# COMMENTS FROM THE AUGUST 2024 PUBLICATION > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/federal_court_rules%3Aus-national%3A06f164f353f0297c ## Record - **Collection:** Court rules - **Document type:** Court rule ## Text COMMENTS FROM THE AUGUST 2024 PUBLICATION 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 1 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. 2 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0004 Washington Legal Foundation See attached file(s) 3 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. 4 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0006 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse & Congressman Hank Johnson Please see the attached letter from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Congressman Hank Johnson. 5 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. 6 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0008 Senators Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, and John Thune See Attached 7 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0009 Morrison, Alan See Attached 8 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 Atlantic Legal Foundation 9 10 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 11 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 12 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, 13 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0015 SIFMA See attached file(s) 14 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0016 National Taxpayers Union See attached file(s) Foundation and People United For Privacy Foundation 15 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0017 Andrade , Mia 16 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0018 U.S. Chamber of Commerce 17 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0019 National Federation of Independent Business, Inc. 18 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0020 Herman, Stephen 19 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 20 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0023 American Council of Life Insurers ACLI Comments to the Proposed Amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 21 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. 22 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 24 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0027 California Academy of Appellate Lawyers Please see attached. 25 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0028 Philanthropy Roundtable Philanthropy Roundtable 26 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. 27 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0030 Avital Fried, Myriam Gilles, Andrew Hammond, Alexander A. Reinert, Judith Resnik, Tanina Rostain, Anna Selbrede, Lauren Lucas, Seth 28 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0031 Court Accountability Please see attached. 29 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0032 Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel See attached file(s) 30 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0033 Smoger, Gerson See Attached 31 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0034 American Association for Justice Comment with attachments from the American Association for Justice. 23 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 32 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0035 Industry Coalition See attached file. 33 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 34 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. 35 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. 36 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. 37 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 38 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 39 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. 40 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. 41 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. 42 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 43 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 44 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. 45 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. 46 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 47 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. 48 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. 49 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. 50 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 51 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. 52 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 53 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. 54 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 55 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. 56 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. 57 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. 58 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 59 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. 60 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. 61 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. 62 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0065 Aloi, Sharon 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. Attachment Files # Comment Number 63 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0066 Submitter Bauer, Cookie 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. 64 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0067 Benshoof, Mary USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0068 Braniff, Thomas 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. 65 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. 66 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0069 Brenner, Joseph 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. Attachment Files # Comment Number 67 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0070 Submitter Brown, MG 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. 68 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0071 Brubaker , Terri 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. 69 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0072 Bump, Jeff USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0073 Burger, Tracy 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. 70 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. 71 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0074 Butcher , Riley WE THE PEOPLE STRONGLY OPPOSED 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 TYRANNY!!! WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND THAT THE COMMITTEE to EXTERMINATE this HARMFUL proposal and WITHDRAW IT NOW!!! Attachment Files # Comment Number Submitter 72 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0075 Buttery, Joanne USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0076 Byrne, Patrick Comment 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. 73 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 74 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0077 Cutuli , Silvio 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. 75 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0078 Dolleman, Douglas 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. 76 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0079 DUNCAN, GAIL 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 Attachment Files # Comment Number Submitter 77 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0080 Durbin, MD, Michael D. 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. 78 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0081 Elkins, Dan 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. 79 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0082 Ferguson, Shirley USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0083 Fleet, Ruby USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0084 Foy, Stephanie 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. 80 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. 81 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 82 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0085 Submitter Funk, 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. 83 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0086 Campbell, William R I strongly oppose the proposed changes to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 84 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0087 Dibari, Robert 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. 85 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0088 Feicht, Jeffrey 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. 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. 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 86 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0089 Foster, Price 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. Attachment Files # Comment Number 87 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0090 Submitter Frick, Susan 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. 88 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0091 Gallimore , Alexander 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. 89 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0092 Garbutt, Patrick 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. 90 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0093 Gheen, Nathan 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 91 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0094 Submitter Giusti, Primo 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. 92 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0095 Glowaski, James 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 93 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0096 Gore, Robert USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0097 Grigsby, Leland 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. 94 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. 95 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0098 Grimes, George 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. Attachment Files # Comment Number Submitter Comment 96 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0099 Hamilton , Matt 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. 97 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0100 Hanes, Pat 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. 98 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0101 Harris, Lawrence USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0102 Hendrickson, Earlene 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. 99 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 100 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0103 Submitter Hogue Sr., Robert 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. 101 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0104 HOWE, DOUGLAS 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 102 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0105 Jacobs, Kenneth 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 103 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0106 James, Lynn 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 104 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0107 Jeffrey , Sandra 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 105 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0108 Submitter Johnson, Dean 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. 106 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0109 Johnson, Roscoe 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. 107 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0110 KAHL, WILLIAM I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed changes to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29. This proposal will limit the role that amici play in our judicial process, would slow down the process and discourage the submission of briefs, and would threaten First Amendment rights by requiring amici to disclose financial details about their donors. 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. 108 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0111 Kairys, Judy 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. 109 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0112 Keels, Suzie 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 110 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0113 Submitter Keuck Sr, Donald 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. 111 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0114 Kiel, Donna 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 112 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0115 Klaras, Patricia 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 113 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0116 Kramer, Richard We need more, not less, access to the courts! 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. Attachment Files # Comment Number 114 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0117 Submitter Krause, Joni 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. 115 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0118 Krusec, Ann 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. 116 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0119 Lapin, James 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. 117 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0120 Lininger, Don 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 118 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0121 Submitter luft, karen 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. 119 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0122 Maddox, Kirk 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 120 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0123 Marcus, Bruce 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. 121 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0124 Marketon, Jill 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 122 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0125 Submitter Masciale, Debbie 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 123 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0126 Mattox, Karen 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 124 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0127 maynard, Nancy 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. 125 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0128 McCormick, Francis I strongly oppose the proposed changes to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0129 McMillan, Peri 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. 126 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 127 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0130 Submitter McWilliams, Linda 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. 128 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0131 Meinhardt, Steve 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 129 USC-RULES-AP-20240001-0132 Meyer, Karen 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 prot [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/federal_court_rules%3Aus-national%3A06f164f353f0297c. Public record. Not legal advice.