Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Final
Amicus Document
or Letter File Name AG# Disposition Date ?
Amicus PA v Trump; CA v Azar (MA) 2019-0238603-A 01/07/2019 Yes
Amicus Brackeen v Zinke (CA) 2019-0238979-A 01/08/2019 Yes
Letter NLRB Standards for Joint-Employer Status (NY PA) 2019-0239629-A 01/11/2019 Yes
Letter FTC Id Theft Rules 16 CFR 681 (OR) 2019-0240777-A 02/04/2019 Yes
Amicus Cochise Consultancy v US ex rel Hunt (IN) 2019-0241342-A 02/05/2019 Yes
Amicus Crista Ramos v Kirstjen Nielsen (CA) 2019-0242811-A 02/06/2019 Yes
Letter NAL and Sandbox Policy (NY) 2019-0240712-A 02/07/2019 No
Letter DOJ Wire Act Opinion Letter (WV) 2019-0242711-A 02/13/2019 Yes
Amicus Al Otro Lado v Nielsen (CA) 2019-0241337-A 02/19/2019 Yes
Letter Traced Act Support (MS)(NE)(NH)(NC) 2019-0242680-A 02/25/2019 Yes
Amicus Adams, Drew v School Board of St. Johns Co (NY WA) 2018-0234186-A 02/27/2019 Yes
Amicus NC DOJ v Kaestner Trust (MN) 2019-0242808-B 02/27/2019 Yes
Amicus Rucho v Common Cause (18-422) (OR) 2019-0245227-A 03/07/2019 Yes
Letter Arctic Coastal Plain and Gas Leasing Program (WA) 2019-0245062-A 03/11/2019 Yes
Amicus Perryman v Romero (18-1074)(AZ)(easysaver) 2019-0246433-A 03/14/2019 Yes
Amicus Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC (14-1271) (OR) 2019-0245625-A 03/15/2019 Yes
Letter Payday Delay Rule (NC) 2019-0245094-A 03/18/2019 No
Amicus Planned Parenthoods v USDHHS (18-35920)(PA) 2019-0246424-A 03/18/2019 Yes
Amicus Baltimore v. Trump (FAM) (CA) (D.C.) 2019-0246095-A 03/20/2019 Yes
Amicus PA and NJ v President (3rd Cir 17-3752) (MA) 2019-0246418-A 03/22/2019 Yes
Amicus Taggart v. Lorenzen (18-489) (CA) 2019-0245650-A 03/25/2019 Yes
Letter DOE Enforcement Letter - student debt (WA) 2019-0247103-A 03/29/2019 Yes
Amicus Dep't of Commerce v New York (CA) (18-966) 2019-0247460-A 04/01/2019 Yes
Letter SNAP Benefits comment letter (DC) 2019-0247440-A 04/01/2019 Yes
Amicus EMW Women's Surgical Center (NV) 2019-0247611-A 04/02/2019 Yes
Amicus Jackson v Currier (18-60868) (CA) 2019-0247609-A 04/09/2019 Yes
StatemenSupporting DC Statehood 2019-0248816-A 4/15/2019 NA
won't be filed until
Letter SAFE Banking Act 2019-0247504-A 5/1/2019 Not yet
List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating
Page 2 of 13
List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating
The case involves the interpretation of the False Claim Act?s statute of limitations,
and the brief will oppose the petitioner?s attempt to significantly limit the
limitations period for claims brought by private parties under the Act. States?
