So how about if the lawyers here get serious - Amicus Brief in Byrd v. Tennessee

I’ve never filed a brief in the US Supreme Court. I’m not even admitted to practice in the US Supreme Court. The closest I ever got was my law review article was cited by Judge Kennedy about 24 years ago and I once shook Justice Douglas’ hand while I was an undergraduate.

I just got a solicitation to contribute money to a consumer amicus brief on interstate shipping issues being organized by a retailer’s group. I’m thinking that we have enough lawyers here that we should be able to put together an amicus brief titled "Brief Amicus Curiae of Wineberserkers in Support of Respondents."

No Debby Downers allowed in this thread. I know all the reasons why we shouldn’t do it. BUT I am 67 years old and, what the hell, there are certain things you must do at least once in your life. Anyone else up for joining the battle. We need at least one person admitted to the Supreme Court and a bunch of lawyers willing to volunteer time to research and write the brief, arguing, I believe, that the dormant commerce clause is protects consumers against restrictive state regulation more than the 21st Amendments allows state legislatures to screw their own residents while sucking up to commercial interests that contribute massive amounts of money to their political campaigns.

Any volunteers to work on this project?

Yes, I checked with Todd before I posted this and he is OK with the effort.

Let me see if I can get it approved.

I wish I could.

Jay,
for the non-lawyers in the forum, can you explain what an amicus brief is and how that could benefit the current case? I’ve been following this case, Wine Freedom, and Tom Wark since he was on a Wine for Normal People podcast and am just terrible at understanding most things having to do with the US legal system, especially involving alcohol.

edit: also, speaking of Wine for Normal People, she just posted a link to this goFundme for a similar project by Robert Epstein and Alex Tanford:

Half this forum are lawyers. For shame if we can’t get at least 20 people bowing out!

Not a lawyer, but as a PoliSci PHD with almost 20 years of experience doing research and evaluation contracts for the feds, I have a knack for numbers and I’m good at digging. I’d probably be at least a somewhat competent paralegal.

PS - David Trone, principal owner of Total Wine, just got elected to the House from MD-06.

An Amicus brief, or Friend of the Court for those who did not learn legal Latin, is a brief prepared by people interested in a particular case but who are not actually parties to it. The idea is to bring to the court’s attention arguments that the main litigants don’t make. In this case, the litigation is between a bunch of retailers and the state of Tennessee. I have not yet fully studied the briefs and the arguments, so I can’t say exactly what we would argue, but we would start with the point that we are real wine consumers who come together voluntarily to enjoy wine from around the country, and not just a group of consumers propped up by others with direct commercial interests in the outcome.

Then we would argue in some way (to be determined) that interstate commerce in wine should not be unduly burdened by state regulation and that the 21st amendment (which repealed prohibition but left alcohol regulation to the states) is designed to deal with entirely intra-state issues subject to state regulation. We would then argue that the burden on our ability to buy wine from California, or New York, or Washington, or Oregon, or wherever, imposed by purely state regulation is unacceptable. Somewhere I would want to throw in Heart of Atlanta Motel, which is the case creating supremacy for federal Civil Rights statutes, and a few other cases that I remember from Law School, but I’m sure there are people who can hit the books and make some good arguments.

Then Todd gets to be famous and, if a miracle happens, the Supreme Court refers to the Wineberserkers Brief in its decision.

Oh yeah, I forgot. We show up at the Supreme Court for oral argument and I bring the talisman helmet and try to take photos of Berserkers wearing it in front of the courthouse.

amicus insanis qui amat vinum

Oh, don’t worry. There’ll be way more than 20 people bowing out.

neener

Jay,

I’ll seek approval from our exec committee to participate. I’d like to.

Why does it seem like it’s non-lawyers who should be able to argue before the SC? After all, it’s all the lawyers who have screwed everything up so badly neener

Can we slip Palsgraf in there, too?

Treat my comment like in the same vein as minimum must weight requirements for German wine Pradikat. :slight_smile:

Every time Nina Totenberg says “Wineberserkers” you have to chug your glass.

Thanks for the great explanation [cheers.gif]

Is there a risk to practicing lawyers for doing something like this? or just because its unpaid legal time and research?

make sure that beer is part of your argument for our newest SC Justice. He likes beer.

You should argue it! We’d win. Wearing that swanky cobalt blue Boss suit (ok, that’s mine), Tom Ford double-monks, vintage chronograph watch, and the Berkserker battle helmet, of course.

form a not for profit and the amlaw 100 firms will line up to work on this.

I’m a lawyer working in house – I run the litigation department for a Fortune 100 company – and I would love to contribute.