While I've been distracted, there have been some minor events in the Parker case. I'm going to try to catch up with them all en masse here. The last we heard, the court had issued a motion requesting limited amicus curiae briefing. My usual sources have been silent on these developments, probably because they are minor details rather than big developments. Unfortunately, this means I don't have ready access to all the documents.
On 11/23/05, appellants (that's our side) filed a corporate disclosure listing. This may be related to structural changes in the law practice of our side's counsel. Probably not a big deal.
They also filed, on the same day, a motion to correct the court's docket, requesting the addition of Mayor Williams as a new party to the case. The latter motion was granted on 12/29/2005.
There have been multiple filings from the various amicus curiae in the case regarding the court's proposed briefing format limitations. In some cases I am guessing at the full name of the organization based on the partial name available:
State of Texas (12/1/2005, appellant)
Congress of Racial Equality (12/7/2005, appellant)
National Rifle Association (12/7/2005, appellant)
Appellee DC filed a request to extend time to file responses to the order until 1/4/2006 on 12/7/2005.
Potowmack Institute (12/8/2005, appellee) filed a request to be allowed to participate independently of other amici.
Brady Center and Violence Policy Center (12/9/2005)
Supplement to the State of Texas response (12/13/2005)
No ruling on the issue yet, but we can probably expect one soon. DC's motion for extension was granted on 12/9/2005, so the deadline became 1/4/2006. No additional responses are docketed, however, and that deadline is now past. Extension requests for reasonable amounts of time are routinely granted, so this doesn't count as a victory or loss for either side; it's just the court doing its business.
The only really interesting events that took place concern the Potowmack Institute. They are an amicus curiae, not a party to the case. They have already filed a request, above, to participate independently. The court responded with an order requesting their counsel make an appearance, or that they file a brief explaining why they should not be dismissed as an amicus curiae in the case for lack of counsel. (Corporations are required by DC Circuit rules to participate through licensed attorneys). The deadline for a response is 1/30/2006.
The result of that last exchange might be to see the Potowmack Institute dismissed as an amicus curiae, if they don't get their act together. I will decline to speculate as to what exactly is going on with that, other than to note that it could easily be an oversight, rectified by finding legal counsel licensed to appear in the DC Circuit.
And that's what's been happening. Sorry about the gap in coverage; things have been busy down here.
UPDATE: On reflection, I should have been clearer. The Potowmack Institute earlier filed a request to participate in the case as an amicus curiae ("friend of the court", an interested party not one of the two primary parties in dispute). The court suggested that amicus curiae briefs be limited in length and filed jointly, one for each side of the case representing the collective opinion of all the amicus parties for that side. The Institute requested that it be exempted from this rule and be permitted to file independently.
The court then told the Institute that they had to participate through a lawyer admitted to the DC Circuit, and to either: follow the rule properly, explain why they shouldn't be required to follow that rule, or be dropped from the case.
Those are two separate issues, though obviously if the Institute is dropped from the case their request to file independently is moot.
This entry was published Sun Jan 08 18:36:14 CST 2006 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2014-05-31 01:16:43.0.