their advocacy.

This proposal does more harm than good. It places additional burdens on the judiciary, limits the ability of organizations to advocate for justice, and

threatens constitutional rights. I urge the Committee to reject it.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0051

Sakach, Matthew

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0052

Ritter, Ann

I strongly oppose the proposed changes to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

This rule would create unnecessary delays in the appellate process, as courts would be forced to review motions from amici before even considering

the briefs themselves. Judges and clerks already have effective methods for filtering out unhelpful amicus briefs, so there is no need for this

additional bureaucratic step.

I urge the Committee to reconsider this harmful proposal and withdraw it.

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed changes to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. This proposal will not only create

unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles but will also severely limit the role that amici play in our judicial process, a role that has been crucial to ensuring fair

and balanced rulings.

Amici often provide the courts with critical insights that the parties to a case may not present. In many cases, amici play an important role in clarifying

broader implications that go beyond the immediate interests of the parties involved. This kind of input helps the courts to issue rulings that consider

the wider impact of their decisions.

Requiring amici to seek court approval would slow down the process and discourage the submission of briefs, especially from smaller organizations

and individuals who do not have the resources to engage in lengthy legal battles. Judges and their clerks are already proficient at filtering out

unhelpful briefs, and this proposal would only add unnecessary steps to an already complex process.

This rule change also threatens First Amendment rights by requiring amici to disclose financial details about their donors. Such a requirement would

have a chilling effect on organizations and individuals who want to support causes they care about but are unwilling to have their personal information

disclosed publicly.

I strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal and withdraw it to protect both the efficiency of the courts and the constitutional rights of those who

support legal advocacy.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0053

Martinez , James

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed amendments to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. This rule represents an

unnecessary intrusion into a well-functioning system and threatens to limit access to the courts for many public-interest organizations.

Judges are already capable of screening out unhelpful amicus briefs without additional motions. The proposal€™s claim that this will improve

efficiency is misguided by forcing amici to seek leave to file, the rule would actually increase the burden on the courts. More motions, more delays,

and more bureaucracy will be the result. Moreover, the proposal would require amici to disclose intrusive financial details, including donor information,

which raises serious First Amendment concerns.

Forcing organizations to reveal their financial supporters undercuts the fundamental right to free association. This chilling effect could deter many

groups from participating in important legal matters, especially smaller organizations that rely on private donations to fund their advocacy.

This proposal does more harm than good. It places additional burdens on the judiciary, limits the ability of organizations to advocate for justice, and

threatens constitutional rights. I urge the Committee to reject it.

Attachment Files

Comment Number

Submitter

Comment

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0054

Easley, Terry

I am writing to express my deep opposition to the proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. This proposal would severely

undermine the efficiency of our judicial process and place unnecessary burdens on public-interest groups and individuals who participate in legal

advocacy.

Currently, the courts have an efficient process for handling amicus briefs. Judges and clerks are fully capable of filtering out unhelpful briefs without

the need for additional steps. Requiring amici to file motions only increases the workload on the judiciary, delaying important cases and wasting

resources. The Supreme Court, recognizing this inefficiency, has eliminated the need for amici to seek permission to file briefs, and there is no logical

reason for appellate courts to go in the opposite direction.

The proposed rule would disproportionately affect smaller organizations that rely on filing amicus briefs to make their voices heard in important legal

decisions. Many of these groups provide valuable perspectives that help the courts make well-informed rulings. If this rule goes into effect, the

uncertainty surrounding the filing of amicus briefs will discourage participation and reduce the diversity of viewpoints presented to the courts.

This proposal is unnecessary and counterproductive. I urge you to withdraw it immediately and protect the integrity of the judicial process.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0055

Caskey , Colin

I am writing to express my concern about the proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. These changes would require amici

curiae to obtain court approval before filing briefs and disclose financial information, including donor identities. This is not only an unnecessary burden

on the courts but also an attack on First Amendment rights.

The requirement to disclose donor information threatens the right to free association. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that individuals

and organizations have the right to associate privately without fear of public disclosure. Forcing amici to disclose their donors would discourage many

from contributing, stifling the voices of smaller organizations that play a crucial role in advocating for justice and fairness in our legal system.

This proposal is a step in the wrong direction, and I urge the Committee to withdraw it

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0056

Samalot, Diana

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed amendments to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. This rule represents an

unnecessary intrusion into a well-functioning system and threatens to limit access to the courts for many public-interest organizations.

Judges are already capable of screening out unhelpful amicus briefs without additional motions. The proposal€™s claim that this will improve

efficiency is misguided by forcing amici to seek leave to file, the rule would actually increase the burden on the courts. More motions, more delays,

and more bureaucracy will be the result. Moreover, the proposal would require amici to disclose intrusive financial details, including donor information,

which raises serious First Amendment concerns.

Forcing organizations to reveal their financial supporters undercuts the fundamental right to free association. This chilling effect could deter many

groups from participating in important legal matters, especially smaller organizations that rely on private donations to fund their advocacy.

This proposal does more harm than good. It places additional burdens on the judiciary, limits the ability of organizations to advocate for justice, and

threatens constitutional rights. I urge the Committee to reject it.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0057

Horan, Pat

I am writing to express my concern about the proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. These changes would require amici

curiae to obtain court approval before filing briefs and disclose financial information, including donor identities. This is not only an unnecessary burden

on the courts but also an attack on First Amendment rights.