Medicaid programs frequently draw them into False Claims Act litigation, and
many States (by Indiana?s count, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, IA, LA, MD, MA,
MI, MN, MT, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC, NJ, OK, RI, TN, TX, VA, VT, WA, and the District
of Columbia), have adopted their own statutes that are adapted from the federal
Cochise False Claims Act. For that reason, States have an interest in how the Supreme
Consultancy v US Court interprets this provision. Indiana will file the brief on Wednesday, February
Amicus ex rel Hunt (IN) 2019-0241342-A 6, so the deadline to join the brief is noon on Tuesday, February 5 02/05/2019 Yes
The State of California has prepared an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit in support
of plaintiffs who are residents of the United States based on a temporary
protected status (TPS). The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, enjoining
Crista Ramos v preliminarily the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, from
Kirstjen Nielsen terminating the designation of four countries as ones from whom a resident could
Amicus (CA) 2019-0242811-A obtain a TPS status: Haiti, Sudan, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. 02/06/2019 Yes
The revised letter was drafted by the NY AG (original version attached) and asks
the CFPB Director to rescind two proposed policies that would modify CFPB
oversight over certain aspects of the financial sector. Essentially, the NY AG's letter
claims that these proposed policies are wolves in sheep clothing and that the CFPB
should not allow financial companies to evade existing law by claiming they are
"fostering innovation." While many in the financial sector may support the new
proposed polices and encouraging responsible innovation in the consumer
financial marketplace is important, the letter proposes a more cautious and
deliberative regulatory approach through formal rulemaking. It points out that
NAL and Sandbox regulators should be wary of innovations in the financial sector until they can
Letter Policy (NY) 2019-0240712-A comprehensively evaluate the risks. 02/07/2019 No
Page 3 of 13
List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating
Page 4 of 13
List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating
Like California, the State of Michigan provides many programs designed to assist
qualified asylees and refugees. For example, the Refugee Services Program under
the Michigan Office for New Americans in the Department of Licensing and
Regulatory Affairs administers federal refugee assistance programs for cash
assistance and medical assistance, as well as the Refugee Unaccompanied Minor
Program. And, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is
responsible for refugee health screenings and provides services for certain
undocumented children in Michigan's child welfare system. DHHS also has an
Al Otro Lado v Unaccompanied Refugee Minors program administered by the Office of Refugee
Amicus Nielsen (CA) 2019-0241337-A Services, which provides culturally appropriate foster 02/19/2019 Yes
Adams, Drew v School Board of St Johns County (NY WA) 11th Cir COA#: 18-13592
The States of New York and Washington are preparing an amicus brief in support
of a transgender student in the Eleventh Circuit in Adams v. School Board of St.
Adams, Drew v Johns County. At issue is "[w]hether the district court erred in ruling that the
School Board of school board's policy barring transgender boys and girls from using common
St. Johns Co (NY restrooms used by other boys and girls violates Title IX and the federal Equal
Amicus WA) 2018-0234186-A Protection Clause." The amicus brief will argue that the district court did not err. 02/27/2019 Yes
Minnesota drafted an amicus brief supporting NC on the merits in N.C. Dep't of
NC DOJ v Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Tr., 18-457 (U.S.). The question
Kaestner Trust presented is whether "the Due Process Clause prohibit[s] states from taxing trusts
Amicus (MN) 2019-0242808-B based on trust beneficiaries' in-state residency." 02/27/2019 Yes
Page 5 of 13
List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating
As Congress and others have recognized, the Coastal Plain also likely contains
areas of oil and gas reserves. The proposed action would create a leasing program
to open the Coastal Plain for the first time to oil and gas development. Such
Arctic Coastal development will forever change the Coastal Plain landscape and the Arctic Refuge
Plain and Gas of which it is a part and will increase greenhouse gas emissions at a time when
Leasing Program many states are taking bold action to fight climate change by significantly reducing
Letter (WA) 2019-0245062-A greenhouse gas emissions." [pp. 2?3 (footnotes omitted).] 03/11/2019 Yes
This amicus, drafted by Arizona, supports the cert petition out of the Ninth Circuit
in Perryman v. Romero, No. 18-1074. The case involves a class action settlement
that pays $8.85 million to class counsel and $3 million in cy pres to California
colleges with ties to class counsel, while class members receive only $225,000 in
coupons. This amicus brief supports the Petitioner?s position that the Ninth
Circuit?s approach to cy pres in this case places consumers nationwide at risk by
blessing a class action settlement arrangement that allows class counsel and
Perryman v defendants to reach a mutually beneficial settlement that is detrimental to class
Romero (18- members. The amicus argues that argues that the Supreme Court?s guidance is
1074)(AZ)(easysa sorely needed on the acceptable contours of cy pres class action settlement
Amicus ver) 2019-0246433-A arrangements, and that cy pres class-action settlements should benefit consumers. 03/14/2019 Yes
Page 6 of 13
List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating
Page 7 of 13
List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating
This case involves the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (TPP Program), created
by Congress in 2009 to reduce teen pregnancy through evidence-based programs
proven effective in reducing teen pregnancy. The TPP Program is a departure from
decades of funding abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that were found
ineffective, although they continue to be funded through separate appropriations.
In 2017, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began
terminating the five-year TPP Program grants awarded in 2015, and challenges
were filed. Federal courts declared the grant terminations unlawful and enjoined
them. HHS dismissed its appeals and, in 2018, issued two new "Funding
Planned Opportunity Announcements" (2018 FOAs). The 2018 FOAs invited applications for
Parenthoods v new TPP Program grants with award criteria focused on programs that promote
USDHHS (18- abstinence-only messages, rather than the statutorily required emphasis on
Amicus 35920)(PA) 2019-0246424-A evidence-based programs shown to be effective. 03/18/2019 Yes
The Attorneys General of the District of Columbia and California have partnered in
drafting this amicus in a federal district court in Maryland. The case involves
Baltimore's challenge to the Trump Administration's unlawful and harmful change
to the definition of "public charge" in the State Department's Foreign Affairs
Manual (FAM). "Public charge" involves a provision in immigration law that limits
who may come into the U.S. In January of 2018, the State Department amended
the FAM to allow consular officers to consider whether visa applicants or their
family members have received non-cash benefits such as free school lunches,
public health vaccinations, and Head Start. The former definition of "public
charge" explicitly prohibited consular officers from considering the use of such
Baltimore v. benefits. The Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss, and the amicus
Trump (FAM) supports Baltimore's opposition to the motion to dismiss by focusing on the harms
Amicus (CA) (D.C.) 2019-0246095-A to the States caused by the FAM change. 03/20/2019 Yes
Page 8 of 13
List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating
This case is in the Third Circuit and Massachusetts has taken the lead in drafting
this amicus. The brief supports Pennsylvania?s and New Jersey?s challenge to the
final rules seeking to roll back the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care
Act. In the district court, Pennsylvania and New Jersey secured a nationwide
preliminary injunction of the final rule. DOJ appealed that issuance of the
preliminary injunction. The brief includes a table of state-specific estimations of
individuals eligible for state-funded contraceptive coverage. If Michigan joins, we
need to provide the following information for the table: (1) the number of insured,
PA and NJ v income-eligible women between the ages of 15 and 45; (2) the percent of
President (3rd Cir enrollees covered under a self-funded plan; and (3) the number of insured, income-
Amicus 17-3752) (MA) 2019-0246418-A eligible women between the ages of 15 and 45 in self-funded plans. 03/22/2019 Yes
Attached is an Amicus Memo describing the amicus brief California is preparing in
support of respondent on the merits in Taggart v. Lorenzen, 18-489 (U.S.). The
case concerns when a creditor may be held in civil contempt for violating a
bankruptcy discharge order. Specifically, does a creditor's good-faith belief that
the discharge injunction does not apply preclude a finding of civil contempt? The
amicus brief will argue that where a state (as creditor) reasonably reaches a good
faith determination that the discharge does not apply to its contemplated action,
it should be free to proceed without fear of later court disagreement and
contempt. Among other things, the amicus brief will describe the methods and
Taggart v. practices that States have in place to learn of and interpret bankruptcy discharge
Lorenzen (18- orders, and to apply complex discharge exemptions, as they carry out their taxing
Amicus 489) (CA) 2019-0245650-A and regulatory responsibilities. 03/25/2019 Yes
[T]he reason for sending the letter is Washington's (and other States) concern that
the DOE has stopped sharing student loan borrower information with law
enforcement agencies, including an number of attorney general departments.
Twenty State Attorneys General (not including Michigan) sent a July 13, 2018
letter to Secretary DeVos outlining the concerns surrounding the DOE's decision to
unilaterally cease sharing information. (Middle Email Attachment, NJ/WA Privacy
DOE Enforcement Act Letter.) The primary concern is that information sharing ?is vital to protect
Letter - student consumers from illegal, unfair, abusive, or deceptive practices, including
Letter debt (WA) 2019-0247103-A inappropriate collection practices. 03/29/2019 Yes
Page 9 of 13
List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating
Page 10 of 13
List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating
Page 11 of 13
List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating
Page 12 of 13
List of Granted Requests to Sign On - as of 4-15-2019 - updating
This bipartisan letter is led by Colorado, the District of Columbia, Nevada, and
North Dakota and is directed to various congressional leaders, including the
speaker of the house and majority and minority leaders. It involves H.R. 1595,
referred to as the "Secure And Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2019" or the SAFE
Banking Act of 2019." The Act creates protections for depository institutions that
provide financial services to cannabis-related legitimate businesses and service
providers for such businesses. The letter urges Congress to advance legislation
that would allow States that have legalized the medical or recreational use of
marijuana to bring that commerce into the banking system. The letter explains
that because the federal government classifies marijuana as an illegal substance,
financial institutions are hampered in their ability to provide services to state-
licensed cannabis businesses and companies that provide services and products to
those businesses. It advocates for a flexible banking system that addresses the won't be
needs of these businesses and the demands of our economy, while still protecting filed until
Letter SAFE Banking Act 2019-0247504-A the interests of the federal government. 5/1/2019
Page 13 of 13