And the “popular vote” most certainly counts for nothing.
Having said that, here’s the raw tally of amicus merits briefs — pro-, con- and meh- — in Lee v. Tam, courtesy of the American Bar Association:
For those not keeping score at home, the totals suggested by the above (four supporting the PTO; 14 19 [see below — RDC] supporting Simon Tam and The Slants; and eight assorted varieties of neutral) are the number of briefs, not the number of amici, such as it is. In other words, some briefs have been filed on behalf of more than one entity or person. Most notable in that regard, arguably:
- Brief for the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, Hispanic National Bar Association, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Bar Association, National LGBT Bar Association, and National Native American Bar Association in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the American Civil Liberties Union, The ACLU Of The Nation’s Capital, The ACLU Foundation Of Oregon, the Asian American Legal Defense And Education Fund, the Asian Pacific American Network Of Oregon, the Chinese American Citizens Alliance, Portland Lodge, the Portland Japanese American Citizens League, and the Oregon Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs, in Support of Respondent
UPDATE: I don’t know why but the ABA website still does not reflect the full complement of briefs submitted in support of the Respondent. You can find it here, at SCOTUSBlog.
PARTICIPATION TROPHY UPDATE: The PTO’s brief is the handiwork of no fewer than 15 government lawyers.
Originally posted 2016-12-25 19:05:14. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