The requirement to disclose donor information threatens the right to free association. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that individuals

and organizations have the right to associate privately without fear of public disclosure. Forcing amici to disclose their donors would discourage many

from contributing, stifling the voices of smaller organizations that play a crucial role in advocating for justice and fairness in our legal system.

This proposal is a step in the wrong direction, and I urge the Committee to withdraw it

Attachment Files

Comment Number

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0058

Submitter

Taylor, Linda

Comment

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed amendments to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. This rule represents an

unnecessary intrusion into a well-functioning system and threatens to limit access to the courts for many public-interest organizations.

Judges are already capable of screening out unhelpful amicus briefs without additional motions. The proposal€™s claim that this will improve

efficiency is misguided by forcing amici to seek leave to file, the rule would actually increase the burden on the courts. More motions, more delays,

and more bureaucracy will be the result. Moreover, the proposal would require amici to disclose intrusive financial details, including donor information,

which raises serious First Amendment concerns.

Forcing organizations to reveal their financial supporters undercuts the fundamental right to free association. This chilling effect could deter many

groups from participating in important legal matters, especially smaller organizations that rely on private donations to fund their advocacy.

This proposal does more harm than good. It places additional burdens on the judiciary, limits the ability of organizations to advocate for justice, and

threatens constitutional rights. I urge the Committee to reject it.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0059

Flinchbaugh, Norma Jean

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed amendments to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. This rule represents an

unnecessary intrusion into a well-functioning system and threatens to limit access to the courts for many public-interest organizations.

Judges are already capable of screening out unhelpful amicus briefs without additional motions. The proposal€™s claim that this will improve

efficiency is misguided by forcing amici to seek leave to file, the rule would actually increase the burden on the courts. More motions, more delays,

and more bureaucracy will be the result. Moreover, the proposal would require amici to disclose intrusive financial details, including donor information,

which raises serious First Amendment concerns.

Forcing organizations to reveal their financial supporters undercuts the fundamental right to free association. This chilling effect could deter many

groups from participating in important legal matters, especially smaller organizations that rely on private donations to fund their advocacy.

This proposal does more harm than good. It places additional burdens on the judiciary, limits the ability of organizations to advocate for justice, and

threatens constitutional rights. I urge the Committee to reject it.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0060

Christie, Edwin

I am writing to oppose the proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, which would create unnecessary barriers for filing

amicus curiae briefs.

Forcing all amici to seek court permission before filing briefs would slow down the judicial process and discourage smaller organizations from

participating.

Worse, the proposal to require amici to disclose donor information raises serious constitutional concerns. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that

organizations have a right to protect the privacy of their supporters. This rule would have a chilling effect on individuals and groups that want to

contribute to important legal advocacy but fear exposure of their private affiliations.

This proposal is both unnecessary and harmful. I strongly urge you to withdraw it and protect the integrity of the judicial process.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0061

Swing, Jill

I strongly oppose the proposed changes to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

This rule would create unnecessary delays in the appellate process, as courts would be forced to review motions from amici before even considering

the briefs themselves. Judges and clerks already have effective methods for filtering out unhelpful amicus briefs, so there is no need for this

additional bureaucratic step.

I urge the Committee to reconsider this harmful proposal and withdraw it.

Attachment Files

Comment Number

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0062

Submitter

Salter, Janice

Comment

I am writing to oppose the proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, which would create unnecessary barriers for filing

amicus curiae briefs.

Forcing all amici to seek court permission before filing briefs would slow down the judicial process and discourage smaller organizations from

participating.

Worse, the proposal to require amici to disclose donor information raises serious constitutional concerns. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that

organizations have a right to protect the privacy of their supporters. This rule would have a chilling effect on individuals and groups that want to

contribute to important legal advocacy but fear exposure of their private affiliations.

This proposal is both unnecessary and harmful. I strongly urge you to withdraw it and protect the integrity of the judicial process.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0063

harkness, william

I am writing to oppose the proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, which would create unnecessary barriers for filing

amicus curiae briefs.

Forcing all amici to seek court permission before filing briefs would slow down the judicial process and discourage smaller organizations from

participating.

Worse, the proposal to require amici to disclose donor information raises serious constitutional concerns. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that

organizations have a right to protect the privacy of their supporters. This rule would have a chilling effect on individuals and groups that want to

contribute to important legal advocacy but fear exposure of their private affiliations.

This proposal is both unnecessary and harmful. I strongly urge you to withdraw it and protect the integrity of the judicial process.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0064

Bagby, John

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed amendments to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. This rule represents an

unnecessary intrusion into a well-functioning system and threatens to limit access to the courts for many public-interest organizations.

Judges are already capable of screening out unhelpful amicus briefs without additional motions. The proposal€™s claim that this will improve

efficiency is misguided by forcing amici to seek leave to file, the rule would actually increase the burden on the courts. More motions, more delays,

and more bureaucracy will be the result. Moreover, the proposal would require amici to disclose intrusive financial details, including donor information,

which raises serious First Amendment concerns.

Forcing organizations to reveal their financial supporters undercuts the fundamental right to free association. This chilling effect could deter many

groups from participating in important legal matters, especially smaller organizations that rely on private donations to fund their advocacy.

This proposal does more harm than good. It places additional burdens on the judiciary, limits the ability of organizations to advocate for justice, and

threatens constitutional rights. I urge the Committee to reject it.

USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0065

Aloi, Sharon