A U.S. judicial panel voted on Wednesday to eliminate a key provision of a proposed rule requiring greater transparency in friend-of-the-court briefs. The decision followed strong opposition from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other trade groups.
The U.S. Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules, meeting in Atlanta, voted 5-4 to reject a requirement for nonprofits and trade associations filing amicus briefs to disclose major financial contributors in related cases.
The proposal had required filers to reveal whether a party or its counsel contributed 25% or more of their annual revenue. The committee had also suggested naming donors who earmarked funds for brief preparation if they had been members for less than a year.
While the committee unanimously advanced the latter provision for further consideration, it narrowly voted down the 25% revenue disclosure rule after opposition from judges and the U.S. Department of Justice under the Trump administration.
Critics, including the Heritage Foundation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argued that forced disclosure would infringe on First Amendment rights to free association. Some judges also questioned whether the rule was necessary, citing a lack of evidence that courts had been misled by undisclosed financial ties.
Federal public defender Lisa Wright supported the rule, arguing that transparency is vital for maintaining public trust in the judiciary. However, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols countered that the content of amicus briefs is more important than their source.
The judiciary first considered the rule after Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation in 2019 to regulate amicus filers. They contended that hidden financial influence distorts legal advocacy. Despite reintroductions, the legislation has never passed.
Mark Freeman, representing the U.S. Department of Justice, warned that excessive disclosure requirements might discourage amicus brief filings, potentially limiting valuable contributions to legal proceedings.
Read more:
