Judge Williams sua sponte appointed three friends of the court to opine as to whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction in the lawsuit President Trump brought against the Internal Revenue Service. The parties had asked for 90 days to explore potential settlement and Judge Williams expressed concerns regarding whether the parties are truly adverse.
Judge Williams appointed heavyweights from outside the district to opine, namley: John Gleeson and David A. O’Neil of Debevoise and Plimpton; Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. of Munger Tolles; and Faith E. Gay, Philippe Z. Selendy, and Corey Stoughton of Selendy Gay. Their memorandum is due on May 21. The order can be found here.
12 comments:
Judge Williams didn't know (or, perhaps, want to bother) any lawyers in Miami?
I assume the judge contacted the lawyers or firms beforehand. Can a judge really just appoint a random lawyer as an amici without any input?
Gleeson was appointed to a similar role in the Michael Flynn prosecution and excoriated Trump and Bill Barr, so we know why Williams picked him.
I think the Judge did the SD Fla. bar a favor by not appointing any of us - we should be grateful.
So where in the Constitution is there authority for a judge to deputize a private lawyer to do a job that the judge is legally required to do?
Where in Article III does it say that a judge does *not* have that authority?
The judge decides. How is inviting argument delegating any authority to a private lawyer?
This is my question about amicus briefing in general. How does the practice comport with Article III standing and the party presentation rule?
Alex Hanna (“ no Pago es ticket “) was a bit too busy. Sy would have been perfect for the case.
Also, judges should not be able to hire law clerks. Where does the Constitution give judges the authority to hire lawyers to give them advice as to how a case should be resolved? This is madness. Make Judges great again by forcing them to do all their own work. Your welcome.
There is a fundamental difference between the role of law clerks and the role of amici. Law clerks assist the judge with researching the law that exists and applying it to the arguments presented by parties and properly before the court. Amici, who have no Article III standing. present arguments to supplement that which the parties presented. In other words, law clerks support the constitutional function of the federal judge. Amici upset the case and controversy by injecting views and arguments beyond the parties' papers.
There used to be a saying not to make a federal case out of everything. Now it seems like the saying needs to be don’t make a “this is unconstitutional” case out of everything. Having more viewpoints and argument is not unconstitutional. It does nothing to diminish the standing or case and controversy requirements. It does not alter the power of a federal judge. It is argument. That’s all.
Post a Comment