The previous parts of this look at the docket for a major regulatory case that ended with a decision upholding the government tracked the timelines and procedural stages. This final part looks a bit more closely at the several organizations and people who offered their thoughts to the Court without official invitation or direct interest in the litigation.
Recall that during the petition stage, the amici curiae are, like the parties they support, trying to persuade the Court to either accept or deny review of the cases, while during the merits stage they argue about how to resolve the cases.
Also recall that this series looks at the process through the lens of the Court’s docket. There are other resources for finding the briefs submitted to the Court by amici. Among them is Cockle’s own blog, which has links to briefs that Cockle Legal Briefs prints for amici and parties when they give permission for posting. A more complete source is www.scotusblog.com, which shows the docket for each case and has links to PDF files of the petitions and briefs, including amicus briefs.
That kind of closer look is needed for a full perspective of what interests the amici claimed to have in the outcome of the litigation and what arguments they made.
Who were the amici?
As the docket does not break down the “et al.” part of the amici names, the quick answer is that at the petition stage the amici were an energy company, a collection of several utilities, an association of electricity consumers, and a state public advocate’s office.
At the merits stage, the energy company and the group of electricity consumers from the petition-stage filed new amicus briefs. The amici first making their appearances at the merits stage and weighing in for the petitioners were a group describing themselves as “grid engineers and experts,” a “microgrid resources coalition,” an environmental law “center,” a conservation law foundation, a group of “energy law scholars,” an economics professor, an individual identified on the docket only by his name, and the State of Illinois.
Supporting the respondents at the merits stage were a “public utility law project,” a state utilities commission, a state public service commission, a nuclear energy institute and natural gas alliance, a company with an unrevealing name, some sort of abbreviated entity together with a person identified as “Dr.,” a man identified only by name, and the State of Indiana.
This look at only the docket entries is not terribly helpful in identifying the array of interests offering friendly arguments, especially because only the first name in what could be a long list of amici on a particular brief is listed. But the point here is more about the number of amicus briefs offered in a case with commercial regulatory importance.
In a case drawing interest because of some controversial social issue, the “friendly” crowd can be much greater. For example, in Zubik v. Burwell, another regulatory case, but with a focus on contraceptive and religious rights, at the merits stage alone the docket shows 41 amicus briefs supporting the petitioners or neither side and another 29 amicus briefs supporting the respondents.
If you want to delve deeper into the types of people and groups filing amicus briefs, it might be worthwhile to browse the case files at www.scotusblog.com and read how amici describe their interests in cases before the Court and their qualifications for offering their help. For example, that guy identified on the docket by only his name turns out to have had a long career as a regulator in the energy field, with many published papers, writing on his own to offer his expertise to the Court.