[Advocacy Advisors] Twitter v. Holder amicus brief

Wed Feb 18 19:49:35 UTC 2015

yeah, I know I've always been impressed at how often the amici can be
quoted in opinions (my initial thought would actually be 'never'). I
recently read an interesting (a bit old) study
<http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3356&context=penn_law_review>
about
their influence in the supreme court (and I swear there was a more recent
article about it that I read... but can't find it). Especially when they
start piling up from tons of people on the sides I think they turn into a
bit of a PR thing but the original purpose of them to give a more
information to the court that the parties can't/don't give still seems to
be around at least a bit.

James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Luis Villa <lvilla at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Stephen LaPorte <slaporte at wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dimi,
>>
>> In the US, amicus briefs can have legal value as well as media value.
>> Amici are not parties to the case, so it may not have the same weight as
>> the parties' briefs, but it's an opportunity to add another perspective.
>> Some advocacy organizations (like ACLU and EFF), as well as the US
>> government, regularly file amicus briefs on potentially relevant topics.
>>
>
> I should add that while there is a publicity angle (as there is to
> anything in our modern world!) most lawyers are fairly reticent to create
> or join amicus briefs merely for publicity - as a matter of professional
> ethics in a formal legal document, the legal arguments still have to be
> solid and persuasive.
>
> Luis
>
>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <
>> dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> Thanks for doing this! I do think we have an interest in this case and
>>> questions about such letters have been raised even within our community.
>>>
>>> The way I understand it, an amicus brief  is like a highly official
>>> letter of support but has no palpable legal value. Do such documents play
>>> any role for the court or is this rather targeted at the media?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Dimi
>>>
>>> 2015-02-18 6:56 GMT+01:00 Stephen LaPorte <slaporte at wikimedia.org>:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We have joined six other organizations[1] in an amicus brief[2] in
>>>> Twitter v. Holder.[3] Twitter initiated this action against the US
>>>> government to establish the right to publish more detailed info about the
>>>> number of national security letters it receives in its transparency report.
>>>>
>>>> [1] Aautomattic, Cloudflare, CREDOMobile, Medium, Sonic, and Wickr.
>>>> [2]
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/Twitter_v_Holder_amicus.pdf
>>>> [3] https://www.eff.org/cases/twitter-v-holder
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Stephen LaPorte
>>>> Legal Counsel
>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>>
>>>> *NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
>>>> have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
>>>> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical
>>>> reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
>>>> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
>>>> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>>>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen LaPorte
>> Legal Counsel
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> *NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
>> have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
>> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical
>> reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
>> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
>> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Luis Villa
> Deputy General Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
>
> *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
> received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
> reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20150218/0c2c6172/attachment-0001.html>