Agree with this. A putative WB amicus is more likely to be accepted and have an impact if it is pushing a unique argument or perspective not made by the parties or other amici.
I’m a lowly associate with lots of work dumped on by partners but i’d like to help where I can.
Every SCOTUS appellate team needs a broken down, sore back personal injury fact lawyer. I’m in!!!
Whose deposition do you need me to take? Or I can cross examine the other side’s main expert! Just show me a copy of what the jury charge looks like and I’m ready to go!!! 
.
Agreed. The court has no interest in reading five versions of the same arguments. If we have something to add, we should add it. If not, we should just share some wine. I think we will have something to add, but I need a few days to figure that out. If anyone has any suggestions, please post or PM.
Neal,
Well put. This is exactly what the Consumer brief will do and it will cite evidence of the impact that shipping bans have on consumers. The brief that the National Association of Wine Retailers will submit will deal with why the Court should rule in a broad fashion and provide the constitutional arguments as to why the Court’s Granholm reasoning properly applies to the retail tier.
Tom…
On that basis, just compare NY to NJ. New York has a thriving secondary wine industry whose main beneficiaries are consumers who want interesting, rare or even just mature bottles of wine. Their choice is pretty well unlimited thanks to wine merchants, auction houses and restaurants.
In NJ, the landscape is very different, the laws because of furious lobbying by the distributors and so is the choice of wines for consumers, who end up going to NY to get the wines they want. A friend putting together a major restaurant wine list ended up paying 30% more in order to get the wines through some convoluted system to make it legal. Imagine then adding normal restaurant mark ups, and you have doubled the cost.
I think it would be helpful to focus on the inability of consumers in “bad” states to get access to smaller (domestic) producers. The fact that state regulation can choke off entirely access to certain goods underscores the impact on interstate commerce. The point isn’t that the consumer has to pay the costs associated with regulation; it is that consumers simply cannot lawfully access certain products unless the distributors in their jurisdiction decide to carry the product (which they might reasonably refuse to do w/r/t small production wineries – to small to care about).
With all due respect, Winefreedom.org appears to have been established by NAWR, which, after all, stands for National Association of Wine Retailers. If I were the Supreme Court, I would be much more interested in reading a brief prepared by, sponsored by, organized by and setting forth the opinions of real wine consumers, rather than a brief fronting for wine retailers. There are things that we can say that you just can’t say. Standing is not a relevant issue in an amicus brief, but if it were, Wineberserkers as a community of wine consumers would certainly have standing.
Not either/or. Should be both
Effective 12/1, it’s no longer “Amicus Curiae” and instead is to be labeled “Amicus”.
That’s about all I’ve learned in the CLE I am presently attending in OACTA’s Legislative Sub-Committtee break-out session.
Petitioner and Respondents have given blanket consents to the filing of any amicus curiae brief and without regard to the position taken or the party supported by the brief.
As indicated above, the value WB can bring is the interests of individual consumers. The underlying decision by the District Court, affirmed by the 6th Circuit on appeal, found the Tennessee law violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The WB brief should argue the restrictions discriminate against out of state consumers seeking to purchase from an in-state retailer. The interests of non-citizens seeking an in-state retail license will be fully represented by the respondents.
Um, nope. No change in Rule 37
Well, Neal, you should have cited to this. https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/2018ProposedRulesChangesforPublicComment.pdf but just the same it appears our Legislative Liason of SCOTUS was incorrect as “Curiae” remains. Thought it was a strange thing to change.
Why should I have cited proposed rules, not current or even approved rules, when your prior post claimed that the term was to be changed effective 12/1? You linked to is a set of proposals which, as you can see, have not been approved and therefore have no effective date. And the proposed rules you link use the full term amicus curiae.
So, Mitch, why should I have done anything other than what I did?
Lawyer fight! Lawyer fight!
Doesn’t quite have the same ring as Cat Fight!
Because the ones you cited were effective over a year ago and the proposed ones take effect soon. I thought they took effect 12/1 but that appears to be incorrect too. But you were still correct so I don’t know why you sound so angry, sir. The entire comment of mine amounted to “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” so again, not sure why I hit a nerve. You are a big time lawyer and I am not, so I defer to you, good sir. Peace. Out.
I may have to mediate here between my two good friends!
Thanks Robert. That’s the nicest thing someone said to me all day. I defer to Neal. I am wrong. wrong. wrong.
Same, though you guys will have to let me know how you guys are navigating ethical conflict and internal risk management / insurance issues at your respective firms. (Someone before had asked about risks to practicing attorneys - so there you go).
Only due to your lack of creativity, Alan. There are so many ways to refer to us lawyers…some less appreciated than others. =)