This week, Tony Mauro wrote an interesting article about a Supreme Court amicus brief penned on behalf of no one that supports neither party.
The author, Thomas Goldstein, calls the brief a "rare true amicus brief.”
He argues many amici aren't real "friends of the court"—they have
some interest in the outcome. Goldstein believes his brief—which contains data
neither the parties nor other amici provided—may assist the justices in “coming
up with a workable rule for everyone, not just the parties before them.”
One Supreme Court veteran noted “if [the amicus brief] provides helpful information to the
court, it is ‘in the very best traditions of the bar,’” but wondered “why this
is a good use of the authors’ time.”
The full article is
What do you think? Will
Goldstein’s “true” amicus brief become a trend?